Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
Evidence.
Application of Occam's Razor is merely the preference of explanations with fewer "unknowns" until such time as there is no alternative. Currently "non-materiality" is an unknown - so Occam's razor would dictate a theory without this "unknown".
Because we have no evidence of the non-material.
I am asking VitalOne, who made the claim, to explain / indicate the need he refers to.
Congratulations - now if only VitalOne would learn that and stop making generalised claims of atheists purely on the grounds of them being atheist.
Sarkus,
And what is the evidence which points to consciousness being a material phenomenon?
Sounds like "science of the gaps to me".
So because there is no evidence it cannot be so, despite the FACT that you do not know what consciousness is, but still see fit to claim it is material?
Jan.
And what is the evidence which points to consciousness being a material phenomenon?
Sounds like "science of the gaps to me".
So because there is no evidence it cannot be so, despite the FACT that you do not know what consciousness is, but still see fit to claim it is material?
Jan.
Because there is no evidence, there is no good reason to accept the delusions of others as fact.
...or then go on to rape, murder, conquer and subjugate people who think differently about the alleged same god.
I think theists should go and read the Old Testament again, and familiarise themselves with the character. Or try to come to some agreement on the delusion before they try and sell it.
It is merely that there is no evidence to have a belief that it is anything but.
Consider the material nature of consciousness - of ALL things - as being the default position.
If you wish someone to believe otherwise - YOU provide the evidence.
You just don't seem to grasp it.So because there is no evidence it cannot be so, despite the FACT that you do not know what consciousness is, but still see fit to claim it is material?
I am not claiming it IS (100% absolute reality) material - only that the evidence points that way and zero evidence points the other way - and that I will not believe that it is something immaterial until there is evidence that points that way.
Occam's Razor currently dictates materiality as being the most rational explanation. Period.
I am also not saying that the material nature of consciousness is understood, even at the most basic level. But there is ZERO reason to conclude, let alone believe, that it is anything other than the default status of material.
If you think there is - PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE!!!
Okay, but don't you think many people still fall prey to dogmatic beliefs that they take to be obvious and unquestionable but that in no way have been conclusively proven? In other words people still have obvious and unquestionable truths in their own mind despite the fact that in the past science has shown that what was obvious and unquestionable later turned out not to be the case. This still occurs today.
(Thanks for clarifying what you meant).
Pick up an object in your hand. Now, is that object your holding the actual object or is it a recreation form your mind? If it is a recreation of your mind is the recreation of the object you're holding in your hand material or is it immaterial? Seems to me that the actual object is material but the mental recreation is immaterial. If there are neural correlates of consciousness does that mean there is still a difference between the objective material thing going on with the neurons in your mind and the subjective experience of the physical thing you are holding.
It's the actual object.
What I see with my eyes is dependent upon the physical neurological and chemical interactions between the light emitted / reflected off the object and my visual cortex. Similar to what I feel in my hand.
Why is the mental recreation immaterial?
It is still created through the physical neurological and chemical patterns within the brain. If you stopped all the neurological firings within the brain - would there still be consciousness?
You've lost me....
Let's put it another way...
Is "running" material or immaterial?
You would see it as immaterial - you can't touch it - you can't smell it. You can see someone displaying the properties of "running" - but you can't touch "running" itself, can you.
To you, in this analogy, it is thus immaterial - similar to love, hate, consciousness etc.
I would see it as material - as it is merely an observable pattern of behaviour of physical / material components that we have defined as "running".
It is thus, to me, purely physical / material.
The same with consciousness.
It is an observable pattern of behaviour of the physical / material that we have defined in a certain way.
Can we analyse the pattern to the n-th degree? No, we can't - which is where the analogy with running falls down - because consciousness is that much more complex a pattern to analyse.
Does this help explain things?
No one cares if someone believes in god. We just don't understand why these people need other people to believe in their god and if given the chance oppress or even destroy those who don't. The problem with religion is it's inherently thrives from prejudice as if it feeds off of it by pretense against this 'others' whether these people commit sins just the same, have families and care just like them, are in truth no different but religionists draw false lines to hurt and judge others unfairly when they commit the same or worse sins. That is the problem.
That is like a schizophrenic following me around insisting I acknowledge their hallucinations as being real to me.
That is like a schizophrenic following me around insisting I acknowledge their hallucinations as being real to me.
Last edited:
No, it isn't. If there is anything physical going on its neurons in your brain. But either way that thing your holding in your hand is an immaterial recreation in your mind. That thing your holding is not actually in your brain. It is your sense recreating it. It may exist out there as a real object but the way you subjectively experience is not the object.
Exactly
Because it isnt material. The object you are holding is a recreation form your brain. Science may one day show that all consciousness phenomenon are caused by substance x doing activty z, but even then the thing your holding in your hand will be a recreation.
Yes but that wouldn't change the fact that what you are holding in your hand is a recreation of your mind.
Don't know. I'm not prepared to do that experiment.
So you are saying consciousness is an activity of the mind? What exactly is moving in this analogy?
When speaking of consciousness as we experience it, where is the pattern? where is the behavior?
What are the components active in consciousness?
Again, in relation to consciousness, what is the pattern? what is the behavior?
We can't analyse the pattern because there isn't one. I'm trying to explain to you what people mean when they say that consciousness is immaterial.
Are you a Solipsist?
You didn't ask about what the subjective experience was - you asked whether the object was real or not.
No - not mind - brain.
Ultimately it is just energy in some form or other.
If we could answer that then we would fully understand consciousness. The pattern is probably the most complicated there is, and might never be deciphered or understood. But that is no reasoning to ignore its existence.
You seriously believe that? No wonder you think that consciousness is immaterial.
Do you seriously deny that there exist patterns of activity in your brain?
If not you must be claiming that the activity within the brain is purely chaotic with no governing laws? You can not have it both ways.
Do you also deny that the activity in the brain is material in nature (i.e. that the activity is of purely material components and interactions)?
Just not doing a very good job.
Yes, it's call religion.
To further clarify, replace the word "science" with "religion" in that statement and you've got it.
No, it happens in science too. Science isn't immune from dogma.
I think you might be misinterpreting me. What I'm saying is that the status quo within the scientific community often turns out to be wrong. Plate techtonics is a good example of this. More recently - neuroplasticity.
No, solipsists deny the existence of an outside reality. (But as a side note it is impossible to prove that everything you are experiencing isn't a hallucination. So all humans that aren't solipsists have faith in at least one thing - there really is an objective outside world.)
Wrong, what I asked was "is that object your holding the actual object or is it a recreation form your mind."
So its an activity of the brain. Then what exactly is moving?
Thats vague. Thats an assumption. Thats not science. Furthermore, energy isn't even physical.
There is no pattern. What the hell does this even mean? You seem to think your talking about neuroscience but there is no scientific evidence that consciousness is the result of some kind of pattern. Beyond that I'm talking about a philosophical point that anyone can see by observing their experience.
There is no scientific evidence that consciousness is created by some kind of pattern. If I'm wrong it'd be very easy to prove that by showing it to me. Yes, the brain is definitely physical. Just take one second and think about subjective experience. It isn't physical.
You seriously believe that? No wonder you think that consciousness is immaterial.
We'll see.
Last edited:
Evidence?
I believe I have found the code for the Gospel in nature, written/placed their by God; however, the forum moderator has been deleting my work every time I post. Feedback from those who know both science and theology well would be very helpful in determining the validity of the evidence. - Christenstein
I believe I have found the code for the Gospel in nature, written/placed their by God; however, the forum moderator has been deleting my work every time I post. Feedback from those who know both science and theology well would be very helpful in determining the validity of the evidence. - Christenstein
Sarkus,
Then, as I said, it boils down to belief and faith, as neither of us actually know. And there is the possibility that we will never actually know.
Consider the non-material/spiritual nature of consciousness - of ALL things - as being the default position.
If you wish someone to believe otherwise - YOU provide the evidence.
What evidence?
What evidence would be acceptable to you, to make you believe consciousness is non-material?
But it does not dictate that consciousness is material, and there is nothing to suggest it is, other than speculation.
Maybe its nature is not material. As you have no idea either way, are prepared to accept, at least, both possibilities have equal chance of being correct. That seems to be the most rational way to look at it.
The same can be said in a non-material capacity. The point is, we don't actually know.
I cannot provide scientific evidence, but neither can you.
But the reality is consciousness cannot be proven to be material, there may be a reason for this, there may not be. So at the moment it boils down to belief.
Jan.
Then, as I said, it boils down to belief and faith, as neither of us actually know. And there is the possibility that we will never actually know.
Consider the non-material/spiritual nature of consciousness - of ALL things - as being the default position.
If you wish someone to believe otherwise - YOU provide the evidence.
What evidence?
What evidence would be acceptable to you, to make you believe consciousness is non-material?
But it does not dictate that consciousness is material, and there is nothing to suggest it is, other than speculation.
Maybe its nature is not material. As you have no idea either way, are prepared to accept, at least, both possibilities have equal chance of being correct. That seems to be the most rational way to look at it.
The same can be said in a non-material capacity. The point is, we don't actually know.
I cannot provide scientific evidence, but neither can you.
But the reality is consciousness cannot be proven to be material, there may be a reason for this, there may not be. So at the moment it boils down to belief.
Jan.