Jan, I didn't see any refutation to my 3-part posts, just more presumption of God, which can't go anywhere from assumption… in light of my disproof and also of your lack of proof, so, …dead in the water that you must now somehow magically walk on, unless it is winter and there is ice.
What are the conflicts between atheism and science?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
Rav,
So how do you see/visualise God, when you read ''...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.'' While holding the notion that; "God is an all-powerful all-knowing unphysical entity that exists outside of time and space''? In light of Aristotle quote.
I highlighted this portion of your response '' Outside of situations where people desire o debate religion..'' in the hope that you would explain it's meaning.
Consciousness is a reality, although we cannot know of it's properties, and we know that without consciousness there is no perception of physical reality. So are we really invoking the ''intangible''?
I asked what you thought of my hypothesis, in light of my definition of God as being supremely conscious. Does it invoke the supernatural?
If yes, how?
This comment, as I responded, does not give indication as to what consciousness is. If you plug your tv set out of the mains, the television is dead. But it doesn't mean that the stream of pictures have stopped.
The lights at the back which indicate life when it is connected to the main supply, in no way has anything to do with what is actually being transmitted.
The body, in this way, could be just a conduit for conscious activity.
Then, as you believe it not to be physical (most probably an atheist concept), and I believe it to be physical. Both are beliefs, as there is no empirical way to come to any real conclusion.
That being the case; what of my concept, and hypothesis, appeals to the supernatural?
And this is where the conflict between atheism and science is most prominent. You have now split consciousness into two, because it suits you.
The brain is only capabe of allowing us to percieve objects within a certain range of frequency. A chair is a chair in our fully awakened state. Yet we can understand that a chair is not a chair from every point of view.
Yet, it is meaningless, not to mention non-existent.
Like I stated before, the eternal can speak of the eternal.
If you can imagine what non-existence is like, then I take my hat of to you.
The very act of imagining, means there is an observer. You.
What you can imagine though, is being without your body.
Supernatural means beyond the KNOWN laws of nature.
Who sets the standard of what is known and what is not known.
Natural science is limited in that it deals with ''physical reality'', not the reality
that preceeds it.
To assert that science is the be all end all of ALL knowledge, or science is the BEST tool for understanding ALL knowledge, is to put a limit on ones individual understanding of themself (in full), and their relationship to this world. It puts an end to God, the supreme consciousness, the source of all individual consciousness (assuming that's what you believe).
jan.
So how do you see/visualise God, when you read ''...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.'' While holding the notion that; "God is an all-powerful all-knowing unphysical entity that exists outside of time and space''? In light of Aristotle quote.
I highlighted this portion of your response '' Outside of situations where people desire o debate religion..'' in the hope that you would explain it's meaning.
Consciousness is a reality, although we cannot know of it's properties, and we know that without consciousness there is no perception of physical reality. So are we really invoking the ''intangible''?
I asked what you thought of my hypothesis, in light of my definition of God as being supremely conscious. Does it invoke the supernatural?
If yes, how?
This comment, as I responded, does not give indication as to what consciousness is. If you plug your tv set out of the mains, the television is dead. But it doesn't mean that the stream of pictures have stopped.
The lights at the back which indicate life when it is connected to the main supply, in no way has anything to do with what is actually being transmitted.
The body, in this way, could be just a conduit for conscious activity.
Then, as you believe it not to be physical (most probably an atheist concept), and I believe it to be physical. Both are beliefs, as there is no empirical way to come to any real conclusion.
That being the case; what of my concept, and hypothesis, appeals to the supernatural?
And this is where the conflict between atheism and science is most prominent. You have now split consciousness into two, because it suits you.
The brain is only capabe of allowing us to percieve objects within a certain range of frequency. A chair is a chair in our fully awakened state. Yet we can understand that a chair is not a chair from every point of view.
Yet, it is meaningless, not to mention non-existent.
Like I stated before, the eternal can speak of the eternal.
If you can imagine what non-existence is like, then I take my hat of to you.
The very act of imagining, means there is an observer. You.
What you can imagine though, is being without your body.
Supernatural means beyond the KNOWN laws of nature.
Who sets the standard of what is known and what is not known.
Natural science is limited in that it deals with ''physical reality'', not the reality
that preceeds it.
To assert that science is the be all end all of ALL knowledge, or science is the BEST tool for understanding ALL knowledge, is to put a limit on ones individual understanding of themself (in full), and their relationship to this world. It puts an end to God, the supreme consciousness, the source of all individual consciousness (assuming that's what you believe).
jan.
Sci, thank you very much for taking the time to write those 3 posts. I am going to tackle them eventually. But for some reason I find your posts difficult to grasp (not this one though). So bear with me.
You say consciousness comes last.
I ask you, how is that possible. What experience, or piece of knowledge
leads you to that conclusion.
With regard to consciouness requiring a brain, that I agree with.
But wouldn't that mean that God has a brain?
I think it would do you good to try and understand the definition of the nature of God, before you throw it out altogether.
It may help to dispel this childish notion of God being a very old looking bloke, sitting on a big chair in the sky,
sporting a long white beard issuing orders.
jan.
Last edited:
Well, Jan, the religious do have the concept of God-as-a-person, doing planning and creating, and more, rather than God-as-not-a-person. Even His having Consciousness portrays a Person with a brain.
It from bit.
'Thought energy', or consciousness, would be the apparently fundamental process of information (the bit) being able to turn into thought (the it) that exactly matches the information beneath it.
Thought does then turn into information that can be globally accessed by the entire brain for more rumination which may better the thought, as some thoughts may come from rather simpleton and limited areas of the brain. Even silly thoughts and forbidden thoughts may arise, which is perfectly normal and sane not to worry about, as they get corrected when other brain areas 'hear' about them.
There has to be a fundamental kind of link between the neurological correlates (bits) that we can now even see in action and the resulting thought witnessed in consciousness (as the it). Since the analysis takes time, although not much (200-300 ms.), the 'bits' must precede the 'it'.
This is one of the last frontiers to be understood, along with the inanimate to the animate, and why anything exists at all (which has actually been solved, right here in this thread, for there is literally nothing to make anything of, etc.).
It from bit.
'Thought energy', or consciousness, would be the apparently fundamental process of information (the bit) being able to turn into thought (the it) that exactly matches the information beneath it.
Thought does then turn into information that can be globally accessed by the entire brain for more rumination which may better the thought, as some thoughts may come from rather simpleton and limited areas of the brain. Even silly thoughts and forbidden thoughts may arise, which is perfectly normal and sane not to worry about, as they get corrected when other brain areas 'hear' about them.
There has to be a fundamental kind of link between the neurological correlates (bits) that we can now even see in action and the resulting thought witnessed in consciousness (as the it). Since the analysis takes time, although not much (200-300 ms.), the 'bits' must precede the 'it'.
This is one of the last frontiers to be understood, along with the inanimate to the animate, and why anything exists at all (which has actually been solved, right here in this thread, for there is literally nothing to make anything of, etc.).
"It from bit" also occurs in the quantum mechanics realm when the particle that is anywhere and everywhere but nowhere in particular in its vibrational superposition resolves itself to at least one definite property when the wave function collapses, which happens through interaction, and also perhaps even via gravity (according to Penrose).
This line of questioning is doing my head in. The only way I can answer you is by saying that I visualized my own description. What else are you asking?
It was a typo. It's supposed to read "Outside of situations where people desire to debate religion". I was pointing out that I don't seek to engage Theists in debate unless it's clear that they want to have one.
You're convinced that consciousness isn't physical, but every single piece of evidence that we have clearly points to the fact that it is. So yes, you're talking intangibilities right from the get go.
I'm trying to be diplomatic here but you seem to be asking the same questions over and over again. Everything about your conception of God is supernatural because apart from the physical universe that you believe he created, you're asserting that there is nothing physical about him. If he's not physical, he's supernatural, by definition.
Again, you're making a supernatural supposition. This is what is irritating about having discussions with theists. I'm here trying to have a rational discussion and you're free to go invoking all manner of incredible explanations for anything you don't understand. I have to work harder because I hold myself to a higher standard of integrity by actually making sure I can back up what I say.
All the empirical evidence points towards the fact that consciousness is physical. To answer your last question (again) everything about your hypothesis is supernatural.
Nonsense. I have only ever said one thing about the nature of consciousness: that it's physical.
That's just perspective. A chair is a chair if we're thinking of it in terms of what we typically use it for. But like every other macroscopic object it is just a particular configuration of atoms.
Meaningless, maybe, at least in terms of there being no-one around to assign any kind of meaning to it. But non-existent? That's just another extension of your supposition that physical reality relies on the existence of consciousness.
I'm not saying that I can accurately imagine what non-existence is like. But I know that I wasn't bothered by the fact that I didn't exist before I was born.
It's not the job of science to deal with the supernatural except in the sense that it has an impressive track record when it comes to providing scientific explanations for phenomena that were previously thought to be supernatural.
That's not my assertion. I embrace philosophy as well. And in terms of how I get along in this world, I embrace humanity, friendship, intimacy and an array of other things that enrich my life.
Science killed God? I don't think so. As long as you place God in the realm of the supernatural, there will always be people who will insist that he's real. Like I've said before, theists have hidden him where science can't get to him. It's worth noting, too, that it wasn't always this way. People used to invoke God to explain almost everything once upon a time, but science has come so far that the only place left for him is outside the universe itself.
Rav,
My question is simple; '' So how do you see/visualise God....
Meaning, what is it that you see in those visualisations?
Okay.
I'm also trying to be diplomatic here, but you seem to explain away my fundamental questions over and over again. Everything about your conception of consciousness is also what you would describe as supernatural.
We are conscious beings and therefore are (by your def) part non-physical by definition.
What irritates you in this discussion it would seem, is your lack of substance.
You inability to provide reasonable explanation (let alone scientific evidence) to counter my arguments. What is being projected from you is dogma, blind-faith belief system that God does not, and, can not exist. You have failed to show why this is so.
Here goes!
But you can't back up what you say.
I have repeatedly asked for explanations, and you either don't respond, or explain them away.
You haven't contributed to this discussion, outside of defending the concept that God does not exist. .
You assert that consciousness has been shown to a physical construct, yet you cannot explain what it is, or what it is made of.
The same goes for the imagination.
You visualise God, but you refuse to explain what it you see.
You're being very coy regarding YOUR own conception of anything, choosing to stand behind the back of science. Come out from behind there, let us see who YOU are.
You are irritated because my line of questioning necessarily needs honest individual answers, not scripted ones. And you are at the point where refusal to do this is revealing.
It nought but the same old pattern my friend.
That's your interpretation.
I said the idea the science is the be-all, end-all, of knowledge, put's an end
to notions of God, and higher-selves.
And imagine, if God exists, and our purpose is to serve Him, but due to the pressures of modern society, we are constantly told we are irrational, stupid, and ignorant, for holding on to those beliefs. Then what is to become of those who choose to serve. We would actually be irrational, stupid, and, ignorant. All because some people took it upon themselves to do everything within their power to remove the concept from our minds.
This is a philosophy forum, and I have not placed God in the realm of the supernatural, although He can perform supernatural (beyond our perception) feats. I have placed him in the part of nature we understand, but cannot find within physical reality. I have merely taken advantage of the fact that consciousness is not proven to physically exist, or transcend the laws of nature. Because if God does exist, and He exists in the format we ALL know, then there must be some explanation.
Consciousness is a place where science can't get to it, yet you accept it.
That's a mute argument, appealing to the ignorance of people.
I am not asserting that, so you needn't go there.
jan.
My question is simple; '' So how do you see/visualise God....
Meaning, what is it that you see in those visualisations?
Okay.
I'm also trying to be diplomatic here, but you seem to explain away my fundamental questions over and over again. Everything about your conception of consciousness is also what you would describe as supernatural.
We are conscious beings and therefore are (by your def) part non-physical by definition.
What irritates you in this discussion it would seem, is your lack of substance.
You inability to provide reasonable explanation (let alone scientific evidence) to counter my arguments. What is being projected from you is dogma, blind-faith belief system that God does not, and, can not exist. You have failed to show why this is so.
Here goes!
But you can't back up what you say.
I have repeatedly asked for explanations, and you either don't respond, or explain them away.
You haven't contributed to this discussion, outside of defending the concept that God does not exist. .
You assert that consciousness has been shown to a physical construct, yet you cannot explain what it is, or what it is made of.
The same goes for the imagination.
You visualise God, but you refuse to explain what it you see.
You're being very coy regarding YOUR own conception of anything, choosing to stand behind the back of science. Come out from behind there, let us see who YOU are.
You are irritated because my line of questioning necessarily needs honest individual answers, not scripted ones. And you are at the point where refusal to do this is revealing.
It nought but the same old pattern my friend.
That's your interpretation.
I said the idea the science is the be-all, end-all, of knowledge, put's an end
to notions of God, and higher-selves.
And imagine, if God exists, and our purpose is to serve Him, but due to the pressures of modern society, we are constantly told we are irrational, stupid, and ignorant, for holding on to those beliefs. Then what is to become of those who choose to serve. We would actually be irrational, stupid, and, ignorant. All because some people took it upon themselves to do everything within their power to remove the concept from our minds.
This is a philosophy forum, and I have not placed God in the realm of the supernatural, although He can perform supernatural (beyond our perception) feats. I have placed him in the part of nature we understand, but cannot find within physical reality. I have merely taken advantage of the fact that consciousness is not proven to physically exist, or transcend the laws of nature. Because if God does exist, and He exists in the format we ALL know, then there must be some explanation.
Consciousness is a place where science can't get to it, yet you accept it.
That's a mute argument, appealing to the ignorance of people.
I am not asserting that, so you needn't go there.
jan.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
By the way, what makes it not work?
I don't know; just like I don't know what would make it work.
You're projecting your own conceptions onto mine.
For the record, earlier in this thread I spent a significant amount of time researching the specifics of a particular scientific experiment so I could present you with the facts (complete with references so you could verify everything that I was saying). This is what I mean by integrity. All you seem to do on the other hand is invoke supernatural explanations for everything without bothering to even check if science can shed some light on the issue. I can, of course, see the appeal of this strategy. You don't really have to do much.
When I was a Christian, during the short time that I was (around 18 rather intense and exciting months), I studied the Bible like a mad-man. This was before the days when most people had personal computers so I used to type out collections of verses on an old typewriter and formulate explanations that helped me to understand what it was all about. At that point I had also amassed a collection of over 20 books written by various Christians and Christian apologists that I would read almost as much as the Bible. Aside from seeking to develop a deeper understanding of God and what he wanted from me I dedicated myself to formulating rational responses to every single criticism that I could possibly imagine might be leveled at him. And I got pretty good at it.
In addition to all that I used to pray often. At least once a day for at least half an hour. Almost always first thing in the morning before breakfast. I'm not talking about quiet reflection or formulaic prayer either, I'm talking going for a walk down to the local park and actually audibly speaking to God about whatever was on my mind at the time. I would confess my sins, ask for forgiveness, pray for strength, pray for others, absolutely anything that is relevant to a practicing Christian. I'd come back from those prayers with pure energy coursing through my veins and I'd be ready to take on the entire world because God gave me that strength. And you know what? I did take on the entire world.
Our Church was very evangelical. Of course it was. The Bible teaches that you should be. So I would walk up to literally anyone in the street and invite them to a church meeting. I had conversations with drug addicts, working girls, homeless people, everyday people, people of different religious persuasions, police officers, scary looking dudes who could easily have decided to punch my head in, entire groups of people at once, even entire train carriages full of people. I'm sure you can imagine some of the reactions. I was persecuted often. But overall it worked. I got a lot of people along to church meetings that way who later become Christians themselves. I felt alive with the spirit of God and it seemed as real as anything else I ever experienced.
I'm sure you'll have questions about this and I'm sure that it wont make sense to you that someone could have such experiences and not continue to be a Christian. But how can we possibly explore such a broad issue on page 24 of this little thread we have going? It's absurd. But I'm sharing these experiences now to demonstrate one important truth about me that you are refusing to accept. I know what Christianity is. I understand it better than most of the so called Christians in the world because very few of them ever properly put the teachings of the Bible into practice or bothered to study it in an academic way. I did both.
I know your world-view Jan, at least as much as I can without actually being you. But you don't know mine because you've never decided to embrace what science can teach us about reality. In spite of your accusations that I like to dodge questions all I am really trying to do is avoid bogging down a thread with long-winded responses.
The rest of your responses seem irrelevant to me now so I'm just going to leave you with one final thought. I've done what most theists dream of atheists doing. I tried the whole God thing, and I did it wholeheartedly. So your assertion that I am arguing from ignorance and that I am "blind" to your assertions if absolutely false. Additionally, a religious person accusing an atheist of having "blind faith" is spectacularly hypocritical.
Your turn Jan. Tell me of the experiences you had when you embraced science. Tell me of the hours you spent reading books on physics and wrestling complex ideas into focus. Tell us all of the time when you put your money where your mouth was like I once did.
Rav,
Here, feel what it feels like, to make an effort, only to have someone discard it as irrelevant.
And yet you can't respond to what should be simple questions, because you think they are irrelevant.
Imagine that, one human being considers another human being irrelevant.
Obviously, you haven't learned anything.
Nah!
jan.
Here, feel what it feels like, to make an effort, only to have someone discard it as irrelevant.
And yet you can't respond to what should be simple questions, because you think they are irrelevant.
Imagine that, one human being considers another human being irrelevant.
Obviously, you haven't learned anything.
Nah!
jan.
I don't consider you irrelevant. People are typically much more than just the sum of their religious beliefs. All I really know about you is what you've chosen to say in this single thread on this single topic. I don't know if you have kids, or are married, what kind of friends you have, what kind of work you do, how you interact with people, what your politics are, whether or not you are active in your community or any number of other things I could possibly conceive of not knowing. I wouldn't know these things unless I met you and spent time with you. But I'm going to assume that you are a good person who cares about others and in that way makes a positive contribution to the world. If anyone is ever going to be judged by anyone I think it should be on that basis alone and not whether or not they believe in God or on the technical aspects of their particular metaphysical philosophy.
This is a forum. It's a mostly anonymous medium of communication and that fact alone carries with it it's share of difficulties. But we are also discussing the concept of God which typically makes for a heated debate even in person. I think you should just choose to see it for what it is: yet another arguably futile online debate between a theist and an atheist. And, well, I guess both of us are sometimes in the mood for such things. In fact the number of times that I've seen you and Dywyddyr go at it leads me to believe that you're probably in the mood for it more often than I am
Let me put it this way. I might think that the concept of a supernatural and personal God is ridiculous, and I might even think people who believe in such things do so because some part of them needs to, but that doesn't mean that you're not an awesome person. So I'm just going assume that you are so you can take some encouragement away from this discussion along with everything else.
It's the content that counts, its argument and reasoning, about how science leads to atheism, God vanishing from the religious arenas now proved and claimed by science.
Last edited:
i was begining to wonder about that..doesn't it also qualify as preaching?
Is it not enough that I want to read it without having to join a poetry club?
prose?
applying poetry to science..
isn't that supposed to be heart centered?
(how you feel?)
so are you looking to justify how you feel about that prose?
My input to the topic was on page 5, actually.
Since then it been filled up with all sorts.
why would you cloth them in fine words,fully dressed.ever concise and precise?
to disclose an truth in such a way as to bypass their emotional state of mind?
or speak to it?
either way emotions are at the center..
not trying to invalidate you, just in its perfection such an ideal should not stand alone.