What are the conflicts between atheism and science?

[Rav]

But why this fixation on Christianity? Why not try with Islam or Hinduism?
If nothing else, you'll get a better picture of what theism can be like, and then you really will be closer to having considered theism at length, given that considering things at length is one of your principles.

It's not me who is fixated on Christianity, it's everyone around me. Even in these forums you can't say the word "God" without people automatically assuming you are talking about the Christian God. That has caused me difficulty on more than one occasion. In any case because that is what people are typically discussing wherever you turn it's what you become the most well versed in.

The question of God is a philosophical consideration, not a religious one. That might seem a strange thing to say but I'm simply pointing out that there is a difference between embracing a particular religion as a way of life and examining the different conceptualizations of God presented in those religions. I'm only interested in doing that latter and have already done so. So although I can't speak as intelligently about the intricacies of the moral and philosophical systems of other religions as I can about those of Christianity, I do understand the different concepts of God presented quite well. If someone started a thread about Brahman I'm sure I'd have something to say about that concept as well. But how often do see that happen around here?

 

[wynn]

It's not me who is fixated on Christianity, it's everyone around me. Even in these forums you can't say the word "God" without people automatically assuming you are talking about the Christian God. That has caused me difficulty on more than one occasion. In any case because that is what people are typically discussing wherever you turn it's what you become the most well versed in.

The question of God is a philosophical consideration, not a religious one. That might seem a strange thing to say but I'm simply pointing out that there is a difference between embracing a particular religion as a way of life and examining the different conceptualizations of God presented in those religions. I'm only interested in doing that latter and have already done so. So although I can't speak as intelligently about the intricacies of the moral and philosophical systems of other religions as I can about those of Christianity, I do understand the different concepts of God presented quite well. If someone started a thread about Brahman I'm sure I'd have something to say about that concept as well. But how often do see that happen around here?

Sorry to be so blunt - but what you're saying above speaks of a rather lazy attitude.
If you're seriously interested in God, then you'll move beyond the provincialism of some online forum or your immediate society.
IOW, don't just wait for something to happen, make it happen.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SciWriter,

Jan, wider learning makes for more knowledge and wider choices.

Then you should out get more.

If one has become immune to this in some area, such as a form belief in the supernatural, one may even often respond with “What, huh?” or “And?” instead of what you say getting into what is being said and continuing on with it.

People may respond to you in this manner, because some of what you say is nonsense.

This shows a resistance or at least a gloss-over of neglect, for it is hard to overcome the emotion of belief.

And here''s a good example.
What are you talking about?

That is how wishes, love or hate can get in the way, for they alone can’t produce truth, but rather sway and stack the ‘results’ to just what one so badly wants.

Do you mean supernatural wishes, or mental affirmations?
What do these particles of wishes, love, and hate, get in the way of?

It’s OK that there is no instant purpose to be found. It’s freedom, but, again, too, that was not the aim, but the unbiased result that came out.

Glad we cleared that up.

jan.

 

[Rav]

Sorry to be so blunt - but what you're saying above speaks of a rather lazy attitude.
If you're seriously interested in God, then you'll move beyond the provincialism of some online forum or your immediate society.
IOW, don't just wait for something to happen, make it happen.

I've been sitting here for a couple of minutes trying to work out that hell you are talking about, and I can't. I don't think you even know. The only way this can possibly make sense is if I assume that you think I should spend the next 10 years doing nothing else but studying and practicing every religion in the world. But that can't be what you meant because it's completely absurd, and it's beyond unlikely that you've done it yourself. Because I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a hypocrite, we are back to the fact that what you're saying doesn't make any sense.

Or is it simply that you wanted to try to offend me?

Would you mind clarifying?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

Are you an educated mind?

My mind is not "closed" to any possibility. I entertain all manner of ideas about many things all the time, including ideas about God. How could I legitimately say that I do not believe in something if I haven't considered it at length?

What do you mean by ''entertain''?

I've probably studied more about Christian theology than most Christians.

What say you of it's essential character, the meaning behind his teaching?

In fact if you dig though my post history (not that I expect you to) you'll find occasions where I defend the rational integrity of certain Christian theological concepts, including the existence of God himself.

Very nice.

Sometimes I'm playing devil's advocate and other times I just get sick of the ridiculous arguments that religious people often make and decide to inject some betters ones for people to do with whatever they want.

Do you feel superior to religious people?

But being open minded doesn't mean that you shouldn't draw any conclusions about anything. Being open-minded is about being open to revising your beliefs when circumstances warrant it.

Would you say you have exhibited open-mindedness, in our discussion?

In my life I've gone from atheist to theist to atheist. That all happened in the space of a few years when I was much younger.

Is that a good thing?

Since then I've acquired a wealth of scientific and philosophical knowledge and at this point I can find no compelling rational reason to accept the existence of a supernatural personal creator.

''At this time''?
How is time a factor?

Perhaps if we always encountered some kind of gaping hole that couldn't be filled with a logical metaphysical extrapolation built upon the foundation of physics then I might consider it to be a real possibility. But it is perfectly possible to formulate a consistent view of reality without invoking magical ideas.

Rav, thanks for these insights, but they say nothing about you, or how you have arrived at your conclusion.
In order to come to a conclusion, I would imagine that an educated mind, such as the one described by Aristotle, would have given thought to possible ways that God may exist.
I'm pretty sure he would not use terms like ''magical ideas''. Is it possible that you used that term to score points, give justification to your mindset, or, you really believe that the concept of God is nothing more than the acts of a magician.
What possible ways of God's existence have you given thought to?
And how have they played a role in your dismissal of God (at this time)?

thanks
jan.

 

[Rav]

Are you an educated mind?

Compared to who? In what area of knowledge? I guess we'd have to ask Aristotle himself who he had in mind when he said it. But I think it's probably safe to say that he was referring to people who have acquired at least some knowledge of a broad array of subjects and have learned of the usefulness of applying rational principles of investigation to evaluate that knowledge. If we're going by that definition then sure, I'm educated. More than some, less than others. It really depends on what we're talking about. But I am certainly educated enough to participate in the current discussion.

What do you mean by ''entertain''?

Like when you entertain a guest. You invite them in and you give them your attention.

What say you of it's essential character, the meaning behind his teaching?

The teachings of Jesus? Well, it's a bit hard to condense that down to a short response but I'll give it a shot anyway.

God loves us so much that he sacrificed his only son so that we could come to know him directly. All he wants is for us to love him back. It's the simplest and most fundamental thing about Christianity. Love.

Many many years ago I read a book called "The Divine Romance". I don't remember the name of the author anymore. But it makes the point that in the beginning every creature that God created had a counterpart; a male and female version. But when God created Adam he was not content. God just couldn't find a companion for him that he was happy with. So when Adam was sleeping God fashioned Eve out of one of his ribs and when she was presented to him Adam was finally happy. He now had his counterpart too.

The book seeks to answer one of the most fundamental philosophical questions about Christianity: Why did God bother with the act of creation in the first place? The book argues that God simply wanted his counterpart as well; that like Adam he was incomplete. Just like woman came out of man and both were destined to become one again, man is destined to become one with God for that where man came from. It's all about love.

Do you feel superior to religious people?

Superior in what way? I certainly sometimes feel that I have more rational arguments to offer, but in the end I don't think that it is typically my place to judge the overall "worth" of a person.

Would you say you have exhibited open-mindedness, in our discussion?

If I were to encounter a sufficiently compelling argument here to warrant a revision of my beliefs then I would indeed revise them. You wouldn't see an exhibition of that however unless you presented such an argument.

Is that a good thing?

Absolutely. Theists don't have a monopoly on happiness you know. But I'm not going to bore everyone with a long-winded description of everything that I think is awesome about being alive. That is, perhaps, for another discussion.

''At this time''?
How is time a factor?

I was being open-minded; leaving room for the possibility that new information might come to light that could alter my thinking.

Rav, thanks for these insights, but they say nothing about you, or how you have arrived at your conclusion.
In order to come to a conclusion, I would imagine that an educated mind, such as the one described by Aristotle, would have given thought to possible ways that God may exist.

I guess you must have decided to ignore the part when I said that I had. Or perhaps you think I'm making it up in order to generate false credibility.

I'm pretty sure he would not use terms like ''magical ideas''. Is it possible that you used that term to score points, give justification to your mindset, or, you really believe that the concept of God is nothing more than the acts of a magician.

Theists typically believe that God is supernatural; that he has "powers" that go way beyond mere physics. Magic can be defined in many ways, but the following definition is close to what I meant: "any extraordinary or mystical influence, charm, power" (from www.dictionary.com)

What possible ways of God's existence have you given thought to?
And how have they played a role in your dismissal of God (at this time)?

I don't think you realize just what providing a comprehensive answer to this question would entail and that's probably because you don't believe me when I say I have considered such things at length. I don't just toy with basic ideas, I really am ridiculously philosophical. I'll obsesses for days over certain things and explore a multitude of subtleties. I've just always been like that. There's just not room to get into it all in this thread. But I'll tell you what. If you want to start a new thread in the religion forum and solicit contributions from people about possible conceptions of God, I might feel inclined to contribute something. But somehow it's probably going to end up feeling like I'm only doing it to prove to you that I'm not full of shit and to be honest that doesn't provide me much motivation.

Let's remember that atheists are not the ones making the incredible claims.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Tried this, doesn't work.

If that is the case, just go with your heart.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Compared to who?

Does there need to be a comparison?

In what area of knowledge?

''areas of knowledge''?
All areas of knowledge serve the purpose of understanding as a whole, I would have thought, hence ''..an educated mind'' as opposed an educated person.

I guess we'd have to ask Aristotle himself who he had in mind when he said it.

Either that or work it out for ourselves, as time is short.

But I think it's probably safe to say that he was referring to people who have acquired at least some knowledge of a broad array of subjects and have learned of the usefulness of applying rational principles of investigation to evaluate that knowledge.

Sounds a bit too cyclical for me.
Learn knowledge in order to apply rational principles of investigation to evaluate that knowledge?

If we're going by that definition then sure, I'm educated. More than some, less than others. It really depends on what we're talking about. But I am certainly educated enough to participate in the current discussion.

I've no doubt that you are.

Like when you entertain a guest. You invite them in and you give them your attention.

I see.
You apply lip service.

God loves us so much that he sacrificed his only son so that we could come to know him directly. All he wants is for us to love him back. It's the simplest and most fundamental thing about Christianity. Love.

What do you see in your mind when you use the term God, in this way?
Do you equate it to ordinary relationships?

The teachings of Jesus? Well, it's a bit hard to condense that down to a short response but I'll give
Many many years ago I read a book called "The Divine Romance". I don't remember the name of the author anymore. But it makes the point that in the beginning every creature that God created had a counterpart; a male and female version. But when God created Adam he was not content. God just couldn't find a companion for him that he was happy with. So when Adam was sleeping God fashioned Eve out of one of his ribs and when she was presented to him Adam was finally happy. He now had his counterpart too.

The book seeks to answer one of the most fundamental philosophical questions about Christianity: Why did God bother with the act of creation in the first place? The book argues that God simply wanted his counterpart as well; that like Adam he was incomplete. Just like woman came out of man and both were destined to become one again, man is destined to become one with God for that where man came from. It's all about love.

Hmm, interesting.
When's the movie coming out?

Superior in what way?

As in ''better than'', or, of more worth to the human race.

I certainly sometimes feel that I have more rational arguments to offer, but in the end I don't think that it is typically my place to judge the overall "worth" of a person.

Would you rather a world where God was not even a concept or idea, where
everyone were ''rational'' atheists?

If I were to encounter a sufficiently compelling argument here to warrant a revision of my beliefs then I would indeed revise them. You wouldn't see an exhibition of that however unless you presented such an argument.

I suppose the evidence that would support the fact of whether or not you had been engaged in a compelling argument would be the degree to which you would respond to points. A compelling argument would create less of a counteractive response.

I was being open-minded; leaving room for the possibility that new information might come to light that could alter my thinking.

You can purposely compartmentalise your mind like that?
From the point of view of physical reality, all information alters mind I would have thought.

I guess you must have decided to ignore the part when I said that I had. Or perhaps you think I'm making it up in order to generate false credibility.

It must have escaped my attention

Theists typically believe that God is supernatural; that he has "powers" that go way beyond mere physics.

Do you think my conception, and, hypothesis, has a supernatural basis?

Magic can be defined in many ways, but the following definition is close to what I meant: "any extraordinary or mystical influence, charm, power" (from www.dictionary.com)

Can you give an idea of what you constitute as ''magic'' regarding God's power?

Let's remember that atheists are not the ones making the incredible claims.

You're not kidding are you?

jan.

 

[wynn]

If that is the case, just go with your heart.

:wallbang::wallbang::wallbang:

If I were sure what my "heart" is and that it is a good thing to follow, I'd have done that long ago, don't you think?

 

[wynn]

I've been sitting here for a couple of minutes trying to work out that hell you are talking about, and I can't. I don't think you even know. The only way this can possibly make sense is if I assume that you think I should spend the next 10 years doing nothing else but studying and practicing every religion in the world. But that can't be what you meant because it's completely absurd, and it's beyond unlikely that you've done it yourself. Because I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a hypocrite, we are back to the fact that what you're saying doesn't make any sense.

Or is it simply that you wanted to try to offend me?

Would you mind clarifying?

You said:

It's not me who is fixated on Christianity, it's everyone around me. Even in these forums you can't say the word "God" without people automatically assuming you are talking about the Christian God. That has caused me difficulty on more than one occasion. In any case because that is what people are typically discussing wherever you turn it's what you become the most well versed in.

The question of God is a philosophical consideration, not a religious one. That might seem a strange thing to say but I'm simply pointing out that there is a difference between embracing a particular religion as a way of life and examining the different conceptualizations of God presented in those religions. I'm only interested in doing that latter and have already done so. So although I can't speak as intelligently about the intricacies of the moral and philosophical systems of other religions as I can about those of Christianity, I do understand the different concepts of God presented quite well. If someone started a thread about Brahman I'm sure I'd have something to say about that concept as well. But how often do see that happen around here?

To which I replied:

Sorry to be so blunt - but what you're saying above speaks of a rather lazy attitude.
If you're seriously interested in God, then you'll move beyond the provincialism of some online forum or your immediate society.
IOW, don't just wait for something to happen, make it happen.

Waiting for others (such as a forum audience) to make the first move (by starting threads) and only then "examining the different conceptualizations of God presented in those religions" (but mainly Christianity, because it is Christianity that is most discussed in online forums) is a lazy attitude.

If "examining the different conceptualizations of God presented in those religions" is what you are really after, then start new threads for that, from different viewpoints, beyond Christianity, for example.

If I would think myself so rational as you and be so interested in "examining the different conceptualizations of God presented in those religions", I'd go from church to temple from one week to the next and engage the people there in discussion and debate. That ought to be fun!

Sitting on one's ass thinking oneself "rational" and declaring to be interested in "examining the different conceptualizations of God presented in those religions" is ... well ... akin to the scene in the picture I posted earlier in this thread.

 

[Rav]

I see.
You apply lip service.

No. That's not what I said. When people drop by I stop whatever else I am doing and devote some time to them.

What do you see in your mind when you use the term God, in this way?
Do you equate it to ordinary relationships?

Yes and no. Believers feel connected to their God. They share intimate parts of themselves with him through prayer and feel that God speaks back to them in a number of different ways in their lives. In that sense the relationship is very real. But the dynamics are still somewhat different from that of a normal relationship between two people.

Would you rather a world where God was not even a concept or idea, where everyone were ''rational'' atheists?

Actually, no. Belief in God enriches the lives of many people. It gives them hope and a sense of security. Some people would no doubt struggle to find this type of contentedness any other way.

I suppose the evidence that would support the fact of whether or not you had been engaged in a compelling argument would be the degree to which you would respond to points. A compelling argument would create less of a counteractive response.

There's a difference between a compelling argument that would force me to reevaluate my position and a discussion that holds my interest.

You can purposely compartmentalise your mind like that?
From the point of view of physical reality, all information alters mind I would have thought.

I think you're over-complicating that one. All I meant was what I said.

Do you think my conception, and, hypothesis, has a supernatural basis?

If your conception of God is that he is beyond physical reality and that he created the universe via some kind of intangible means, then of course.

Can you give an idea of what you constitute as ''magic'' regarding God's power?

If he's not physically real, then the entire concept is magical and by extension absolutely everything he supposedly does.

You're not kidding are you?

Not at all.

 

[Rav]

Waiting for others (such as a forum audience) to make the first move (by starting threads) and only then "examining the different conceptualizations of God presented in those religions" (but mainly Christianity, because it is Christianity that is most discussed in online forums) is a lazy attitude.

I understand now. You somehow got the impression that the only examination I've ever performed is in response to forum posts. But I'm not sure how. In any case, allow me to correct you. I've been examining such things since long before most people had even heard of the internet. Back in the good old days it was all about reading books and real face to face discussions. These days it's simply both.

If "examining the different conceptualizations of God presented in those religions" is what you are really after, then start new threads for that, from different viewpoints, beyond Christianity, for example.

Again, you've somehow interpreted my comments to mean that I really really want to be always discussing different ideas about God (and somehow also reached the conclusion that for some bizarre reason it never occurred to me to start my own thread).

Sitting on one's ass thinking oneself "rational" and declaring to be interested in "examining the different conceptualizations of God presented in those religions" is ... well ... akin to the scene in the picture I posted earlier in this thread.

I'm still trying to figure out how you derived all of this bullshit from my previous comments. You're so far off base it's actually quite perplexing. Seriously.

 

[wynn]

I'm still trying to figure out how you derived all of this bullshit from my previous comments. You're so far off base it's actually quite perplexing. Seriously.

Great if I'm wrong, but you did sound like a victim.

 

[Rav]

Great if I'm wrong, but you did sound like a victim.

Possibly because I was responding to Jan's accusation that I was closed-minded. That was the point at which you picked up the thread of our conversation. I simply decided to highlight some things that I felt demonstrated that I wasn't, including my willingness to properly entertain various ideas relating to the existence of God.

 

[wynn]

Possibly because I was responding to Jan's accusation that I was closed-minded. That was the point at which you picked up the thread of our conversation.


I simply decided to highlight some things that I felt demonstrated that I wasn't, including my willingness to properly entertain various ideas relating to the existence of God.

Oh.
A bit of advice: If another person accuses you of something, it is their business to prove it.

There are some accusations which, if one tried to clear one's name of them, only make one appear guilty of them. Such as "liar", "stupid", "insane" and whatever else is in that range.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Yes and no. Believers feel connected to their God. They share intimate parts of themselves with him through prayer and feel that God speaks back them in a number of different ways in their lives. In that sense the relationship is very real. But the dynamics are still somewhat different from that of a normal relationship between two people.

How about the first question;
What do you see in your mind when you use the term God, in this way?

Actually, no. Belief in God enriches the lives of many people. It gives them hope and a sense of security. Some people would no doubt struggle to find this type of contentedness any other way.

So anything that gives hope and security to folks, is okay with you?
Is that the only reason we believe in God, do you think?

There's a difference between a compelling argument that would force me to reevaluate my position and a discussion that holds my interest.

So you already have an idea of what such an argument would entail?
Are you able to make up your mind upon knowledge of the subject matter?

I think you're over-complicating that one. All I meant was what I said.

you said;

I was being open-minded; leaving room for the possibility that new information might come to light that could alter my thinking.

How is it possible to ''leave room'' in your mind, in case something could alter your thinking? I would have thought anything can alter your thinking, whether you like it or not.
It just seems very controlled to me.

If your conception of God is that he is beyond physical reality and that he created the universe via some kind of intangible means, then of course.

Did you read my conception?

God is complete reality.
This reality is comprised of His energies which are:
consciouness (spiritual)
marginal (spiritual mixed with physical)
physical (mundane).
He is eternal, He is a person, He has innumerable forms, and names.
He is cause/source of the material worlds.

Would you describe this concept as beyond physical reality?
What would you say was intagible about the hypothesis I gave at your request?

If he's not physically real, then the entire concept is magical and by extension absolutely everything he supposedly does.

Physical reality is more than we can see. Agreed?

Not at all.

I was pulling your leg.
But atheists do make incredible claims.
The universe just popping into existence being the main one.

jan.

 

[Rav]

If another person accuses you of something, it is their business to prove it.

I do of course agree with that. But in this case it is simply anonymity that is to blame. Sometimes all that is required for people to get a better idea of where someone else is coming from is additional information. That way any future judgments are more informed and (hopefully) more accurate.

 

[Rav]

How about the first question;
What do you see in your mind when you use the term God, in this way?

I typically think of God the way that I think most theists think of him; as some kind of all-powerful all-knowing unphysical entity that exists outside of time and space. Do you think that's basically the same conceptualization that most theists have?

So anything that gives hope and security to folks, is okay with you?
Is that the only reason we believe in God, do you think?

Sure, it's OK with me. Outside of situations where people desire to debate religion, I'm happy to leave theists to their own devices. Whatever makes them happy. But yes, I think the only reason they believe in God is because it gives meaning and purpose to their lives. But I'm not saying that I think that is the only reason that they think they believe.

So you already have an idea of what such an argument would entail?
Are you able to make up your mind upon knowledge of the subject matter?

To be perfectly honest I think I have better arguments to support the existence of God than most theists I encounter. But even they don't convince me. But to be fair I should admit that many of the more complex and interesting arguments that I have floating around in my mind derive from the work of some of the more rational and intelligent Christian apologists (such as C.S. Lewis) and philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga.

How is it possible to ''leave room'' in your mind, in case something could alter your thinking? I would have thought anything can alter your thinking, whether you like it or not.
It just seems very controlled to me.

It is certainly true that anything at any time might influence my thinking (and often does). Both things are true.

God is complete reality.
This reality is comprised of His energies which are:
consciouness (spiritual)
marginal (spiritual mixed with physical)
physical (mundane).
He is eternal, He is a person, He has innumerable forms, and names.
He is cause/source of the material worlds.

Would you describe this concept as beyond physical reality?
What would you say was intagible about the hypothesis I gave at your request?

Everything you've listed is intangible with the exception of physical reality of course. But that isn't the point of contention here. The assertion that it was created by or is an extension of a supernatural God is.

Physical reality is more than we can see. Agreed?

More than we can see with just our eyes, yes. But every single thing that we've ever found that we couldn't see with our eyes we have been able to detect using various technologies that we've developed for that purpose.

I was pulling your leg.
But atheists do make incredible claims.
The universe just popping into existence being the main one.

Some atheists seem to make such claims, yes, and I think claims like that are just as ridiculous as you probably do. I believe that the concept of an eternal physical reality is the only thing that makes any kind of logical sense at all and there has been much discussion about it in these very forums (and even in this very thread). SciWriter has a very poetic style of writing but I believe he sums up the essence of such an idea beautifully (in fact he tends to cause me to become even more intrigued by the mechanics of it all).

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

I typically think of God the way...
..as some kind of all-powerful all-knowing unphysical entity that exists outside of time and space.

Is this what you see when you read this?;

''God loves us so much that he sacrificed his only son so that we could come to know him directly. All he wants is for us to love him back.''

Do you think that's basically the same conceptualization that most theists have?

I don't know, as I don't have access to the minds of most thests.
I would try and understand the essential point of that quote, by trying to understand what it means. Seeing how it plays out in my perception of reality. Each step toward understanding rewards me with a greater apreciation of God.

Sure, it's OK with me. Outside of situations where people desire o debate religion, I'm happy to leave theists to their own devices.

What do you mean by this?

Everything you've listed is intangible with the exception of physical reality of course.

That would mean physical reality is either responsible for it's own coming into being, or physical reality is eternal and need no begining. Where are these ideas anymore tangable?

But that isn't the point of contention here. The assertion that it was created by or is an extension of a supernatural God is.

How was my hypothesis supernatural given the nature of my conception of consciousness?

More than we can see with just our eyes, yes. But every single thing that we've ever found that we couldn't see with our eyes we have been able to detect using various technologies that we've developed for that purpose.

So you're saying everything we've detected, we've detected.
But we haven't detected everything such as imagination or consciousness.
We can understand that they exist,, and we can even speculate as to what they are, but that's all.

I believe that the concept of an eternal physical reality is the only thing that makes any kind of logical sense at all and there has been much discussion about it in these very forums (and even in this very thread) about it. SciWriter has a very poetic style of writing but I believe he sums up the essence of such an idea beautifully (in fact he tends to cause me to become even more intrigued by the mechanics of it all).

He cannot account for consciousness, or it's superiority. IE, without it, nothing exists. Yet, he, and you claim things exist without consciousness.
That make no sense.

jan.

 

[Rav]

Is this what you see when you read this?;

''God loves us so much that he sacrificed his only son so that we could come to know him directly. All he wants is for us to love him back.''

Let's merge them:

"God is an all-powerful all-knowing unphysical entity that exists outside of time and space who loves us so much that he sacrificed his only son so that we could come to know him directly. All he wants is for us to love him back."

But surely you realize that understanding the fundamentals of a particular faith doesn't automatically make someone a believer? It doesn't count as evidence to me. Even if you could describe God in such a hauntingly beautiful way that it could bring tears to my eyes, it would only be evidence of your eloquence and not of his existence.

What do you mean by this?

Yes, "anything that gives hope and security to folks" is OK with me.

That would mean physical reality is either responsible for it's own coming into being, or physical reality is eternal and need no begining. Where are these ideas anymore tangable?

The idea of an eternal physical reality is more tangible because it doesn't need to invoke the intangible.

How was my hypothesis supernatural given the nature of my conception of consciousness?

I find myself trying to guess exactly what you're getting at here so if you could clarify that would be great.

So you're saying everything we've detected, we've detected.
But we haven't detected everything such as imagination or consciousness.
We can understand that they exist,, and we can even speculate as to what they are, but that's all.

I'll refer to my previous comments on this:

No matter what you're doing, or what you're thinking or feeling, we can measure the activity going on in the brain that is responsible for that. Hell, we can even decode images out of brain waves these days, and we're getting better at it all the time.

I know you believe that consciousness is an unphysical dimension of reality, but I don't believe that to be the case. Consciousness can be altered, diminished or even destroyed by physical interactions (or lack thereof) in the brain. It is unquestionably physical, regardless of how it might seem. I don't have a problem with the suggestion that some aspect of consciousness could be closer in essence to energy rather than matter but energy is still physical.

He cannot account for consciousness

Nobody can account for unphysical consciousness. But physical consciousness; the human brain? Quite a bit less problematic.

or it's superiority''. IE, without it, nothing exists. Yet, he, and you claim things exist without consciousness.
That make no sense.

Really I think this is inextricably linked to the idea that reality is meaningless unless there is someone around to experience it. Or perhaps it is simply that you, like many people, can't possibly imagine not existing. Whatever the case may be, we're faced with two possibilities. One of them is to invoke a supernatural being to explain it all and the other is to accept that maybe we're not as critically important to the functioning of the universe as we might like to think we are. That doesn't make your own existence any less amazing, but it does make it much more consistent with what we already know about the universe.