May be something to do with contradictary outcomes of materialism. While some of materialists, say Cris, set out to conquer the nature with high regard for human awareness and intelligence , some of other friends fell down into defeatist attitude with an illusion of 'Godlike' awesome material universe.:m:
60,000 years
- Thread starter atheroy
- Start date
What do you know about the universe? Honestly? 
How are you, as a mere organism, in the postion to claim the universe is blind and unaware?
Blind and unaware is a far more fitting description of yourself. And all of us for that matter.
A trend among atheists has arisen that is as nonsensical as any religion. They become sure there is no god so they give humans the title for some reason.
Back up, we didn't create the universe, we didn't even create ourselves and in actual fact we don't even have control over ourselves.
There may not be a god watching over us hoping we don't masturbate, but something is controlling us, forcing us to breed, forcing us to protect our children, forcing us to compete with our friends etc etc, the list goes on, and eventually encapsulates everything you do.
Whats that? You aren't being forced? You WANT to do those things? Exactly, thats how it works, you get rewarded with pleasant feeling chemicals released into your brain, this is what makes you "want", something is in charge here, but it certainly isn't us, like all animals and plants we are slaves for a higher force. That force is natural law.
Who's blindly following it again?
We are on the same plain as every other living organism, neither our "sentience" or "consciousness" or any other naturally evolved trait you happen to be fond of puts a scratch on this fact.
Its all well and good for us to claim what the universe isn't when we don't even know what it is.
It seems to not only be aware, but super aware, and in super control, its aware of things we can't even begin to understand, we are its dogs which it rewards and punishes to get jobs done, and like dogs we have no idea what the jobs are, we just know if we do them we'll get a treat (ie pleasure, satisfaction etc)
Perhaps the universe isn't the one doing this, it could be a dog as well, but the bottom line is we are employees that don't have a clue what we are working on, the only thing about us that could possibly be of any significance is the task we are doing and we don't even know what that is.
How are you, as a mere organism, in the postion to claim the universe is blind and unaware?
Blind and unaware is a far more fitting description of yourself. And all of us for that matter.
A trend among atheists has arisen that is as nonsensical as any religion. They become sure there is no god so they give humans the title for some reason.
Back up, we didn't create the universe, we didn't even create ourselves and in actual fact we don't even have control over ourselves.
There may not be a god watching over us hoping we don't masturbate, but something is controlling us, forcing us to breed, forcing us to protect our children, forcing us to compete with our friends etc etc, the list goes on, and eventually encapsulates everything you do.
Whats that? You aren't being forced? You WANT to do those things? Exactly, thats how it works, you get rewarded with pleasant feeling chemicals released into your brain, this is what makes you "want", something is in charge here, but it certainly isn't us, like all animals and plants we are slaves for a higher force. That force is natural law.
Who's blindly following it again?
We are on the same plain as every other living organism, neither our "sentience" or "consciousness" or any other naturally evolved trait you happen to be fond of puts a scratch on this fact.
Its all well and good for us to claim what the universe isn't when we don't even know what it is.
It seems to not only be aware, but super aware, and in super control, its aware of things we can't even begin to understand, we are its dogs which it rewards and punishes to get jobs done, and like dogs we have no idea what the jobs are, we just know if we do them we'll get a treat (ie pleasure, satisfaction etc)
Perhaps the universe isn't the one doing this, it could be a dog as well, but the bottom line is we are employees that don't have a clue what we are working on, the only thing about us that could possibly be of any significance is the task we are doing and we don't even know what that is.
I'm going to try to sum up my part of this thread now, but who's to say that I won't just reply to the next post? Well, as it stands now, I would like to conclude my contribution to the thread...
Again, I see how your emotions take you to the extreme of any situation. How you could take my statements and turn them into "Glorified Rocks" is beyond me.
All I did was explain to you what exactly the causes for our emotions and experiences are. I gave you the basic description of why we feel the way we do, and along the way enlightened you to the fact that love and anger and hatred and fear and sorrow are all chemical interactions and reactions within our brain.
I never said that the chemical reactions took anything away from those feelings or experiences, just that that's what they are... But you, Jenyar, wouldn't let that sit. You saw my explanations as "dead" and "impersonal." I'm sorry that the truth hurts you so much, but that's what it is.
What bothers you about it? Does the actual mechanics behind emotion bother you because it takes away from the poetry of it all? That's my best guess, because I never, ever asserted that anything I said would make the experience any less.
Bottom Line: Yes, our emotions are the result of chemicals within the brain. But describing the mechanics behind it takes nothing away from the experiences of the emotions. If I love, I will still float on air, dance, stay up at night and write love notes, and be on top of the world. If I'm sad, I will still cry, I will still feel down in the dumps, and I will still have no appetite. Knowing what the causes are behind them will not take any of that away.
My final opinion of you: You are afraid of knowledge. The truth is too harsh for you, which is why you run to the religion which promises you the most in the afterlife. To you, knowing what lies behind your eyes will affect the magic of the experiences of life, because as far as your religion dictates, it is all because of God, no explanation neccisary. That is too bad, because it shuns exploration and discovery (Which is why you are so adverse to science).
Speaking of science, you sell it so short it isn't even funny. You are sure that there is an unobservable world, yet there is no way you would have knowledge of it if science has no knowledge of it. You claim that there are limits to science, yet there are no limits. If we can't do it, it's only because we can't do it yet. You really aren't very intelligent, and if you are, you don't show it. You're like a little kid who doesn't want to know that Santa isn't real. Take a look around you, Jenyar. You don't know what the purpose of science is, you talk about an imaginary unobservable world, and worship an imaginary God.
My final thoughts on God: I don't know. Could there be a God? Sure, why not? My problem doesn't lie with the idea of a god, because we haven't explored past our own solar system yet, let alone the universe, so who's to say?
My problem is with the stories about your God. These stories, which have never been validated, and are written by a handful of people, are taken as, no pun intended, scripture. You blindly follow. You never question. You throw away evidences against your religion without examing any of it.
Medicine Woman brought up a good point, and that's "If the god you describe created us, why do we have to search for him?" And that's true! We are not in tune with this god, because if we were, everyone would know him, and love him. But, the only people that truly believe are uninformed, unintelligent people. I don't care how many scientists believe, because booksmarts don't make you intelligent. It's common sense, and anyone who is a theist is severly lacking in it.
Anyone with common sense could tell you that Sumer's texts are older, and therefore the stories contained within are more accurate to the origional. Especially if they've read the Bible. Flood story? Yes, Sumer has a flood story. Noah? Yeah, they've got him too. Eden? Yep, pretty much. Sumer=Older, so, Bible=altered hand-me-down of stories originated in Sumeria. And it's SO OBVIOUS! Shoot, the guy who God supposedly cut the first deal with IS FROM SUMER! This guy brought this religion over, and even though it's been changed to a single-diety theism, nobody on your side notices!
Jenyar, you and everyone else who worships this god needs to open their eyes and question just what the hell you're spreading. Think about it...
...Is it any suprise that ancient peoples in the very first centuries of civilized mankind had technologies beyond what even WE had a two hundred years ago? The word of Christ hadn't been spread, and their religions didn't carry the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy with them. Yours promotes ignorance, and subserviance, and loss of self-worth. Everything you do is accredited to Him, and everything you do wrong is attributed to Satan. Nothing is to your credit, yet you earn the ultimate prize. Nothing is your fault, yet you pay the ultimate price.
Wake up, Jenyar.
JD
Again, I see how your emotions take you to the extreme of any situation. How you could take my statements and turn them into "Glorified Rocks" is beyond me.
All I did was explain to you what exactly the causes for our emotions and experiences are. I gave you the basic description of why we feel the way we do, and along the way enlightened you to the fact that love and anger and hatred and fear and sorrow are all chemical interactions and reactions within our brain.
I never said that the chemical reactions took anything away from those feelings or experiences, just that that's what they are... But you, Jenyar, wouldn't let that sit. You saw my explanations as "dead" and "impersonal." I'm sorry that the truth hurts you so much, but that's what it is.
What bothers you about it? Does the actual mechanics behind emotion bother you because it takes away from the poetry of it all? That's my best guess, because I never, ever asserted that anything I said would make the experience any less.
Bottom Line: Yes, our emotions are the result of chemicals within the brain. But describing the mechanics behind it takes nothing away from the experiences of the emotions. If I love, I will still float on air, dance, stay up at night and write love notes, and be on top of the world. If I'm sad, I will still cry, I will still feel down in the dumps, and I will still have no appetite. Knowing what the causes are behind them will not take any of that away.
My final opinion of you: You are afraid of knowledge. The truth is too harsh for you, which is why you run to the religion which promises you the most in the afterlife. To you, knowing what lies behind your eyes will affect the magic of the experiences of life, because as far as your religion dictates, it is all because of God, no explanation neccisary. That is too bad, because it shuns exploration and discovery (Which is why you are so adverse to science).
Speaking of science, you sell it so short it isn't even funny. You are sure that there is an unobservable world, yet there is no way you would have knowledge of it if science has no knowledge of it. You claim that there are limits to science, yet there are no limits. If we can't do it, it's only because we can't do it yet. You really aren't very intelligent, and if you are, you don't show it. You're like a little kid who doesn't want to know that Santa isn't real. Take a look around you, Jenyar. You don't know what the purpose of science is, you talk about an imaginary unobservable world, and worship an imaginary God.
My final thoughts on God: I don't know. Could there be a God? Sure, why not? My problem doesn't lie with the idea of a god, because we haven't explored past our own solar system yet, let alone the universe, so who's to say?
My problem is with the stories about your God. These stories, which have never been validated, and are written by a handful of people, are taken as, no pun intended, scripture. You blindly follow. You never question. You throw away evidences against your religion without examing any of it.
Medicine Woman brought up a good point, and that's "If the god you describe created us, why do we have to search for him?" And that's true! We are not in tune with this god, because if we were, everyone would know him, and love him. But, the only people that truly believe are uninformed, unintelligent people. I don't care how many scientists believe, because booksmarts don't make you intelligent. It's common sense, and anyone who is a theist is severly lacking in it.
Anyone with common sense could tell you that Sumer's texts are older, and therefore the stories contained within are more accurate to the origional. Especially if they've read the Bible. Flood story? Yes, Sumer has a flood story. Noah? Yeah, they've got him too. Eden? Yep, pretty much. Sumer=Older, so, Bible=altered hand-me-down of stories originated in Sumeria. And it's SO OBVIOUS! Shoot, the guy who God supposedly cut the first deal with IS FROM SUMER! This guy brought this religion over, and even though it's been changed to a single-diety theism, nobody on your side notices!
Jenyar, you and everyone else who worships this god needs to open their eyes and question just what the hell you're spreading. Think about it...
...Is it any suprise that ancient peoples in the very first centuries of civilized mankind had technologies beyond what even WE had a two hundred years ago? The word of Christ hadn't been spread, and their religions didn't carry the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy with them. Yours promotes ignorance, and subserviance, and loss of self-worth. Everything you do is accredited to Him, and everything you do wrong is attributed to Satan. Nothing is to your credit, yet you earn the ultimate prize. Nothing is your fault, yet you pay the ultimate price.
Wake up, Jenyar.
JD
I'm sorry to hear you have reached a "final opinion" about me, but as you like. I often tell people: The truth cannot threaten me. I can assure you I have no fear of it. Even if I did, a "promise of an afterlife" would not really alleviate it any more than death could, would it?
Anyway, my position is this: I'm glad that you can read the fine print - but do you know what the contract says?
Science is the best tool we have for studying the observable universe. As a field, it's as useful as electricity. But there are people who build electric chairs and time bombs using electricity, and there are heart-lung machines keeping people alive during surgery using electricity. My problem is with people who are so caught up in the observable world, that they dismiss the unobservable as secondary to it. Who ever decided that emotion should be secondary to its functioning? We would have no psychiatrists or psychologists or social workers if that was policy.
There is one sentence that I want to address in particular:
You are sure that there is an unobservable world, yet there is no way you would have knowledge of it if science has no knowledge of it.
Right. I went to listen to a performance of Mozart's Requiem last night with our topic in the back of my mind. And I wondered: where does music exist? There I was, experiencing it in and around me, but can I take a picture of it? It's invisible. Oh, you would reply, consulting your clipboard, it's soundwaves. Quite visible using the right instruments of detection. But if sound was music, surely these "musicians" were making a big fuss over nothing.
So they employ arranged and intonated sound in relationships with each other. But I figured that out using all my senses and integrating them with reason. Which is all science can claim as well. The fact is: science would have told me nothing, nada, zip about Mozart's Requiem, other than its observable qualities.
So, JD, what do you think? What is your objective opinion vs. my subjective one: does music, art, truth and beauty exist? If they do, where does it exist and how does science prove its existence?
Guru
Registered Senior Member
Nice Post Dawg
JD,
I have been reading about Sumerian texts and it is uncanny to see that Torahs, Bible, Koran are few of the spin off scriptures from Sumerian Culture...
Followers of these religions will always turn a blind eye ..but you know what is amazing is that Sumerian text actually describes the whole process how the humans were genetically altered from "existing Species" and also gives examples of defects in early humans ..e.g Humans could not control their bladder etc...
Bible skipped most of the stories it could not explain.
There are planets in our solar system described 5000 years before their discovery by current civilization... and come to think of it RCC and Xians believed that Earth was flat and punished thinkers of that time ...
Jenyar,
What is your point by telling us where Music resides ... what does that prove...Take one step at a time ..understand how Humans work how things around us work....once the science progresses your questions will be answered just as how Sun gives us light question was answered some time back...Just because the current level of nano technology is still in infancy does not mean we cannot create life in future ...sure we can ... that will not make us GOD ...but will tell us that we need to see beyond life, death and after life ...it is more than attributing everything to some invisible being .....Faith is good to keep you going but when you try to justify every frikking thing like wind blowing, or someone farting is too Medieval....
JD,
I have been reading about Sumerian texts and it is uncanny to see that Torahs, Bible, Koran are few of the spin off scriptures from Sumerian Culture...
Followers of these religions will always turn a blind eye ..but you know what is amazing is that Sumerian text actually describes the whole process how the humans were genetically altered from "existing Species" and also gives examples of defects in early humans ..e.g Humans could not control their bladder etc...
Bible skipped most of the stories it could not explain.
There are planets in our solar system described 5000 years before their discovery by current civilization... and come to think of it RCC and Xians believed that Earth was flat and punished thinkers of that time ...
Jenyar,
What is your point by telling us where Music resides ... what does that prove...Take one step at a time ..understand how Humans work how things around us work....once the science progresses your questions will be answered just as how Sun gives us light question was answered some time back...Just because the current level of nano technology is still in infancy does not mean we cannot create life in future ...sure we can ... that will not make us GOD ...but will tell us that we need to see beyond life, death and after life ...it is more than attributing everything to some invisible being .....Faith is good to keep you going but when you try to justify every frikking thing like wind blowing, or someone farting is too Medieval....
ok, you have missed the whole point of this thread that i started. we give no meaning to the world around us, such an arogant view gets on my nerves. look at how big we are, then look at how big the universe is. purpose we give to ourselves because we feel important, god is a manifestation of our feelings of importance. i really can't be bothered writing anymore if you managed to miss one of the main points in my thread starter.
coolsoldier
Registered Senior Member
Um...I don't think he actually missed the point, he just provided an opposite viewpoint. In most circles, that's called "discussion"
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Stop whining. Talk of "giving meaning to the world around us" is every bit as arrogant and perhaps more pretentious.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
I'm sorry that you find the idea that everything else in the universe has purpose easy to swallow, and more sorry that you feel it to be reasonable and sufficient to present such tripe without evidence.
Hence, any purpose it could have must be attributed to it. It doesn't have purpose or meaning unless we give it. You might not like the idea, but you can't deny there are people who manage to live their lives with purpose and meaning despite it "having none".
Jenyar,
Obviously, I could not hold my word; I am back to continue the discussion! *Trumpets blare* (But are they beautiful trumpets, Jenyar?)
You don't? But how is that true, when you aren't even really aware of the truth?
...? What is this gibberish you spout? Please elaborate, and stay away from these pre-programmed nonsensical diatribes.
ONLY. The ONLY tool. Show me an alternate means of studying the observable universe.
Of course, science is a double-edged sword. Any progress warrants risk. Think of it this way: You consider a nuclear bomb to be the most evil of all war creations, but in reality, the nuclear bomb was born in the hopes of being the ultimate war preventor. And it is. The spectre of the electric chair you mention is enough to keep most people from committing a capital crime. It all depends how you look at it.
Again, what is this unobservable world, and how the funk do you know about it? If it truly is unobservable, you would be unaware of it. "Observable" isn't limited to optics, as you seem to think.
Once again, you don't seem to see the full picture. Granted, there are psychiatrists and psychologists, but isn't there medicine as well? And which has the faster, more effective result? In case you're not sure, let me whisper it in your ear....MEDICINE!!! They realize that when someone has a significant emotional problem, talking is good for them, but it's long-term effectiveness is debateable. It takes a long time (Most of the time, your problem is never solved through therapy) so what did the scientist decide to do? Go right for the gear, and attack the mechanics of the problem. The key to solving emotional problems isn't nursing the emotion, but fixing the problem with the chemicals that cause the emotion.
I...nah, I'll just let you answer that one yourself. C'mon...you can do it!
There you go again with likening "observable" with "optic". They aren't the same thing. If you can hear something, you're "observing" it.
GASP! Spooooooky!
*Claps* Yes! There ya go, buddy! You are damn right it's soundwaves! And again, if you hear it, it's observable.
...Uh...anybody seen my clipboard?
Oh god...my head's gonna explode...
Arranged sound=Music. It's that simple. Get over it. There's nothing magical about it, nor is there anything spiritual. It's just arranged sound.
No you didn't. You heard that somewhere. I'm serious! If you had heard music, say Mozart, and hadn't ever heard music before, you would have no f'n clue what it was.
That's only because beauty is subjective. You can't say that something is beautiful officially. You and I could both look at a picture, and take 2 opposing viewpoints on it. Beauty is very observable, however, as I would imagine the chemical interactions in the brain that make something appealing will be completely observable someday, if they're not already.
You sum up, so now I sum up.
Beauty exists, but it is subjective, meaning that not one thing is beautiful to everyone. It is, just as everything else is, a chemical interaction due to an outside stimulant. You see a girl and think she is attractive, but I think the same girl is plain. I do see beauty, just not in the same places you might. If science can't actually prove the existance of beauty today, it will be able to someday.
As far as truth and art existing...duh. Art is just a classification, and truth is the opposite of falsehood. What's the arguement here?
JD
Obviously, I could not hold my word; I am back to continue the discussion! *Trumpets blare* (But are they beautiful trumpets, Jenyar?)
You don't? But how is that true, when you aren't even really aware of the truth?
...? What is this gibberish you spout? Please elaborate, and stay away from these pre-programmed nonsensical diatribes.
ONLY. The ONLY tool. Show me an alternate means of studying the observable universe.
Of course, science is a double-edged sword. Any progress warrants risk. Think of it this way: You consider a nuclear bomb to be the most evil of all war creations, but in reality, the nuclear bomb was born in the hopes of being the ultimate war preventor. And it is. The spectre of the electric chair you mention is enough to keep most people from committing a capital crime. It all depends how you look at it.
Again, what is this unobservable world, and how the funk do you know about it? If it truly is unobservable, you would be unaware of it. "Observable" isn't limited to optics, as you seem to think.
Once again, you don't seem to see the full picture. Granted, there are psychiatrists and psychologists, but isn't there medicine as well? And which has the faster, more effective result? In case you're not sure, let me whisper it in your ear....MEDICINE!!! They realize that when someone has a significant emotional problem, talking is good for them, but it's long-term effectiveness is debateable. It takes a long time (Most of the time, your problem is never solved through therapy) so what did the scientist decide to do? Go right for the gear, and attack the mechanics of the problem. The key to solving emotional problems isn't nursing the emotion, but fixing the problem with the chemicals that cause the emotion.
I...nah, I'll just let you answer that one yourself. C'mon...you can do it!
There you go again with likening "observable" with "optic". They aren't the same thing. If you can hear something, you're "observing" it.
GASP! Spooooooky!
*Claps* Yes! There ya go, buddy! You are damn right it's soundwaves! And again, if you hear it, it's observable.
...Uh...anybody seen my clipboard?
Oh god...my head's gonna explode...
Arranged sound=Music. It's that simple. Get over it. There's nothing magical about it, nor is there anything spiritual. It's just arranged sound.
No you didn't. You heard that somewhere. I'm serious! If you had heard music, say Mozart, and hadn't ever heard music before, you would have no f'n clue what it was.
That's only because beauty is subjective. You can't say that something is beautiful officially. You and I could both look at a picture, and take 2 opposing viewpoints on it. Beauty is very observable, however, as I would imagine the chemical interactions in the brain that make something appealing will be completely observable someday, if they're not already.
You sum up, so now I sum up.
Beauty exists, but it is subjective, meaning that not one thing is beautiful to everyone. It is, just as everything else is, a chemical interaction due to an outside stimulant. You see a girl and think she is attractive, but I think the same girl is plain. I do see beauty, just not in the same places you might. If science can't actually prove the existance of beauty today, it will be able to someday.
As far as truth and art existing...duh. Art is just a classification, and truth is the opposite of falsehood. What's the arguement here?
JD
The argument is that you invariably need both reason and observation to experience a reality that is "observable" neither in nature or your mind exclusively.
And alternate means of studying music is to imagine it. No science required or employed. That doesn't mean it is a product of you synapses - because you have control over it, you can change it any way you like. It also doesn't mean it is imaginary (as you say God is), because it is based on the existence of sound waves, harmonies and natural phenomena and can be expressed as an objective reality others can share. But the moment you reduce it to objectivity, it ceases to be "music".
I only use optical observation because it is the most "visibility oriented". I wanted to show you that something doesn't exist because we can observe it, but we can only observe it because it exists.
But if we continue using natural phenomena as our basis, we are forever stuck in what is created. We can zoom in on everything in creation and figure out its base properties - but I'm trying to get you to zoom out using the same principles. If there are things that can exist validly in a objective/subjective relationship without "inhabiting" either, they are by scientific standards "invisible". Psychologists use both treatment and therapy - never just one or the other, for this reason. You can treat the observable base using science, but you can't do cognitive behaviour therapy using medicine. The moment you cease to see the person as an individual, and only treat her as a "body", you've practically lost the patient.
I know your starting point is that all phenomena are at their roots observable, and therefore ultimately subject to sciientific scrutiny. But you can only "go in" from there. If such a reality happens to be part of something larger, you will be unable to see it.
Subjective consciousness is perhaps a bad example, because that is exactly the problem you have with God, isn't it? That he is just a figment of our imagination and therefore unobservable except at his inception. The best I can do is make you aware that something's existence doesn't always lie in its roots in nature - at its intersection with science. Especially not God, whose "roots" you can't really exepct to find in creation. We can't "intercept" God at a naturalistic level. At best, creation is the "subjective reality" of God. His "emotions", like love, find expression in us - not only in us, of course, since He is not limited by his creation - but that's another discussion.
Just try to hold the thought for a moment. If God did create the universe as we observe it - like a musician would create music or an artist art - where would we seek God inside it? Wouldn't our science only be able to discover deeper and deeper what has been created - being creations ourselves - instead of what has created it? Especially if God is an intelligent enitity that could envision such a creation in its entirety. The first clue we have about His existence would lie in our ability to reason and experience abstractions. We would not be limited to what we can observe and explain. All evidence is that we aren't.
But why then do you propose we should wear the maginifying glasses when we look for God? That's "fine print" I talked about. If you minutely dissect a contract you might miss its meaning and purpose entirely.
And alternate means of studying music is to imagine it. No science required or employed. That doesn't mean it is a product of you synapses - because you have control over it, you can change it any way you like. It also doesn't mean it is imaginary (as you say God is), because it is based on the existence of sound waves, harmonies and natural phenomena and can be expressed as an objective reality others can share. But the moment you reduce it to objectivity, it ceases to be "music".
I only use optical observation because it is the most "visibility oriented". I wanted to show you that something doesn't exist because we can observe it, but we can only observe it because it exists.
But if we continue using natural phenomena as our basis, we are forever stuck in what is created. We can zoom in on everything in creation and figure out its base properties - but I'm trying to get you to zoom out using the same principles. If there are things that can exist validly in a objective/subjective relationship without "inhabiting" either, they are by scientific standards "invisible". Psychologists use both treatment and therapy - never just one or the other, for this reason. You can treat the observable base using science, but you can't do cognitive behaviour therapy using medicine. The moment you cease to see the person as an individual, and only treat her as a "body", you've practically lost the patient.
I know your starting point is that all phenomena are at their roots observable, and therefore ultimately subject to sciientific scrutiny. But you can only "go in" from there. If such a reality happens to be part of something larger, you will be unable to see it.
Subjective consciousness is perhaps a bad example, because that is exactly the problem you have with God, isn't it? That he is just a figment of our imagination and therefore unobservable except at his inception. The best I can do is make you aware that something's existence doesn't always lie in its roots in nature - at its intersection with science. Especially not God, whose "roots" you can't really exepct to find in creation. We can't "intercept" God at a naturalistic level. At best, creation is the "subjective reality" of God. His "emotions", like love, find expression in us - not only in us, of course, since He is not limited by his creation - but that's another discussion.
Just try to hold the thought for a moment. If God did create the universe as we observe it - like a musician would create music or an artist art - where would we seek God inside it? Wouldn't our science only be able to discover deeper and deeper what has been created - being creations ourselves - instead of what has created it? Especially if God is an intelligent enitity that could envision such a creation in its entirety. The first clue we have about His existence would lie in our ability to reason and experience abstractions. We would not be limited to what we can observe and explain. All evidence is that we aren't.
But why then do you propose we should wear the maginifying glasses when we look for God? That's "fine print" I talked about. If you minutely dissect a contract you might miss its meaning and purpose entirely.
jenyar i just don't agree with you. we give purpose to oursleves, but we don't actually have any purpose. if we are bestowing something on ourselves it has as much relevance to the rest of the universe as me singing rubber ducky in nordic. we don't have purpose, the universe doesn't have purpose.
But you do at least see my point: If we can attribute meaning to something that would otherwise be meaningless (whether it be a rock, a doll or a person's life), then God can do the same: give creation meaning.
But there is most definitely no inherent meaning in anything if you idon't believe in God.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Likewise, there is most definitely no inherent meaning in anything if you do believe in God. That you would believe that your ignorant superstition is sufficient to create inherent meaning is simply ludicrous.