a prized philosophy of mine, revealed.

[spidergoat]

how is reality unique?

but we just said we can't be sure what reality is!!??

you mean we can't apply logic to it?

oh man i think it's fairly simple in the OP. um, don't mean this in a goading way, but i think it's better if you all took your time test proofing my theory, we can have better argument that way.

and i'm still waiting for some one to approve

You are just postposing the argument. If you can show that life is a videogame, with clear indicators of a designer, I would be happy to discuss it. Life does not seem to be like a video game. There is every indication in the details of life forms that they were not designed by a designer. There are to many obvious design flaws that MUST have been the product of a blind, inanimate process of trial and error.

 

[Lori_7]

Scifes, I approve sweetheart.

And I'm begging for an atheist to explain the difference to me between what is artificial and real?

Is it what we're made of?

We live in virtual worlds nowadays. Because we're on sciforums does it mean we're not having a real conversation?

People identify themselves with their avatars and myspace and facebook pages more than their own faces and people have sex with motorized pieces of plastic.

 

[Sardaukar]

Scifes, I approve sweetheart.

And I'm begging for an atheist to explain the difference to me between what is artificial and real?

Is it what we're made of?

We live in virtual worlds nowadays. Because we're on sciforums does it mean we're not having a real conversation?

People identify themselves with their avatars and myspace and facebook pages more than their own faces and people have sex with motorized pieces of plastic.

Not an atheist, but artificial is simply something man made and not naturally occurring in an environment devoid of humans.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

You are just postposing the argument. If you can show that life is a videogame, with clear indicators of a designer, I would be happy to discuss it. Life does not seem to be like a video game. There is every indication in the details of life forms that they were not designed by a designer. There are to many obvious design flaws that MUST have been the product of a blind, inanimate process of trial and error.

What seem to us to be flaws may well fit with the goal of the designer.

 

[scifes]

On one hand, why can't the universe just exist.

for the same reason a virus can't hit a computer and generate a game level.
also, if the virus has AI and actually builds the game level, someone must have given it AI.

and for the same reason you can't knock a 100 containers of paint and get the mona lisa. try imagining that paining evolve from a white sheet of paper.

On the other hand, this universe must have a "beginning," at least from the first (or only) iteration depending on the theory used. This universe defines energy as the only eternal thing that exists in it. It is also known that energy can create matter. So, what caused the build up of energy...what caused the universe-pendulum start swinging (depending on the theory)?

not if the theory doesn't follow your definition of the universe..remember, your definition of the universe is following whatever theory you use for it.

Which comes first: perception or existence? Do we perceive because we exist, or exist because we perceive?
Is this not also tied up to what we mean when we say something is said to "exist" - i.e. if we define existence as "that which can be perceived by us" then this begs the question and you're stuck with a logical fallacy as a very comy bed-fellow?
Please resolve these issues then rephrase your opening post.

our experience is perception. when perception happens, both the percipient and what is perceived exist..in that time, it is tied to the duration of the perception, meaning, if i percieve something now, means i exist now, when i lose consciousness or sleep, can i say i'm existing?
i'm not saying yes. i did not generalize sarkus. so i see no need for one of them to come first, for the second to be everlasting. especially that none of them can happen without the other.

Argument from complexity, as spidergoat mentioned earlier. A common fallacy with regard consciousness, creation etc, but no less fallacious for that.

agreed. argument from complexity is recognized in philosophy as a logical fallacy, i did a lot of research on it, and two things:

1- the argument used to label the watchmaker's theory and any other argument from complexity as a logical fallacy, contains many logical fallacies in itself.

meaning i don't see arguments from complexity are wrong, and am ready to defend them.

2- i believe my theory is different from the watchmaker's argument, and am ready to defend it logically, either proving that it is not an argument of complexity; so it's right. or it is indeed an argument from complexity; and prove arguments from complexity to be logically sound.
or admit i'm wrong in the process.

You are just postposing the argument. If you can show that life is a videogame, with clear indicators of a designer, I would be happy to discuss it.

look at it like this, it's a video game we've been playing ever since we were born, and have never stopped playing.

Life does not seem to be like a video game.

because we've never stopped playing it to see "real life".

There is every indication in the details of life forms that they were not designed by a designer.

interesting, can i have some examples?

There are to many obvious design flaws that MUST have been the product of a blind, inanimate process of trial and error.

What seem to us to be flaws may well fit with the goal of the designer.

couldn't have phrased it better, you seem not to be a hard-headed rabid furious one-sided all-theism-hater maniac after all.. thanks stranger

but i'm interested in the inanimate processes of trial and error too, examples of all the negative mutations which caused the species carrying them to die out, mutations which should be hundreds of times the number of the positive ones, examples which definitly label the process of how life came to as inanimate, purposeless.

Scifes, I approve sweetheart.

why thank you honey

 

[fiicere]

Actually, this is a very old argument (hate to burst your bubble)

1) Everything which begins to exist has a cause (does not imply intelligent cause)

2) The universe (and therefore everything in it) began to exist.

3) Infinite timelines do not exist.

Therefore, something (or someone, or whatever) created the universe, or created the thing which created it, or etc etc an undefined but NOT inifinite number of steps.

Now, this doesn't immediately prove the existence of God, but it does prove the existence of an initial object, entity, or whatever which created the universe and is eternal.

Rationale:

1) People have insisted before that this is bogus, but any scientist would be forced to concede it's not due to the large number of observations verifying it.

2) Again, physicists will agree with this premise

3) No scientific proof for this one, only a logical one. Namely speaking, an infinite linear sequence of events cannot exist going BACKWARDS in time. Since time moves linearly, we would never be able to reach NOW if we started an infinite number of events ago. Essentially the premise is that time has not been running "infinitely" because that makes no sense. Similar paradoxes also exist

This is probably why so much scientific thought is going into the string theory, and quantum fluctuations. Because either of those could concievably not be a part of this universe and therefore be eternal.

 

[scorpius]

.. this world being so complex, means the creator has to be very intelligent...

and it must have even MORE inteligent creator then,right?

so if we're brains in vats playing a WOW game, someone has to be making the maps.

the nature/Universe maybe,
or a highly advanced inteligent Alien race,or even Flying Spagheti Monster...
care to disprove those?

fire away.

BANG,..still no god!

 

[scorpius]

And I'm begging for an atheist to explain the difference to me between what is artificial and real?

ask a Theist,they have all the TRuth

People identify themselves with their avatars and myspace and facebook pages more than their own faces and people have sex with motorized pieces of plastic.

so what,if it makes them happy?:shrug:

 

[Dywyddyr]

1um, so that means we exist because we perceive.

That's Descartes.

2, the creator of the perception has to exist. and he has to be as good as this world we perceive. this world being so complex, means the creator has to be very intelligent...and all scientists know how complex this world and it's rules and equilibriums are.

That would be you, as you said earlier:

our reality is our perception, and our perception could be wrong, and relates to false absolute values.

You can't prove that what you see is anything other than your (possibly mistaken) perception of what's there. Hence you can't claim any complexity for it, it's simply a figment of your imagination.

 

[Cris]

fiicere,

1) Everything which begins to exist has a cause (does not imply intelligent cause)

We have no evidence that suggests anything had a beginning. In physics we only see that nothing is ever created or destroyed, only transformations seem possible. Your assertion is without merit.

2) The universe (and therefore everything in it) began to exist.

Only if it arose as part of a transformation of that which already existed. There is no precedent of something from nothing.

3) Infinite timelines do not exist.

An infinite timeline is an absolute necessity, especially if you assert that every effect has a cause. If there was a point at which nothing existed then there would be nothing to initiate the first cause, and we couldn't be here now. Therefore something must have always existed. I.e. there is something that must have the property of infinity.

Therefore, something (or someone, or whatever) created the universe, or created the thing which created it, or etc etc an undefined but NOT inifinite number of steps.

Invalid concluson based on false premises. When arguing for a cause of complexity the necessary outcome is always an impossible infinite series. If you insist on every effect must have a cause then god must have a cause, and the creator of that creator must have a cause, ad infinitum. The only exit here is to accept that complexity always forms from simpler components and we see that in every day life and in absolutely everything man has developed through his science and technologies. This also means that the universe is infinite and that it needed no creator. And at this time we have nothing to indicate the universe isn't infinite.

If you want to argue that a god is the exception and that he needed no creator, then you destroy the very point of your argument that an effect needs a cause. In which case the counter is simply that the universe is infinite since you've already established that not everything needs a cause. In either case the god component becomes either an impossibility or redundant.

Now, this doesn't immediately prove the existence of God, but it does prove the existence of an initial object, entity, or whatever which created the universe and is eternal.

No it doesn't, see above.

1) People have insisted before that this is bogus, but any scientist would be forced to concede it's not due to the large number of observations verifying it.

Nonsense, it remains totally bogus, you have offered nothing new.

2) Again, physicists will agree with this premise

LOL, dream on.

3) No scientific proof for this one, only a logical one. Namely speaking, an infinite linear sequence of events cannot exist going BACKWARDS in time.

If you argue that complexity can only be caused by something more complex, then yes you are correct, you create for yourself the very paradox you are insisting is impossible.

Since time moves linearly, we would never be able to reach NOW if we started an infinite number of events ago.

Time doesn't move at all. Time is a property of existence, and as Einstein has shown time is entirely relative. You are also creating an additional paradox for yourself by thinking that NOW is something special. Think of it as simply a point on a line that has no ends. In this case there is no problem with an infinite past. Also, do not think of infinity as being some type of numerical value, it isn't. It is merely the property of something that has no boundary.

Essentially the premise is that time has not been running "infinitely" because that makes no sense. Similar paradoxes also exist

That's because you haven't thought this through correctly yet. As I said, an infinite past is a necessity.

 

[baftan]

Perceive:

1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.
2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend. (The free Dictionary)

Perceiving without the existence? This is next to believing in ghosts.

What does perception require? Something to perceive: Your body, other beings, atmosphere, trees, buildings etc. What does existence require? Other existences; your body, other beings, trees, buildings etc. So perception requires existence. Does perception differ? Yes, one person to other, one animal to another which means only those who alive and has capacity (enough brain structure) can perceive. How about other existence, non-alive things such as atoms, sun, a piece of rock etc.? They react to their environment, but they do not perceive.

What makes human beings different than other beings, alive or non-alive? Human beings create and live according to illustrations and symbols; even their language is an imagined construction. They give meanings to everything. But rest of the existence (alive or not alive) is out there whether humans perceive them or not. There was not a trace of humans when Dinosaurs ruled the world, and the planets and galaxies would not care less if humans evaporate from existence. We, including our bodies and thoughts are based on existence, not the other way around. Thinking that perception prevails existence is same as thinking everything is out there just to give certain satisfaction for our “perceiving” minds.

It is true that we humans have subjective selection filters in our minds which put our “self”, “cognition”, or conscious being somewhere isolated from the rest of the existence. If we give meaning to everything, we symbolise and categorize them; the real mountain becomes the perception of mountain in our brains, a representation. Because we can represent everything, which creates the delusion of reality. Once everybody used to think life as a soul in bodies, now we know that it’s replicating, mutating active DNA. Now we know that there are microbial creatures that have nothing to do with perception, yet still exist and they have also effects directly in our own existence. When we did not know this, it was a divine mystery. When we give new representations, new meanings to reality we learned to approach it differently. The atoms were always there; but it took thousands of years evolution for humans to develop an idea of it, speculate, to create technology to make experiments and finally find an evidence.

Can we put brain in a vat? If we develop enough knowledge about it, why not? But this would not say that perception is something separate from existence. It is something like changing the course of river. Just as nature needs the technology of DNA to make life and its perceiving creatures a real possibility, we would also need a technology to put a functional brain in a vat. We could completely mimic the brain and its functions and make it a working and conscious entity without even requiring any organic component. This is a technical challenge.

Perception without existence is something like software without hardware. You could play computer games and electronic system in your machine would not realize this, because it is (a) a machine that can not realize (b) very busy with translating digital information. Our cells are working without any consciousness, yet we (our perception) have been relying on their existence even before we knew it. Perception part of our brains need stimulations different than what a transistor or cell might need: Meanings and their coordinated play. If you bring your existence to your idea level, it becomes a separate entity that you can perceive. Your perception necessarily gives a meaning for your existence; it becomes a character in the theatre of your mind. Like a character of a video game. Mind works with delusions, existence does not.

 

[scifes]

Actually, this is a very old argument (hate to burst your bubble)

1) Everything which begins to exist has a cause (does not imply intelligent cause)

2) The universe (and therefore everything in it) began to exist.

3) Infinite timelines do not exist.

Therefore, something (or someone, or whatever) created the universe, or created the thing which created it, or etc etc an undefined but NOT inifinite number of steps.

Now, this doesn't immediately prove the existence of God, but it does prove the existence of an initial object, entity, or whatever which created the universe and is eternal.

Rationale:

1) People have insisted before that this is bogus, but any scientist would be forced to concede it's not due to the large number of observations verifying it.

2) Again, physicists will agree with this premise

3) No scientific proof for this one, only a logical one. Namely speaking, an infinite linear sequence of events cannot exist going BACKWARDS in time. Since time moves linearly, we would never be able to reach NOW if we started an infinite number of events ago. Essentially the premise is that time has not been running "infinitely" because that makes no sense. Similar paradoxes also exist

This is probably why so much scientific thought is going into the string theory, and quantum fluctuations. Because either of those could concievably not be a part of this universe and therefore be eternal.

um, i think you are replying to my argument as if it was some other argument repeated many times before and is wrong, so i'm not easily seeing the relevance of your reply to the OP..

we're talking about how nothing can be proven to exist, other than us as precipitants, and the relations between the parts of the perception(because we can't be sure what the absolute value of the perception is)..

now, i want to say the relations between the perceptions are too complex to have evolved, unless the evolution was guided, which is called creation..you might disagree one way or another, so simplify it to me and tell me how an abandoned computer server with enough power supply could have its empty storage space go from all zeros into a splendid set of ones and zeros which create a game level complex unlike anyone has ever seen.

the most important question; is why will it change from all zeros into some zeros and ones to begin with? why will a "big bang" decide to happen all of a sudden? newton's first law states that very simply.

meaning, why would nothingness start becoming somthingness? wasn't it happy enough as nothingness?

haha scifes, that's YOUR belief, we believe the world always existed, it was not created from nothing, so you have disproved yourself..

haha, then i say: but why didn't it stay in the state it was in always? why did it start changing? why did it start to evolve? why did things "happen"?

which takes us back to the first important question mentioned earlier for the computer server.



lets jump that question, a digital big bang happens in the server, don't ask questions because it's embarrassing....but, either the digital big bang was made with unbelievable complexity to have all other action/reaction strings end up into the perfect game, like a guy throwing paints into the air with such accuracy and calculation about how the paints will splatter across and mingle to come up with a perfect painting.

or, the big bang was dumb, and every "alteration" or "mutation" had an equel value of becoming 1 or 0, and with mathematical probability, the right set of 1s and 0s came out to form the perfect glitchless game.

or, the "smart" part was taken a step at a time.
to understand natural selection's fallacy, please explain it in my computer server example terms, starting from all zeros to sets of ones and zeros written in many languages forming a perfect game level.

Actually, this is a very old argument (hate to burst your bubble)

1) Everything which begins to exist has a cause (does not imply intelligent cause)

existence doesn't imply intellegence,

complex set of existence imply intelligence.

the more complex, the more intelligent, that's what intellegence is; the ability to deal with complex. yet, when they come together, they form a fallacy

 

[scifes]

and it must have even MORE inteligent creator then,right?

yup, you're right.

now what?:yawn:

the nature/Universe maybe,
or a highly advanced inteligent Alien race,or even Flying Spagheti Monster...
care to disprove those?

no i don't.
for the mean time

BANG,..still no god!

no, you believe in god, like what you said in the two parts i quoted earlier.

and i think it's stupid not to believe in god because you don't know every last detail about him.

a very typical atheist, if i can ask questions about how it happened, then it didn't happen.

That's Descartes.

the guy's bio is too long for me to know what you mean.

That would be you, as you said earlier:
You can't prove that what you see is anything other than your (possibly mistaken) perception of what's there. Hence you can't claim any complexity for it, it's simply a figment of your imagination.

haha, nope, nice try, same as stranger's as quoted in the OP. but try again.

i can't be sure of, as i said, its absolute values, what exactly it is, but it is very evident from the perception, that it is complex.

ironically enough, the simplest form our perception could be is its "natural" one, the one we think it is...that simplest form is complex enough to deem a creator, if our perception is something other than what we make of it, then those are added layers of complexity.

if you know a game is a game, it's still complex, if you couldn't discover that it's a game, it has to be even more complex.

got it?

Perceiving without the existence? This is next to believing in ghosts.

but i'm saying perception is existence





and people, please stick to the game example, i think it's simpler, easier to understand, and a good way to say what we repeated a million times before in a different way.