The Debate of God.

[Tiberius]

Of course, if we say that science is limited to the study of things that can have an observable effect, then this presents us with the following.

If God exists and he acts in the universe, then God (or at least his effects) are measurable by science. And any effect that is definitely from God must be something that violates some law of the universe (known or unknown to us presently). If this is the case, then we can get scientific evidence supporting the existence of God. Anything else does not require a God, and we can safely dismiss it.

If God does exist but he does NOT act in the universe, we'll never be able to detect his influence. But since he doesn't act in the universe anyway, what's the point of believing?

If God does not exist, then there will be no evidence, and no reason to believe.

So, it seems as though if God exists and takes action in the universe that we can verify as possible only for God, then it must violate some laws of physics. Simply curing a disease that is said to be incurable doesn't cut it, because we can't discount the possibility that some other process is responsible.

So unless anyone has an example of a law of physics being violated...?

 

[Daviso452]

But the thing is many people believe there is more than just matter and energy. I understand and agree with you completely, but I wanted the opposite side to describe what they believe before sharing my own side. Basically, when I ask a question, I want to figure out what I don't know, not what I already know.

No offense

 

[Tiberius]

None taken.

I;d also like to see what reason people can give me to believe that there is more than matter and energy and such things.

 

[Daviso452]

Such is the reason for the question.

Anyway, i'm re-stating the question for a person I invited to the thread.

I wish to know if you think science is a reliable tool that can explain everything within our universe. In simpler terms, do you believe in scientism? And please explain why.

 

[CavalryWorshipCenter]

Im not one of those people who think the earth is only 6000 years old. Science has had many breakthroughs in unlocking the mystery of this vast universe. Their is of course a strong role for science.

 

[Daviso452]

But science shows us that God is unessesary for the existence of the universe, and yet you still believe. Why is that?

 

[CavalryWorshipCenter]

Simply put the evidence of a God outweighs the evidence of their not being one.

 

[Daviso452]

What evidence do you have of God? I realize that is an over-used question but it is still relevant, nontheless.

 

[apophenia]

None taken.

I;d also like to see what reason people can give me to believe that there is more than matter and energy and such things.

OK

First, let me say that I am not promoting religion or mysticism, nor am I denegrating science.

Second, let me ask to to consider what I am about to say carefully before deciding whether you think I am right or wrong.

I am right now experiencing something which is not "matter and energy and such things".

Awareness.

Now, before you interpret that to mean 'consciousness' and then say that is 'simply brain activity', consider this -

If awareness was simply brain activity, and completely physical, that would not imply the experience of being aware. Brain activity and behaviours like perception and response etc could be happening without you knowing that it was happening.

In other words, consciousness is not merely complex behaviour. It also includes the feature of knowing, or being.

So far science has no handle on this. Which does not repudiate science, but it does clearly indicate that our model of the universe is incomplete in a very fundamental way.

Our scientific model describes a universe with nobody home.

To make my point clearer, the world described by our scientific model could be existing exactly as it is now, except without anyone realising they exist. There could have been a big bang and billions of years of abiogenesis and evolution, resulting in precisely what you observe right now. All this could have happened and be fully functioning, including these bodies with their names and preferences and behaviours, without any self-awareness at all. Just like a computer simulation. If you imagine a very complex computer simulation, you can imagine simulated personalities interacting etc, and there is no need to assume that the computer simulation is self-aware. You may choose to imagine that it could be self-aware, but that is not necessary to its functioning.

That is the world described by science. Matter and energy and transformation, the evolution of complex behaviours, etc. Nowhere in this description is self-awareness required, defined, or in any way accounted for.

Many will say 'awareness is just a by-product of the brain', but that is just a meaningless avoidance, simply dodging the issue, because it in no way explains the leap from complex behaviour in your grey matter ( or computer simulation) to the fact of knowing you exist.

So, "matter and energy and such things" as you put it simply do not account for the fact that you know you exist.

Awareness per se has no mass or energy, fits no equations, is not explained by any theory, and yet is absolutely self-evident right NOW.

 

[apophenia]

Im not one of those people who think the earth is only 6000 years old. Science has had many breakthroughs in unlocking the mystery of this vast universe. Their is of course a strong role for science.

Just curious - did you mean to call yourself CavalryWorshipCenter ? Or did you mean CalvaryWorshipCenter ?

I can't imagine a church which worships the cavalry, but I guess it's a possibility. I suspect though that you need to edit your username.

Cheers

 

[Tiberius]

OK

First, let me say that I am not promoting religion or mysticism, nor am I denegrating science.

Alright.

Second, let me ask to to consider what I am about to say carefully before deciding whether you think I am right or wrong.

Again, accepted.

I am right now experiencing something which is not "matter and energy and such things".

Awareness.

Now, before you interpret that to mean 'consciousness' and then say that is 'simply brain activity', consider this -

If awareness was simply brain activity, and completely physical, that would not imply the experience of being aware. Brain activity and behaviours like perception and response etc could be happening without you knowing that it was happening.

In other words, consciousness is not merely complex behaviour. It also includes the feature of knowing, or being.

So far science has no handle on this. Which does not repudiate science, but it does clearly indicate that our model of the universe is incomplete in a very fundamental way.

Our scientific model describes a universe with nobody home.

To make my point clearer, the world described by our scientific model could be existing exactly as it is now, except without anyone realising they exist. There could have been a big bang and billions of years of abiogenesis and evolution, resulting in precisely what you observe right now. All this could have happened and be fully functioning, including these bodies with their names and preferences and behaviours, without any self-awareness at all. Just like a computer simulation. If you imagine a very complex computer simulation, you can imagine simulated personalities interacting etc, and there is no need to assume that the computer simulation is self-aware. You may choose to imagine that it could be self-aware, but that is not necessary to its functioning.

That is the world described by science. Matter and energy and transformation, the evolution of complex behaviours, etc. Nowhere in this description is self-awareness required, defined, or in any way accounted for.

Many will say 'awareness is just a by-product of the brain', but that is just a meaningless avoidance, simply dodging the issue, because it in no way explains the leap from complex behaviour in your grey matter ( or computer simulation) to the fact of knowing you exist.

So, "matter and energy and such things" as you put it simply do not account for the fact that you know you exist.

Awareness per se has no mass or energy, fits no equations, is not explained by any theory, and yet is absolutely self-evident right NOW.

I disagree.

For instance, you cannot show that I am aware. You cannot prove that you are aware to another person. There is a testable and verifiable and repeatable technique for measuring consciousness. But we cannot do that for awareness. It is impossible for us to tell the difference between a conscious brain that is aware and a conscious brain that only seems aware, at least according to your definition above.

Also, how do you know that you yourself are aware? Perhaps you only think you are aware.

This is more in the realm of philosophy, and I firmly believe that philosophy like this can tell us nothing useful about the real world.

naturally, I would argue that awareness is a result of consciousness, not necessarily something separate from it.

 

[Tiberius]

Simply put the evidence of a God outweighs the evidence of their not being one.

If I may repeat Daviso's question, what evidence - empirical and testable evidence - do you have supporting the existence of God?

 

[apophenia]

...Also, how do you know that you yourself are aware? Perhaps you only think you are aware.

No offence, but to me that remark is evidence that you are caught up in words and logic, and missing the experience of yourself, or so attached to logic that you are prepared to assert nonsense rather than acknowledge something both self-evident and alogical.

I say nonsense because how would i know that i thought i was aware if i wasn't aware ?

basically you are saying that you are prepared to accept logic gone mad, but not accept that you are aware

 

[Tiberius]

Well, even granting that you are aware, proving awareness is ultimately impossible. There is no objective test that can be done to verify awareness.

Nonetheless, let's say you have a computer that is programmed to respond that it is aware of itself as an individual. How would you prove it is not? Would the computer know that it is not really aware when everything in its programming is telling it that it is?

 

[idav]

Well, even granting that you are aware, proving awareness is ultimately impossible. There is no objective test that can be done to verify awareness.

Simple, you throw something at someones head and see if they respond. Doesn't work for all awareness tests but it's a start.

Nonetheless, let's say you have a computer that is programmed to respond that it is aware of itself as an individual. How would you prove it is not? Would the computer know that it is not really aware when everything in its programming is telling it that it is?

When a computer can respond about it's own existence then it is close to the capacity of a human. Just cause a dog can't respond correctly when I ask about his awareness doesn't mean the dog isn't aware which is where I would go back to the throwing something at it's head to verify (don't worry it will be something soft).

 

[idav]

If anyone wishes to argue that god (or whatever deity you believe in) is true, I have questions ready. Thank you.

Whatever is responsible for existence is god or at the very least very powerful and perhaps impersonal.

 

[Daviso452]

Many will say 'awareness is just a by-product of the brain', but that is just a meaningless avoidance, simply dodging the issue, because it in no way explains the leap from complex behaviour in your grey matter ( or computer simulation) to the fact of knowing you exist.

Actually I can. As human beings, our brains have evolved to drop many of our primal instincts and focus more on our intelligence. Our brains adapted to not just beat other animals to a pulp, because we could not always do that. Instead, we evolved to outsmart other animals. When we grew in numbers, we learned to outsmart each other, whiched forced us to increase our intelligence. We created tools; turning a stick into a spear, or stone into bowls. We have become very reliant on our intelligence and skill, and thus our brains have adapted for such things.

The reason for this having to outsmart other things is the fact that we wish to survive. Death usually results from something that causes pain. We wish to not experience pain, as well as death. We don't want harm or death inflicted upon ourselves. That is how we are aware.

However, from our intelligence we invented language, and from language we created words; words with definitions. Of those words was "exist." Like many other words, it has developed a conotation that people feel is incredibly special.

Awareness is not a thing. It is a byproduct of the brain for wishing to preserve itself. In order to do that, the brain had to be aware of itself, its abilities, and its surroundings in order to defend itself from predators and the enviorment. We as humans have developed a conotation for the word to which we see special meaning in. The fact is, there is nothing special about being aware.

 

[Tiberius]

Simple, you throw something at someones head and see if they respond. Doesn't work for all awareness tests but it's a start.

Bah, that's easy. You can connect a camera to a computer and get it to do the same thing. And snails will pass this test too. Same as clams and cockroaches. Are they aware of themselves as individual? You see, this isn't a test of awareness. It's a test for reactions to certain stimuli.

When a computer can respond about it's own existence then it is close to the capacity of a human. Just cause a dog can't respond correctly when I ask about his awareness doesn't mean the dog isn't aware which is where I would go back to the throwing something at it's head to verify (don't worry it will be something soft).

If that is true, then computers back in the 1970s were self aware. All one has to do is write a program that constantly spits out, "No, I am aware of myself" whenever anyone typed anything.

 

[idav]

Bah, that's easy. You can connect a camera to a computer and get it to do the same thing. And snails will pass this test too. Same as clams and cockroaches. Are they aware of themselves as individual? You see, this isn't a test of awareness. It's a test for reactions to certain stimuli.

Reaction to stimuli is sufficient for determining awareness. Life is reacting to stimuli. At what point do you thing reacting to stimuli becomes awareness? Aren't plant cells aware?

If that is true, then computers back in the 1970s were self aware. All one has to do is write a program that constantly spits out, "No, I am aware of myself" whenever anyone typed anything.

Since all matter in complexity can become aware then a computer is just as a aware as a plant or amoeba at the least. What difference is there in life from regular matter really?

 

[apophenia]

Actually I can. As human beings, our brains have evolved to drop many of our primal instincts and focus more on our intelligence. Our brains adapted to not just beat other animals to a pulp, because we could not always do that. Instead, we evolved to outsmart other animals. When we grew in numbers, we learned to outsmart each other, whiched forced us to increase our intelligence. We created tools; turning a stick into a spear, or stone into bowls. We have become very reliant on our intelligence and skill, and thus our brains have adapted for such things.

The reason for this having to outsmart other things is the fact that we wish to survive. Death usually results from something that causes pain. We wish to not experience pain, as well as death. We don't want harm or death inflicted upon ourselves. That is how we are aware.

However, from our intelligence we invented language, and from language we created words; words with definitions. Of those words was "exist." Like many other words, it has developed a conotation that people feel is incredibly special.

Awareness is not a thing. It is a byproduct of the brain for wishing to preserve itself. In order to do that, the brain had to be aware of itself, its abilities, and its surroundings in order to defend itself from predators and the enviorment. We as humans have developed a conotation for the word to which we see special meaning in. The fact is, there is nothing special about being aware.

That is a circular argument . The brain would have to already aware of itself to 'wish to protect itself'