What are the conflicts between atheism and science?

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

If physical reality is also the opposite of nothing (which you could certainly argue that it is)

How is something that is temporary, reality?

..then God and physical reality are the same thing. But is that really what you meant to imply?

If God and physical reality are the same thing, then nothing is the ultimate creator, as physical reality is temporary, but yet, here we are.
But nothing can't really exist. So what exactly are you saying?

Consciousness is a feature of physical reality.
It emerges from a complex architecture of electrical and chemical signaling in the brain.
There *may* even be a quantum aspect (or at least influence) but even the quantum world is physical.

You've described it as a, feature.
You've remarked that it emerges.
But what is it?
Is it either something or nothing?

jan.

 

[Rav]

but that is exactly why science claims there is no god, because they can't measure him.they keep saying give us something to measure and we will believe (forget the fact that if they measured god, they would not need to believe,for it would be known.)

Scientists would jump at the chance to finally be able to measure God, but that's not what this is about. I was challenging your assertion that he's not physical. Again, compare him to nothing, and tell me what's different.

 

[SciWriter]

Consciousness is seen to be a brain process, and so it is real.

Jan, everything isn't temporary, if nothing cannot be.

We lifeforms are temporary, enjoying our little parentheses of life within eternity.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I was challenging your assertion that he's not physical. Again, compare him to nothing, and tell me what's different.

i am gonna follow jan's example and dodge this question..
(IOW i don't know)

 

[Jan Ardena]

NM,

Okay, here's one for you.

God is pure unadulterated consciousness, the underlying principle cause of the material world.

jan.

 

[gmilam]

they keep saying give us something to measure and we will believe (forget the fact that if they measured god, they would not need to believe,for it would be known.)

Why's it so important to believe? Why does he/she/it care if we believe?

 

[Rav]

How is something that is temporary, reality?

First of all I believe that physical reality is eternal but I'm not going to push that idea because I can't prove it. It's been discussed at length on this forum and there are compelling arguments to support it but that's all they are; arguments.

But to answer your question, physical reality is all around us. We can see it, measure it, divine the laws that govern it and make predictions about it that are later experimentally verified. It's completely absurd to suggest that this isn't reality.

If God and physical reality are the same thing, then nothing is the ultimate creator, as physical reality is temporary, but yet, here we are.
But nothing can't really exist. So what exactly are you saying?

You should be getting your bearings here from the context of my discussion with squirrel which you chose to engage in. I was challenging his belief that God is not physical. My argument is, without making any statements about the existence or non-existence of God myself, is that if he does exist, he must be physical.

You've described it as a, feature.
You've remarked that it emerges.
But what is it?
Is it either something or nothing?

I believe I was quite clearly arguing that it was something. Something about the fact that I kept relating it physical phenomena maybe?

 

[SciWriter]

God is pure unadulterated consciousness…

Consciousness doesn't float around by itself; it comes from a brain, and it comes last, not first. Nor can brains be fundamental (first before all).

3 steps off. All off.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Consciousness is seen to be a brain process, and so it is real.

Jan, everything isn't temporary, if nothing cannot be.

We lifeforms are temporary, enjoying our little parentheses of life within eternity.

I look at an chair, the brain processes the signal, and interprets that object as a chair. Or something like that. Right?

I understand that the object I take for a chair, is in reality, a load of vibrating particles (atoms) . Okay?

If the brain is not only the processor, but the seat of understanding, why doesn't it just process the vibrating particles? What's the point of the chair?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

First of all I believe that physical reality is eternal but I'm not going to push that idea because I can't prove it.

Something must be eternal, or else, nothing exists.
But how can we prove it?
The eternal can ony speak for the eternal.
It's funny how we have notions of the eternal, yet we are temporary.

But to answer your question, physical reality is all around us.
We can see it, measure it, divine the laws that govern it and make predictions about it that are later experimentally verified. It's completely absurd to suggest that this isn't reality.

I'm not suggesting that physical reality isn't real, i'm implying that physical reality is 'a reality'. You, I, and everyone here is a part of the reality. But we are all going to cease to exist at some point in time, so does that mean physical reality will also cease to exist at the end of it's time.
Now we come back to the question of reality. What is it, if it's not eternal.
If it's eternal, then what is it's relationship to physical reality?

You should be getting your bearings here from the context of my discussion with squirrel which you chose to engage in.

But it's such a nice topic though.

I was challenging his belief that God is not physical. My argument is, without making any statements about the existence or non-existence of God myself, is that if he does exist, he must be physical.

Then the physical reality, to you, is what God is for me.

jan.

 

[Rav]

If the brain is not only the processor, but the seat of understanding, why doesn't it just process the vibrating particles? What's the point of the chair?

It processes the image because that's the only information that is available to us from a distance. The brain then retrieves stored information relating to that image.

 

[SciWriter]

Because the 'chair' is there, the seat of sitting down.

 

[Rav]

Something must be eternal, or else, nothing exists.
But how can we prove it?
The eternal can ony speak for the eternal.
It's funny how we have notions of the eternal, yet we are temporary.

The closest we can come to proving it is a simple logical examination of the concept of nothingness which inevitably leads us to the conclusion that nothingness is an impossibility. There must therefore always be something. Unfortunately, as simple and as fundamental as this is, not everyone gets it right away. SciWriter is quite fond of pointing this out every opportunity he gets and why not? He's correct.

Now we come back to the question of reality. What is it, if it's not eternal. If it's eternal, then what is it's relationship to physical reality?

Physical reality is what is eternal; what must always exist; what can't possibly not exist. Without physical reality there would be nothing, and nothing simply can not "be".

Then the physical reality, to you, is what God is for me.

How reconciliatory of you

God is pure unadulterated consciousness, the underlying principle cause of the material world.

If you are talking about an unphysical consciousness as I believe you are then how is that different from nothing?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sci,

You wouldn't describe it as a chair at a sub-atomic particle level, would you?
I know you said "at a distance" Rav, but reality cannot be different things.
We should know that it is a chair, from any distance, because the reality states that is a chair (according to your view).

We know that in another reality, it's not a chair, because it would not be processed in that way. So what part does the brain play in that understanding? Does it process the information? Or does it provide the knowledge as well?

jan.
.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Physical reality is what is eternal; what must always exist; what can't possibly not exist. Without physical reality there would be nothing, and nothing simply can not "be".

Physical reality is eternal

I am physical reality
I am not eternal
Physical reality is not eternal

If you are talking about an unphysical consciousness as I believe you are then how is that different from nothing?

i

Physical reality is a product of brain activety.
I experience it through my senses, and the brain feeds me the reaction.
I know that what I percieve, can be understood on different levels, yet the brain still performs the same task.
I regard that awarness as consciousness.
I have a certain amount of control over this existence, and I can choose to do what I want, within the limitation of my aparatus. And I can dream, or imagine way beyond the limitations.
I simply believe there is a source.

And by your reasoning that should be correct, because I am part and parcel of physcial reality which includes mind, and thoughts.

jan.

 

[SciWriter]

Sci,

You wouldn't describe it as a chair at a sub-atomic particle level, would you?
I know you said "at a distance" Rav, but reality cannot be different things.
We should know that it is a chair, from any distance, because the reality states that is a chair (according to your view).

We know that in another reality, it's not a chair, because it would not be processed in that way. So what part does the brain play in that understanding? Does it process the information? Or does it provide the knowledge as well?

jan.
.

Photons come into the eyes from the chair, and the brain's visual systems pick on the direction from which they came, their angles, and what serves as intensity, color, brightness, texture and all that data, matching it to what qualifies as a chair, versus, say, a stool, and paints an even finer and more useful reality upon it. Then we sit on it and post at SciForum or eat a meal. The right brain sees it as a whole, but the left brain can hone in on its details.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Photons come into the eyes from the chair, and the brain's visual systems pick on the direction from which they came, their angles, and what serves as intensity, color, brightness, texture and all that data,

not to sidetrack too much..i have heard that gamma radiation from distant supernova's if it were to pass through the receptors in the eye just right,we may be able to see them, albeit for less than a microsecond, but we would see the flash, pry to quick and too rare to be able to identify anything as such..

 

[SciWriter]

I think the eyes can detect as little as 3-5 photons in the visual range of the spectrum.

 

[wynn]

I look at an chair, the brain processes the signal, and interprets that object as a chair. Or something like that. Right?

I understand that the object I take for a chair, is in reality, a load of vibrating particles (atoms) . Okay?

If the brain is not only the processor, but the seat of understanding, why doesn't it just process the vibrating particles? What's the point of the chair?

Touche!

 

[wynn]

Because the 'chair' is there, the seat of sitting down.

As I was sitting in my chair,
I knew the bottom wasn't there,
nor legs nor back,
but I just sat,
ignoring little things like that.