for atheists

[tetra]

I don't think you damn Zealots understand Athiesm.

We know that we were contrived through the struggle of different species to stay alive for millions of years. If we kill ourselves, we fail evolution. This isn't a doctrine or anything, it is simply the instinct inside of every biological organism that has ever been.

This does beg the question, though, If this life is only mortal and the life after it is filled with glory and happiness, why not kill yourself now and get this mortal life over with? Really, just get a gun, and shoot yourself. According to you, dying puts you in the Super-Happy-Fun-Immortal life, so why not get there quicker?

You may say that suicide is a sin or something meaningless like that, so why not go join a Christian radical group in Eastern Europe? I'm sure there are plenty of chances to die for your religion there.

 

[Avatar]

Unfortunately they are not THAT stupid.
And of course religion is a part of our culture and history, we want it or not. I don't think if we could get rid of it or is it needed.
We would have to put smthing in place.
I don't live in US or Saudi Arabia, so I don't feel such religious pressure as you might.
But I do agree on tht tht all religious factions should have no rights to preach in schools or anywhare. All for freedom of choice (tht includes not to force anybody to beleive like smbody).
Limited religious rights - the first step, after we'll see.
Humans have to evolve a bit further to get rid of all these archaic traditions.
Cheers!

 

[Bebelina]

Yes, nice poem Avatar.

And nice ceremony Loone, I rahter enjoyed reading it. It becomes very humouristic when read with a glimpse in the eye accompanied by the vision of a Tv-preacher fresh from the bible- belt.

I´m sure atheists can aprreciate life as much as anybody, faith or no faith for an afterlife. They will just get pleasantly surprised when they die, that´s all.

They showed a fascinating and very sad documentary on tv yesterday , about the "Hallelulja Kids", anybody seen it?
The older son had travelled with his father, a preacher, all his life and learned how to preach. But this boy was autistic( probably became that way because of the upbringing) and very afraid of demons, and even thought he was becoming a vampire, he was now 19. It was just so sad to see how unhappy and afraid this young man was and that his father totally ignored that, claming that the son was blessed by the lord, that he didn´t want to go out in the hellish society. Just shows when things go wrong...how much pain fanatism can cause to innocent people.

 

[Sir. Loone]

GOD is thy Creator!

Hi! Je'sus is still your best way to know that there is GOD, Lord and Creator of 'all' the universe, seen by our tecknology, and the unseen of mortal men!
He made life for you and Himself to injoy! But with Him your joys could be so Heavenly and so eternal, that it's really beyound discription! Ask Je'sus for your selves! No one has sined so much that they couldn't be saved by trusting in Je'sus and his Holy Word!

In GOD we still put our trust!
(Psalms 53:1) "The fool says in his heart, "There is no GOD." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one that does good."

 

[James R]

bambi,

To summarise your argument (please correct me if I'm wrong):

1. God cannot exist logically because his primary quality is intelligence.
2. But intelligence cannot be a primary quality of existence, since it depends on a co-existing finer structure or substrate.
3. The finer structure is "more fundamental" than the intelligence, and is comprised of a set of "mental faculties" which combine together.
4. Those faculties, in turn, require a substance to store the required information.

Taking your points in reverse order:

4. I could argue on philosophical grounds that information can exist without matter. The method of storage of such information would obviously be beyond our current science, but the possibility of its existence is a logical one.

3. This is a bottom-up model of intelligence, which says that it is an emergent quality of a complex system. However, there is no proof that a type of intelligence which is not built that way cannot exist. It remains a logical possibility.

2. It is logical to postulate that not all intelligence depends on a finer structure or substrate. Perhaps a Godlike intelligence is of a fundamentally different kind.

1. This is an assumption ascribing a particular quality to God. By implicitly making this statement, you are saying that God can only be one thing, which you then go on to show is impossible, based on your initial set of assumptions. I say that God need not conform to the limits you set for Him or Her or It. Assumption 1 may be incorrect.

 

[Cris]

Loone,

You are absolutely correct -

"Only the fool says in his heart: There is no god --

But the wise says it to the world"

 

[Cris]

James,

You use the term ‘logical’ in several places as a conclusion, but your usage is invalid. The premises of a logical construct must each be based on prior truths, in each case yours are not.

4. I could argue on philosophical grounds that information can exist without matter. The method of storage of such information would obviously be beyond our current science, but the possibility of its existence is a logical one.

The possibility of the existence of such a storage system is not proven and there is no indication that such a system could exist. To conclude such a possibility is not logical, contrary to your claim. It might never be possible to construct such a system. Your claim is only speculation.

3. This is a bottom-up model of intelligence, which says that it is an emergent quality of a complex system. However, there is no proof that a type of intelligence which is not built that way cannot exist. It remains a logical possibility.

Again your conclusion is invalid. Absence of evidence doesn’t mean that evidence might be found. You are trying to claim there is a possibility that evidence might be found whereas it might be impossible. To be logical you must show that there is an actual possibility, otherwise your claim is just more speculation.

2. It is logical to postulate that not all intelligence depends on a finer structure or substrate. Perhaps a Godlike intelligence is of a fundamentally different kind.

Again you cannot show a valid premise. All the intelligence we know is based on a finer substrate, without evidence to the contrary it is illogical to conclude that the reverse might or could be possible. Again your conclusion is just baseless speculation.

1. This is an assumption ascribing a particular quality to God. By implicitly making this statement, you are saying that God can only be one thing, which you then go on to show is impossible, based on your initial set of assumptions. I say that God need not conform to the limits you set for Him or Her or It. Assumption 1 may be incorrect.

Unfortunately you have not shown that intelligence can be primary since your statements are only speculation. I believe Bambi’s reasoning remains intact.

Cris

 

[James R]

Cris,

Bambi's argument is an inductive one, based on observed instances of intelligence. However, that does not preclude the possibility of other types of intelligence as yet unknown.

For example, if I look at crows and see lots of black crows and no white ones, I might postulate that "all crows are black". That is a theory which can be shown to be false, but it cannot be proven to be true without examining all crows. Similarly, if I postulate that intelligence requires a substrate, that theory can be proven false if I find an example of an intelligence which does not require a substrate. However, it cannot be proven true without examining all intelligences. At this stage, we cannot be sure there do not exist examples of intelligences which we have not seen, so the hypothesis is not confirmed. Since other hypotheses are possible, it is not illogical to retain them as possibilities.

<i>The possibility of the existence of such a storage system is not proven and there is no indication that such a system could exist. To conclude such a possibility is not logical, contrary to your claim.</i>

It would be illogical to rule out the possibility, as has been done here, just as it would be illogical to rule out the possibility of a white crow when you haven't examined all crows.

<i>Absence of evidence doesn’t mean that evidence might be found.</i>

Neither does it mean that evidence won't be found. No conclusion can be drawn from absence of evidence. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

<i>To be logical you must show that there is an actual possibility, otherwise your claim is just more speculation.</i>

Since it has not been conclusively shown that the possibility is false, it remains a possibility, and cannot be ruled out.

<i>Unfortunately you have not shown that intelligence can be primary since your statements are only speculation.</i>

I wasn't trying to show that.

 

[Bambi]

Ok James,

let's look at your counterargument:

4. I could argue on philosophical grounds that information can exist without matter. The method of storage of such information would obviously be beyond our current science, but the possibility of its existence is a logical one.

At this level of detail we have to get more specific about what we mean by "information". At its most fundamental level, information is a state that can at least in principle correlate to some other state (forming an implication.) As such, the most basic imaginable carrier of information is what computer people call a binary bit: a single, most rudimentary entity that only has two alternative states (the minimum for an information-carrying entity) -- on or off. Basically, this can translate into a literal switch that can be either on or off, or more imaginatively it can translate into a non-switchable entity that can either exist or not exist -- but to have information you absolutely have to have something that can be characterized as being in one of at least two alternative states.

Note how such a characterization of the basic requirement for existence of information does not demand that the information be carried either by matter or by anything detected to date by science. However, it does demand that a fundamental medium exist -- whatever it is -- that is capable of carrying information. The more information you want it to carry, the larger the total number of global states that this medium has to support. Either it does that by containing a number of basic information-carrying entities that is each limited in its number of possible states, or it must support a large number of states in itself.

Regardless, note that the concept of "information" cannot be meaningfully defined in absense of such a medium.

3. This is a bottom-up model of intelligence, which says that it is an emergent quality of a complex system. However, there is no proof that a type of intelligence which is not built that way cannot exist. It remains a logical possibility.

As intelligence is derivative of information (it is a faculty involved with information processing), then there cannot possibly be a "top-down" model where intelligence is primary and information secondary.

2. It is logical to postulate that not all intelligence depends on a finer structure or substrate. Perhaps a Godlike intelligence is of a fundamentally different kind.

Does a Godlike intelligence not have memory? Is a Godlike intelligence incapable of apperception? Can a Godlike intelligence not coordinate or sequence its actions? Would a Godlike intelligence be bereft of introspection? Emotion? Creativity? Are there not facets within the concept of "intelligence", or do you propose that this concept can be defined in absense of any and all such qualifiers? What would it mean in such a case? All of these facets, as a matter of fact, constitute a fine structure that underlies the meaning of "intelligence". Any particular intelligent entity may lack some facets and have yet others -- but in any case it could never be determined as being endowed with a monolithic quality whose definition does not in turn depend on even more fundamental concepts.

1. This is an assumption ascribing a particular quality to God. By implicitly making this statement, you are saying that God can only be one thing, which you then go on to show is impossible, based on your initial set of assumptions. I say that God need not conform to the limits you set for Him or Her or It. Assumption 1 may be incorrect.

There are several points to address here. First what happens when Assumption 1, as you numbered it, is incorrect? Then it must be true that intelligence is not a primary quality of all existence. Which means that all existence is at its root not intelligent, thereby obviating any need for any god.

Secondly, you are indeed correct in that I ascribe a particular quality -- "intelligence" -- to God. I do not know many people who would be comfortable in conceiving a God that lacks such a quality. Plus, without such an ascription there is again no need for a god in terms of explaining existence.

Now, once again, we come back to the definition of intelligence and the complexity involved in that very concept. First and most important, it's dependent on information and thus also on an information-carrying medium. Secondarily, it by definition displays a certain pattern of nontrivial input-output mapping that can only result from nontrivial transformations between the input and the output. The concept of intelligence is therefore necessarily subservient to such transformations and any machinery (defined in terms of the information-carrying medium) that they imply.

Thus, it is impossible for a god to be the primary be-all of existence because if it were then it could never be ascribed any quality that parallels intelligence as we define it in human terms. IOW, there cannot be any valid characterization of such a god using any human terminology. Such a god cannot be said to have memory, emotions, coordination, imagination, self-awareness, percepts, planning, empathy, creativity, language, awareness of time or space, formal reasoning skills, etc.

 

[James R]

Bambi,

I think you are setting up a straw man which you are then proceeding to knock down. You are attempting to constrain the nature of God in a particular, somewhat arbitrary way, then going on to show that a God with your constraints could not exist. Your argument fails, I think, at the first step -- the imposition of the constraints.

I do not see a problem with ascribing the quality of intelligence to God, especially if He/She/It is supposed to be the Grand Designer. I take issue with your requirement that a god must be based on a physical substance or substrate of some kind. You are essentially constraining God to be a part of our material universe, rather than separate from it (though possibly still interacting with it). The intelligence of God need not be based on any particular information-carrying medium. Perhaps God, existing independently of our material universe, is both the medium and the message, so to speak.

 

[Teg]

Hi! Je'sus is still your best way to know that there is GOD, Lord and Creator of 'all' the universe, seen by our tecknology, and the unseen of mortal men!
He made life for you and Himself to injoy! But with Him your joys could be so Heavenly and so eternal, that it's really beyound discription! Ask Je'sus for your selves! No one has sined so much that they couldn't be saved by trusting in Je'sus and his Holy Word!

1. How has this god seen by our "tecknology"?

2. "Beyound discription" is another way of saying that you are bankrupt of fabrications at the moment.

3. How is one to ask "Je'sus"? Is this being not dead? Have you talked to "Je'sus"?

James R :You are attempting to constrain the nature of God in a particular, somewhat arbitrary way, then going on to show that a God with your constraints could not exist.

When we attribute aspects of this hypothetical being, they are derived from the source material. We only have the words that the Christians use to describe this thing. If you would like for us to attack the different being or attack the inventions of other Christians, then please make these details available. Know that it is not us that have formed your ideas. They were invented long ago by primitive peoples.

Also remember that constraints are inherent to reality. By its nature the universe is constrained by laws. The being you describe does not follow those laws, and is inherently voided as such.

Bambi's argument is an inductive one, based on observed instances of intelligence. However, that does not preclude the possibility of other types of intelligence as yet unknown.

Cris is right, you cannot grasp logic. Logic is based upon observation. That is Christian logic: assume that it is there because we cannot prove that it is not.

4. I could argue on philosophical grounds that information can exist without matter. The method of storage of such information would obviously be beyond our current science, but the possibility of its existence is a logical one.

That is irrelevant. We exist with matter and thus your argument is deflated. It is possible that trolls exist, but logic percludes that possibility. Logic is a way of observing tendencies and predicting conclusions. Logically I know of no such trolls and thus I use logic to conclude that trolls do not exist. It may take a substantial level of brain activity to comprehend, but most children are capable of that logic.

Religion removes logic from the equation. Through dogma and litany the improbable becomes absolute truth.

2. It is logical to postulate that not all intelligence depends on a finer structure or substrate. Perhaps a Godlike intelligence is of a fundamentally different kind.

We have no observation to base either on. That denies logic.

They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one that does good

No bias there.

 

[Cris]

Hi teg,

I suspect you were somewhat harsh on James since I don't think he is in the class of typical religionists we see here, but then neither is he in the atheist camp.

I believe he is genuinely searching for truth and he is not about to be swayed by anything other than a very solid argument. I suspect he would fight equally hard against religionist arguments if their points were not well founded. James, is that a fair assessment?

James’s thoughtful posts do make me think and I welcome that. A debate without opposition becomes a mundane mutual appreciation society that would stagnate rapidly.

Cris

 

[Teg]

Cris

I suspect you were somewhat harsh on James since I don't think he is in the class of typical religionists we see here, but then neither is he in the atheist camp.

I was harsh for those particular reasons. He has potential for change. I take what he says seriously, perhaps to a higher degree than I should. It was merely a reactionary statement to an attack on the fundamental principles of logic. Again I hope that my passion is not taken as contempt.

A debate without opposition becomes a mundane mutual appreciation society that would stagnate rapidly.

Although I may disagree with what you say, I would die to protect your right to say it. I am with you in this category. Dissent is the true marker of honesty. When everyone agrees, something is seriously wrong. That is the difference between debate and preaching. One allows opinions to be aired and the other will crush any sign of non-conformity.

 

[Bambi]

Originally posted by James R

... Your argument fails, I think, at the first step -- the imposition of the constraints.

I do not see a problem with ascribing the quality of intelligence to God, ...

You appear to see a distinction between "imposition of the constraints" and "ascribing the quality of". The two phrases are in fact synonymous. So you end up contradicting yourself within two adjacent sentences!

I've already gone over the inherent complexity of such a concept as "intelligence". By "ascribing" this concept to a god you end up imposing that very complexity upon that god -- with all the attendant consequences.

... especially if He/She/It is supposed to be the Grand Designer.

Why "especially if"? What does such a constraint impart that would alleviate the problem?

I take issue with your requirement that a god must be based on a physical substance or substrate of some kind.

I don't know your definition of "physical", so it's hard to dispute your assessment of my "requirement". However, you won't be arguing for a god that has no substance whatsoever, would you? How could you define existence that does not involve any sort of substance? In terms of what would you shape your definition? How would you differentiate existence from nonexistence?

You are essentially constraining God to be a part of our material universe, rather than separate from it (though possibly still interacting with it).

No I'm not. That particular chore is kindly accomplished for me by all the people who ascribe material qualities to their gods.

The intelligence of God need not be based on any particular information-carrying medium. Perhaps God, existing independently of our material universe, is both the medium and the message, so to speak.

Here are another two mutually contradictory sentences. Either you accept that intelligence depends on an information-carrying medium, or you deal with it absent any such medium. Sorry, but I won't let you get away without making a choice here.

On the other hand, let's examine the speculation contained in your second sentence. An information-carrying medium accomplishes its job by maintaining states. Information, however, is idempotent with those very states. Which makes a medium primary and information secondary. As another way of seeing the issue, consider the fact that information in itself is an abstract concept. It can be implemented using all sorts of different media. A particular medium, on the other hand, is not an abstract concept. So what is a god like that is part medium and part information? Simple: it is a nonintelligent medium upon which is built an intelligent entity. Again, making intelligence secondary and in terms of universal existence spurious.

Now, you may propose merging the cause and the effect, as it were, into a single entity. Since the medium gives rise to information (which is an assymmetrical situation), then to unite the two and achieve symmetry you must have information giving rise to the medium. However information is an abstract concept and by the virtue of being abstract it cannot give rise to anything.

Another twist you may try is to propose that information can be defined singularly in terms of itself (with no need for any medium.) However, a state singularly in terms of itself is a logical impossibility -- because a state is by definition a derivative concept. A state is a description of something, and it cannot be a description of nothing. The underlying logic is simple enough to write out as a Boolean derivation:

P: description -> object (-> reads "implies")

which can also be expressed in the form,

P: !description || object (! reads "not", || reads "or")

now you propose that,

Q: description && !object (&& reads "and")

Since both P and Q are true, i.e.

P && Q

then it follows that

(!description || object) && (description && !object)

Expanding, we have

(!description && (description && !object)) || (object && (description && !object))

Reorganizing the parentheses, we have

((!description && description) && !object) || ((object && !object) && description)

gradually simplifying, we end up with

(&lt;false&gt; && !object) || (&lt;false&gt; && description)

&lt;false&gt; || &lt;false&gt;

&lt;false&gt;

Which is a sure indicator that the notion of defining information in terms of itself is a logical contradiction.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Bebelina
By the way, where´s Tony1 ? He´s missing this great moment. I now have made 666 posts! And of course I must post the devilish number in the religion forum. *

What devilish number?
666 is the number of a man.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
(Revelation 13:18, KJV).

*Originally posted by Teg
So you are saying that we should end our life because we don't have an afterlife? I hope now you realize your mistake.*

What mistake?
If there is no resurrection and no eternal judgment, it couldn't possibly BE a mistake.
How would you ever know?

*Originally posted by tetra
If this life is only mortal and the life after it is filled with glory and happiness, why not kill yourself now and get this mortal life over with?*

The rewards.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
(Matthew 5:11,12, KJV).

*Originally posted by Bebelina
They will just get pleasantly surprised when they die, that´s all.*

You call getting thrown in the lake of fire, a pleasant surprise?
You ARE different.

*Just shows when things go wrong...how much pain fanatism can cause to innocent people.*

Most people are simply unaware of the existence of religious demons.

*Originally posted by Cris
Loone,
You are absolutely correct -
"Only the fool says in his heart: There is no god --
But the wise says it to the world"*

You may have misunderstood what he was getting at.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
(1 Corinthians 1:19, KJV).

*Originally posted by Bambi
However, you won't be arguing for a god that has no substance whatsoever, would you? How could you define existence that does not involve any sort of substance?*

He did say "physical" substance.
There could be other substances, and the absence of proof of such is not proof of absence of such.

 

[Bambi]

Originally posted by tony1

Originally posted by Bambi
However, you won't be arguing for a god that has no substance whatsoever, would you? How could you define existence that does not involve any sort of substance?*

He did say "physical" substance.
There could be other substances, and the absence of proof of such is not proof of absence of such.

You both must have missed the following snippet from a preceding post of mine:

Note how such a characterization of the basic requirement for existence of information does not demand that the information be carried either by matter or by anything detected to date by science. However, it does demand that a fundamental medium exist -- whatever it is -- that is capable of carrying information.

Now if that is a "physical" concept, then I'm curious to discover a "nonphysical" alternative that would make logical sense. Maybe you could help me with that.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Bambi
Now if that is a "physical" concept, then I'm curious to discover a "nonphysical" alternative that would make logical sense. Maybe you could help me with that. *

Well, I am glad that we are making some progress.
You do at least admit to the possibility that there are things that science has not yet discovered.

Presumably, you are aware of Gödel's Theorem, and the impact it should have on your thinking?

Anyway, your question about a non-physical alternative that would make logical sense, cannot be answered due to your highly limited understanding of logical sense, and of alternatives.

 

[Sir. Loone]

World Wide Web!

Originally posted by Cris
Loone,

You are absolutely correct -The Holy Bible is! Correct!

"Only the fool says in his heart: There is no god --

But the wise says it to the world"

You and others on this forum are of the world! (W.F.D)
Romans 1:22 KJV.: "Professing themselves to be 'wise', they became fools-."

JE'SUS IS ALIVE AND WELL! JE'SUS SAVES! ASK JE'SUS!

 

[Dracula's Guest]

Is Sir Loone taking the piss?

 

[Avatar]

I REALLY HAVE NO IDEA

Sir. Loone
02-10-02 11:42 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]


OKOK, so I took a look. Usual preaching, but today with a bit of panic in his vioce