Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

[Sarkus]

There is no such thing as a default position. We don't know how it is created.

Until you realise that there IS a default rational position then you will continue to struggle with this debate, and will continue to blindly believe in the existence of non-material things.

The point is that you claim the follwing.
1) There is a differnece between a mental image and a brick.
2) The mental brick has no physical characteristics (so is not self-evidently physical)

The mental brick doesn't - but the cause of the image (neurons, etc) do.

3) You make a positive claim that that mental image is material.
The problem is your positive claim at number 3. You do so without either a plausible explanation or evidence. Which makes me wonder why it is okay to make a positive claim here without evidence but making a positive claim for God is somehow wrong?

I am NOT making a positive claim beyond it being the default rational position.
I am not saying "It is definitely material".
How many times do I have to say that?!

The existing evidence is self-evidence (as with all subjective experience) that there is nothing obvious or self-evident that a mental brick is material. You are making the claim that the self-evidently immaterial nature of the mental brick is material. Get it? You are making the claim, you provide the evidence.

For the last time - you obviously do NOT understand the realm of rational thought, or where and how conclusions are drawn.
Rational conclusions are based on the EXISTING EVIDENCE.
YOU are the one going against the rational conclusion.
YOU have to provide the evidence - or your conclusion (supported by zero evidence) is deemed IRRATIONAL.
Get it?

I have done nothing but point out that a mental brick and a physical brick are self-evidently differnet order of phenomena and that mental bricks do not have any self-evidently material qualities. You are trying to claim that the self-evidently immaterial nature of the mental brick is just an ilusion and that the mental brick is in fact physical, yet you can provide no evidence - materialism of the gaps.

Do you know how the mental image of the brick is formed in the brain?
No.
Nor do I.
Yet YOU immediately claim it is non-material in nature (i.e. in cause).
I do not make this claim.
I am sticking with the rational position that it is material in nature until evidence exists to counter this position.

THIS IS WHY WE ASK FOR EVIDENCE.

What of this do you NOT understand.
Every post you make just reaffirms your lack of understanding of what is and what is not rational.

I thought we already agreed that claims of self-evidence are acceptable when it comes to subjective experience.

No. We didn't.
I made the statement that ANYTHING can be claimed to be "self-evident" and thus makes self-evident evidence irrelevant.

To you consciousness is "self-evidently" non-material.
To me consciousness is "self-evidently" material.

Understand?

Then stop claiming that consciousness is material without evidence.[/qoute]There IS evidence that material things exist.
There IS NO evidence that non-material things exist.
The default rational position, until other evidence comes to light, is that ALL things are material.
Consciousness is part of "ALL things".
Get it?
No - you obviously don't.

I am not saying that it is impossible that science will one day show that consciousness is created from the brain but that hasn't been shown yet and there is no evidence to support it. So, when people do say that consciousness is created by the brain it is materialist dogma.

THERE IS EVIDENCE!!!

For Pete's sake!

There is no evidence of the exact cause of consciousness, I agree.
But there is NO evidence for non-material things.
Thus, the DEFAULT RATIONAL POSITION is that the cause is, at least, material - and guess what - we HAVE evidence of material things and causes.

If you can not grasp this simple exercise in rational thought and conclusions then let me know and I'll see if I can break it down even more.

No claims in science can be made without having evidence (a test which has supported the hypothesis). In the case of consciousness there are no testable hypotheses.

Thus the rational position is where the evidence is - i.e. material things exist, and there is no evidence for the non-material.


The whole purpose of this debate is to question why atheists ask for evidence, and now you're beginning to see why - because people like you jump on board the existence of things (such as the non-material) where NO EVIDENCE exists.
We choose not to.
We accept that there may be or there might not be - but UNTIL THERE IS EVIDENCE - WHY BELIEVE THERE IS!

 

[Ophiolite]

Your points 1 to 3 are fine to conclude that the Universe is evidence of God... IF you can provide evidence that the Universe was created (as it hinges on the cause / event that created this Universe). However, this would define God as nothing more than that which caused / created our universe ("first cause").
To go beyond that and assign characteristics to god (eternal, loving, intelligent etc) would surely require more evidence.

I am certain beyond doubt that I have neither explicitly or implicitly assigned any characteristics to God, other than to use this as a name for a possible/plausible first cause. That is as far as I go.

I am a devout agnostic. I take my agnosticism very seriously. I am quite definite about my uncertainty; I am resolute in my irresolution. Thus, when I see someone state there is no evidence, then I I take a stand. Had the remark been "There is no proof", or "There is no hard evidence", or "There is no evidence that would propel us strongly to conclude", then I should not posted my views on the matter.

 

[Sarkus]

I am certain beyond doubt that I have neither explicitly or implicitly assigned any characteristics to God, other than to use this as a name for a possible/plausible first cause. That is as far as I go.

Understood - but then the evidence presented is NOT evidence for anything (i.e. not for God) other than the claim that there was a "first cause".

God is of course a possibility as being the "first cause" - but the evidence for "first cause" is not evidence for God - UNLESS God is purely defined as "first cause" - with nothing else, no other characteristics, entailed to it.
However, evidence for "first cause" is clearly not evidence AGAINST God (assuming that one characteristic of God is "first cause").


Is a molecule of water evidence of an ocean?
It is not evidence AGAINST an ocean, but is it really evidence FOR?
I say not.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan, let's avoid ad hominem remarks like the one in your last line above. Surely you're more mature than that.

Noted.

How is being called 'childish' any more a ad-hominem than being called 'irrational' based purely on ones belief?

Jan.

 

[Satyr]

Atheists ask for evidence for the existence of God yet at the sametime admit that gathering evidence is impossible....so wtf?

This has got to be the more pathetic display of the type of mind attracted to simplistic reasoning, I have ever come across…even here in this den of retardation.

:shrug:

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

I have NEVER said that non-matter does not exist, nor that I believe that non-matter does not exist!

And I have never said that consciousness is NOT matter.

I have merely said that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for non-matter. There is therefore no rational reason to BELIEVE THAT NON-MATTER EXISTS.

Surely that is not a matter for you to decide.
What you're proposing here, is close-minded, and I do not intend that as an insult, but an observation on this statement.
If, as you say, there is no reason for non-matter to exist, and we adhere to that, how will we know if it really does exist?

Why is it obtuse? It is at the very heart of the matter - of this very thread!!!

Because you know that science is a study of the natural world, which is material by nature.
The actual heart of the matter regarding this thread, is why do atheists ask for evidence of God, when they know that God is not a material being.

Again you try to squirm out of answering any question that you can not answer, trying to avoid its implication.

I'm afraid not, it is simply a case of stubborness on the part of such atheists, whose intention is not to actually debate fair and square, but to win by any means necessary, imo.

Intellectual dishonesty, Jan.
Please indicate where I have EVER said this?
Ever?
Feel free to apologise.

The scientific method can probably be applied to anything - matter or non-matter. It just so happens that nothing non-material has ever been evidenced that enables use by the scientific method.

You are effectively saying, because it has not been (scientifically) evidenced, it CAN NOT exist, hense no reason to believe it exists.

I have evidence that material things exist. That is one more piece than you have with regard to non-material things.

So what?
This isn't some school exam, this is day to day, real life search for knowledge.

It goes to the heart of this thread!!!
But you avoid it - which adds weight to the case that you are arguing for the sake of it.

No. The heart of the thread enquires why you ask for evidence (scientific) of God.
Your answer seems to be, because there is no evidence of his existence, missing the entire point.

Goodbye Jan.

Goodbye, and good luck with your arguments.

 

[grover]

Until you realise that there IS a default rational position then you will continue to struggle with this debate, and will continue to blindly believe in the existence of non-material things.

Lack of evidence + dogma = default position.
So for the person that believes that something can't come from nothing and there appears to be a teleological principle at work in nature intelligent design is the default position. They are able t o come up with rational explanations and examples that back up ther position. The problem is that umlitmately there is no evidence for their position and no way of testing it and therefore is not science, it is a philosophical position. It is exactly the same with consciousness - there is no evidence and no testable hypothesis.

The mental brick doesn't - but the cause of the image (neurons, etc) do.

Right, the brick itself does not appear to be a physical thing. So, if one is actually going to claim that it is a physical thing they have to provide a rational explanation beyond just "neurons do it" and evidence that is provided by a testable hypothesis.

I am NOT making a positive claim beyond it being the default rational position.
I am not saying "It is definitely material".
How many times do I have to say that?!

BUt you said the default rational position is one of materilaity. The whole reason science is necessary is because our commonsense notions are so often wrong. If they weren't science wouodn't be necessary.

For the last time - you obviously do NOT understand the realm of rational thought, or where and how conclusions are drawn.
Rational conclusions are based on the EXISTING EVIDENCE.

Exactly, there is none in this instance.

YOU are the one going against the rational conclusion.
YOU have to provide the evidence - or your conclusion (supported by zero evidence) is deemed IRRATIONAL.
Get it?

I do get it. You admit that the mental brick does not appear to be physical(see above). You then claim it is actually physical but can provide no evidence.

Do you know how the mental image of the brick is formed in the brain?
No.
Nor do I.
Yet YOU immediately claim it is non-material in nature (i.e. in cause).

No, my claim is that it appears to be immaterial (i.e., has no common features with a material brick).
I do not make this claim.

I am sticking with the rational position that it is material in nature until evidence exists to counter this position.

This is materialist dogma.

THIS IS WHY WE ASK FOR EVIDENCE.

This is why I am asking for evidence.

What of this do you NOT understand.
Every post you make just reaffirms your lack of understanding of what is and what is not rational.

Every post you make just reaffirms that you think it s bad for other people to draw conlcusions withut actual evidence (intelligent desing) yet it is okay for you to do so (consciousness is an emergent phenomenon).

No. We didn't.
I made the statement that ANYTHING can be claimed to be "self-evident" and thus makes self-evident evidence irrelevant.

Okay, then why didn't you diasagree with this the first time I posted it? "1)The only evidence for any subjective experience is actually self-evident and there is in fact no objective evidence. For instance dreaming, we really only know that people dream because we have had that experience ourselves. Imagine if only you dreamed and everyone else just had dreamless sleep, you would have no way of actually providing actual evidence that you dream. You do in fact have no way of providing actual evidence, you just accpet it that others dream because they say they dream and so do you, but there is no actual objective evidence. ANd, that is how it is of all subjective experience. So, it should come as no surprise if I make a claim pertaining to consciousness which is based on self-evidence. "

To you consciousness is "self-evidently" non-material.
To me consciousness is "self-evidently" material.

No, you are claiming that the self-evidently immaterial nature of the brick (see above) is actually caused by the brain. There is nothing self-evident about this which is why you have to provide evidence.

There IS evidence that material things exist.

Interestingly material things are said to made out of immaterial things.

There IS NO evidence that non-material things exist.

Not entirely true. Besides, what is under question is the self-evidently immaterial nature of mental things (you already said the mental brick does not have material features).

The default rational position, until other evidence comes to light, is that ALL things are material.
Consciousness is part of "ALL things".
Get it?
No - you obviously don't.

You're right I don't. The whole point of science is not to make assumptions. To have evidence. No you are making assupmtions without evidence and saying it is okay for you to do it with materialist dogma but not okay for ithers to do it with their dogma (intelligent design). I most definitely do not get it.

THERE IS EVIDENCE!!!

What is it.

There is no evidence of the exact cause of consciousness, I agree.

Well, seeing as thats the exact issue we're talking about I don't see what we disagree on then.

But there is NO evidence for non-material things.
Thus, the DEFAULT RATIONAL POSITION is that the cause is, at least, material - and guess what - we HAVE evidence of material things and causes.

Well your reasoning is good I'll give you that - it's definitely on par with the best defenders of intelligent design.

If you can not grasp this simple exercise in rational thought and conclusions then let me know and I'll see if I can break it down even more.

No, I do get it. In fact I've decided to adopt both your view that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain despite the fact that there is no evidence and no testable hypotheses and I am also going to adopt the intelligent design view despite the fact that there is no evidence or testable hypotheses.

Thus the rational position is where the evidence is - i.e. material things exist, and there is no evidence for the non-material.

No, I get it. My universe is a much less confusing place now that I'm allowed to adopt views without evidence. Thank you.

The whole purpose of this debate is to question why atheists ask for evidence, and now you're beginning to see why - because people like you jump on board the existence of things (such as the non-material) where NO EVIDENCE exists.

Oh no! You just lost me again. I thought we didn't need evidence. Crap,does this mean I have to start demanding evidence for things again and stop believing that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon?

We choose not to.
We accept that there may be or there might not be - but UNTIL THERE IS EVIDENCE - WHY BELIEVE THERE IS!

Sarkus, let me try to explain what I've been trying to demonstrate.
1) There is at least one phenomenon we are aware of for which no objective evidence can be provided - consciousness. This is to demonstrate at the minimum why always demanding objective evidence might not be appropriate (especially since, according to Christianity, the Kingdom of God is within us (despite the fact that both atheists and fundamentalists seem to insist it is somewhere in space).
2) Atheists too have metaphysical beliefs about the universe which can not be supported with evidence.
3) There is at least some philosophical difficulty with stating that consciousness is simply material. If consciousness isn't material it leaves open as possible some subjective claims of religion. I know you will acknowledge the possibilities. What I don't think you will acknowledge is that science does consider it a foregone conlclusion that mind is nothing but material brain despite the fact that science always needs evidence and there is none in this instance. Which also shows that a metaphysical system of belief has developed around science based on faith (abscence of evidence).

 

[Ophiolite]

What you're proposing here, is close-minded, and I do not intend that as an insult, but an observation on this statement.
If, as you say, there is no reason for non-matter to exist, and we adhere to that, how will we know if it really does exist?

Should we also consider the possibility that green lemmings, with Austrian accents, have cornered the market in DVDs?

 

[Sarkus]

Right, the brick itself does not appear to be a physical thing. So, if one is actually going to claim that it is a physical thing they have to provide a rational explanation beyond just "neurons do it" and evidence that is provided by a testable hypothesis.

You do not seem to understand either rationality or logic.

The fact that the brick might not appear to be physical is not grounds to take non-materiality as the default.

I do get it. You admit that the mental brick does not appear to be physical(see above). You then claim it is actually physical but can provide no evidence.

I do not claim it is - I claim the rational position is that it is physical in nature (i.e. generated through entirely physical interactions).
But you seemingly can not grasp the rational aspect of it, nor what that means.

No, my claim is that it appears to be immaterial (i.e., has no common features with a material brick).

Why have you suddenly changed your argument to one of "appears to be immaterial"?

This is materialist dogma.

No - it is rationality.

This is why I am asking for evidence.

For non-material things?
Or for material things?

Every post you make just reaffirms that you think it s bad for other people to draw conlcusions withut actual evidence (intelligent desing) yet it is okay for you to do so (consciousness is an emergent phenomenon).

For the last time (how many times do I end up saying that yet continually get drawn in to beating my head against a brick wall!)... I am not making the claim - I am saying it is the default rational position.

Okay, then why didn't you diasagree with this the first time I posted it?

I said it was irrelevant to the discussion. Which it is.

No, you are claiming that the self-evidently immaterial nature of the brick (see above) is actually caused by the brain. There is nothing self-evident about this which is why you have to provide evidence.

What is clearly not self-evident for you is seemingly self-evident for others.
This is why being "self-evident" is irrelevant.

Interestingly material things are said to made out of immaterial things.

That will merely change the understanding of what matter is - not evidence for non-materiality.

Not entirely true. Besides, what is under question is the self-evidently immaterial nature of mental things.

The quality of "self-evident" is irrelevant. For every thing that is "self-evident" to you I can claim something else to be "self-evident" to me.

The whole point of science is not to make assumptions. To have evidence. No you are making assupmtions without evidence and saying it is okay for you to do it with materialist dogma but not okay for ithers to do it with their dogma (intelligent design). I most definitely do not get it.

Clearly you don't get it.

What is it.

Pick up anything you want. That is evidence of material things existing.

Well, seeing as thats the exact issue we're talking about I don't see what we disagree on then.

Because YOU jump on board the "non-material" as being the cause - where there is NO EVIDENCE!

With no evidence for the non-material there is only one place rationally, on the evidence availble, to conclude where the answer lies: material cause / nature.

We know material things exist - we can observe, weight, measure them. This is evidence for the existence of material things.

We do NOT know non-material things exist.

In the absence of this evidence for non-material things the default rational position is that the thing in question is material!

I am not sure I can explain it any simpler for you.

Well your reasoning is good I'll give you that - it's definitely on par with the best defenders of intelligent design.

Please don't insult me so.

No, I do get it.

No - you clearly don't - and your sarcasm is misplaced.

1) There is at least one phenomenon we are aware of for which no objective evidence can be provided - consciousness.

One can not provide evidence for that which we as yet do not understand.

2) Atheists too have metaphysical beliefs about the universe which can not be supported with evidence.

Some do - undoubtedly. But please indicate some examples to support this statement?

3) There is at least some philosophical difficulty with stating that consciousness is simply material. If consciousness isn't material it leaves open as possible some subjective claims of religion. I know you will acknowledge the possibilities.

I agree with all of this, although in the absence of evidence it is irrational to go against the rational position (which is one of material). Do you not accept this?

This is why I/we ask for evidence in such debates - primarily to highlight the irrational nature of the beliefs being held.

What I don't think you will acknowledge is that science does consider it a foregone conlclusion that mind is nothing but material brain despite the fact that science always needs evidence and there is none in this instance. Which also shows that a metaphysical system of belief has developed around science based on faith (abscence of evidence).

I understand your point, but it is not one I hold with.
In the absence of immediate evidence one way or another, science goes with the rational position from all the surrounding evidence.
However, science remains open to any and all evidence, whether it counters their existing rational position or not.
Science is not about beliefs.
Scientists may hold evidence-less beliefs - but that is "unscientific" and stems from personal pride in their theories etc.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Should we also consider the possibility that green lemmings, with Austrian accents, have cornered the market in DVDs?

What does this have to do with discussing the nature of consciousness?

Jan.

 

[grover]

You do not seem to understand either rationality or logic.

The fact that the brick might not appear to be physical is not grounds to take non-materiality as the default.

I do not claim it is - I claim the rational position is that it is physical in nature (i.e. generated through entirely physical interactions).
But you seemingly can not grasp the rational aspect of it, nor what that means.

We can at least agree that there is a difference bewteen a mental brick and a real brick right? Which is to say that the mental brick is not a material brick. Which is to say that the mental is not material.

Why have you suddenly changed your argument to one of "appears to be immaterial"?

I haven't changed my argument. I've been using the term self-evident the entire time.

For the last time (how many times do I end up saying that yet continually get drawn in to beating my head against a brick wall!)... I am not making the claim - I am saying it is the default rational position.

There is no difference between default position and making a claim. You are basically making a claim that everything we have proved so far has been physical and therefore everything should be assumed to be physical. This despite the fact that there is a difference between a mental brick and a physical brick. In other words when a phenomenon that appears not to follow the normal pattern of what we consider physical you just dismiss this and say it is actually physical because everything else we have provided evidence for is physical. Materialism of the gaps.

I said it was irrelevant to the discussion. Which it is.

No it isn't. I demonstrated why the only evidence we have of consciousness is actually self-evidence. There is no objective way of showing it exists.

What is clearly not self-evident for you is seemingly self-evident for others.
This is why being "self-evident" is irrelevant.

Do you have dreams? can you prove it objectively? It is self-evident to you that you dream yet can provide no objective evidence. It is self-evident that when you are dreaming those things you are dreaming are not real physical objects. If you are going to say that they have a physical basis you have to provide evidence. That is the precise difference. We both agree that material exists and that evidence can be presented for material things. WHy then can do evidence be presented for subjective experience even thought we both know that it exists?

The quality of "self-evident" is irrelevant. For every thing that is "self-evident" to you I can claim something else to be "self-evident" to me.

As far as I can tell self-evidence only pertains to the mental. We both know that objective evidence can be provided for the material. Which is another thing which confuses me about why you are claiming consciousness is material but can provide no evidence that it is. If it really is just straight-forward material why is there no evidence?

Pick up anything you want. That is evidence of material things existing.

WE both agree that material things exist. The specifc uestin you are referring to here is what is the evidence that consciousness is material?

Because YOU jump on board the "non-material" as being the cause - where there is NO EVIDENCE!

We both agree that material exists.
We both agree that objective evidence can be presented for the material.
We both agree that mental phenomenon as we directly experience it has no material qualities. Yet, you insist that it is simply material even though you can provide no evidence.

With no evidence for the non-material there is only one place rationally, on the evidence availble, to conclude where the answer lies: material cause / nature.

No, we both agree that a mental brick is not a physical brick. WHich is to say there is a difference between the mental and the physical. You also agree that evidence can be provided for material phenomenon. Yet you can provide no evidence that a mental brick is really just material. Your're right - I don't fucking get it.

We know material things exist - we can observe, weight, measure them. This is evidence for the existence of material things.

Exactly. Yet you agree taht mental phenomenon don't in and of themselves have physical characteristics.

We do NOT know non-material things exist.

I'm starting to think you really have bricks in your head!

In the absence of this evidence for non-material things the default rational position is that the thing in question is material!

Good point brickhead.

I agree with all of this, although in the absence of evidence it is irrational to go against the rational position (which is one of material). Do you not accept this?

The problem is that we both agree that there is a difference between a mental brick and a physical brick.

I understand your point, but it is not one I hold with.

And I understand yours.

In the absence of immediate evidence one way or another, science goes with the rational position from all the surrounding evidence.

Okay, the immediate evidence we have is of the mental brick. I think we have both already agreed there is a difference between a dream brick and a physical brick. To me this seems to leave the door open that it is an immaterial phenomenon, especially in light of the fact that the only evidence of a dream brick is self-evidence (you can't provide objective evidence of it) and as of yet no objective evidence can be provided (even though we know form other material phenomenon that objective evidence can be provided for material phenomenon in general). But you seem to want to shut this door by saying that we can assume it is material. This assumption is what is called scientific materialism. It is a metaphysical position seemingly based on science except for the problem that science always needs evidence. So, if nothing else explain why this metaphysical assumption without evidence is different than other metaphysical assumptions.

However, science remains open to any and all evidence, whether it counters their existing rational position or not.
Science is not about beliefs.
Scientists may hold evidence-less beliefs - but that is "unscientific" and stems from personal pride in their theories etc.

Agreed.

(Note: this is getting pretty jumbled. You obviously disagree with much of what I'm saying, what is the primary disagreement?)

 

[Sarkus]

Okay, the immediate evidence we have is of the mental brick. I think we have both already agreed there is a difference between a dream brick and a physical brick.

Yes.

To me this seems to leave the door open that it is an immaterial phenomenon...

It leaves the door open for me also.

But you seem to want to shut this door by saying that we can assume it is material.

This is where you miss the argument...
You seem to jump on to the idea that it IS immaterial.
i.e. You claim it is non-material - yet have no evidence.

I am happy that there is the possibility it is non-material.
However, the RATIONAL position is one of materiality - as that is where ALL the evidence lies.

The fact that material science can not (yet) provide answers is not enough to support something for which there is no evidence.

But do not confuse this rational position for me saying that, without question, it IS material. I am not saying that.
I am saying, in the absence of other evidence, the rational position is that it is material.
Rational positions change with every new piece of evidence.
Treat evidence rationally and you get a rational conclusion.
Without evidence you can only reach irrational conclusions.
But bear in mind that irrational conclusions CAN ultimately be shown to be correct.

This assumption is what is called scientific materialism. It is a metaphysical position seemingly based on science except for the problem that science always needs evidence. So, if nothing else explain why this metaphysical assumption without evidence is different than other metaphysical assumptions.

You are being too precise in what you see as evidence...

Example:
Behind a door I place either a real Irish Leprechaun or a football.
Which do you rationally think I have put there?

Hopefully your answer is the football.
Why? Because you have NO evidence for the existence of an Irish Leprechaun. So the only alternative, rationally, is the football.

Do you follow this?

If so:
Consciousness is either material or non-material.
Which do you rationally think it is?

(Note: this is getting pretty jumbled. You obviously disagree with much of what I'm saying, what is the primary disagreement?)

Several, I think...

1. Your failure to understand my position as merely the rational position - not as the claim of fact you seem to think it is.

2. Your willingness to abandon rational thought and claim as fact something for which there is no evidence, whether it be non-material things and/or God.

3. Your apparent incapability to accept that a lack of understanding of the vast complexity of the brain is not a rational reason to consider consciousness as non-material.

Maybe we are still talking cross-purpose with differing understandings of what is material or not.
To me a dream is, rationally, purely material.
But then so is any subjective experience - emotion, thoughts etc. All, rationally, are just the result of the vastly complex interactions within the brain.
Yes - it might be nigh on impossible to ever understand even the remotest parts of what consciousness really is, how it is formed etc.

And philosophically it may be easier to regard consciousness as utterly separate and "non-material" to help us understand it better...

But these are not reasons enough to believe that it really is - as there remains no evidence either for that or for ANY non-material things.

It will remain a possibility until proven otherwise.
As will God.
But until then the rational position falls in favour of where all the evidence currently resides.

 

[Enterprise-D]

All proper science begins with if. all science is founded upon assumptions, just as mathematics are founded upon axioms. There is nothing improper, unacceptable, unscientific, or illogical in doing this.

True that Ophi, but once you start a proposition, you should continue to a conclusion. Science does that. The assumption that god exists does not.

Excuse me? Stating that creation is the act of coming into being through an external agent is hearsay? I think you'll find that is a definition, not hearsay.

No, stating that creation was the process at all is hearsay.

I didn't say that I do. I have previously stated that either the universe has existed for ever, or it was created. Big Bang bellievers rule out a steady state Universe, so we are left with creation.

How does this leave us with "creation"?

Agents are not necessarily intelligent. Agents are not necessarily conscious. Agents are not necessarily single entities, though they may be any or all of these. And I should perhaps clarify that I see nothing implausible in postulating a recursive universe in which the act of creation is a consequence of our ultimate destiny. (Where our means intelligent life.) In that instance the agent would be internal.

I'm glad you know agents need not be conscious or intelligent. Which means "Intelligent Design" isn't your belief necessarily?

I tend to think any intelligent designer, having put together a Universe of billions of galaxies and billions of years in age and many, many more in potential age, deserves to be called God, but if you prefer to call he/she/it/they Arthur, go right ahead.

I tend to think that IF any intelligent entity put together the universe he deserves a hearty and heartfelt 'thank you' and a break out of the champagne and the good china. Ability does not a title make.

Could you please point out to me where on Earth I stated, implicitly, or explicitly, that such an agent merited worship. You seem to be making presumptions, not assumptions.

No you didn't lol I didn't say you did, I just threw in that point for completeness

I have not said at any point that there has to be an entity. I have simply stated that the existence of the Universe, etc, etc, is itself evidence for such an entity. Evidence is different from proof. I hope you understand this, but your peculiar remarks suggest you don't.

I agree that the universe is evidence of a precipitation/reaction of some sort that started the Universe. I do not agree that the existence of the universe is however evidence of any coherent entity. There is simply not enough evidence of that.

There may well be. Again, be good enough to show me where I stated that there was hard evidence. A poster stated that there was no evidence. I disagreed. The poster did not say there was no hard evidence: they stated there was no evidence.
There is world of ****ing difference. This is a science forum. Please do not corrupt the discussion by bringing lay definitions into it.

I understand both terms, however, I think it's being used interchangeably dependant on the threads I read, so I ignore the differences for readability, I was just pointing that out.

I have absolutely no idea what you are warbling on about. This is the second or third time you have brought up intelligent design. You aren't a closet creationist are you, trying to deny your true feelings?

EW! That's like calling me a closet heterosexual!

At any rate YOU seemed to be the one supporting the concept of some sort of god creating the universe.

Of course it doesn't. Nor does it rule it out. [And the point is that I like to quote J.B.S.Haldane whenever an opportunity presents itself.

LOL

 

[grover]

This is where you miss the argument...
You seem to jump on to the idea that it IS immaterial.
i.e. You claim it is non-material - yet have no evidence.

We have no objective evidence for any subjective experiences, which is actually part of the evidence of why it is immaterial, because we know we can provide evidence of the material because we have in the past done so, yet we can provide no evidence of subjective experience despite the fact that we know through direct experience that it exists. Secondly, we know there is a difference between metnal phenomenon and physical phenomenon so at least, based upon this, the self-evident position seems to be that mental phenomenon are not physical.

I am happy that there is the possibility it is non-material.
However, the RATIONAL position is one of materiality - as that is where ALL the evidence lies.

There is no evidence for subjective experience at all and yet we all know subjective experience is a fact.

The fact that material science can not (yet) provide answers is not enough to support something for which there is no evidence.

Part of the point is that no evidence can be provided for subjective experience and yet we know it is a real phenomenon.

But do not confuse this rational position for me saying that, without question, it IS material. I am not saying that.
I am saying, in the absence of other evidence, the rational position is that it is material.

But you are making it sound like here that I can't make a rational conclusion that consciousness is immaterial. I think I have.

Rational positions change with every new piece of evidence.
Treat evidence rationally and you get a rational conclusion.
Without evidence you can only reach irrational conclusions.
But bear in mind that irrational conclusions CAN ultimately be shown to be correct.

Just a question. Why in your opinion is it rational to accept that other people dream?

Example:
Behind a door I place either a real Irish Leprechaun or a football.
Which do you rationally think I have put there?

Hopefully your answer is the football.
Why? Because you have NO evidence for the existence of an Irish Leprechaun. So the only alternative, rationally, is the football.

Do you follow this?

If so:
Consciousness is either material or non-material.
Which do you rationally think it is?

The problem with this analogy is that both the football and the leprechaun is that they are both material. Our comparison is between the material and the immaterial.

1. Your failure to understand my position as merely the rational position - not as the claim of fact you seem to think it is.

Okay, I see what you're saying. But, I think you are making it sound like the one and only rational position.

2. Your willingness to abandon rational thought and claim as fact something for which there is no evidence, whether it be non-material things and/or God.

I'm pretty sure I've been trying to make a case based on rationality. When I start telling you that consciousness should be accpeted as immaterial because some religous text says so than I will accpet the notion that I've abandoned rationality. I haven't made any appeals based on faith.


3.

Your apparent incapability to accept that a lack of understanding of the vast complexity of the brain is not a rational reason to consider consciousness as non-material.

I think what I've done is taken as a starting poing that the only evidence we have for all subjective experience is self-evidence (which means 1st person direct observation). Second, I've tried to demonstrate that their is an obvious difference between a physical object and a mental representation of that object. I am open to the fact that science could one day show that consciousness is created by the brain. Right now all we really have to go on is our direct observations (which are actually acceptable in science as well -i.e., microscopes, telescopes. The only difference is that consciousness is not subject to third party verification (i.e., objective evidence).

Maybe we are still talking cross-purpose with differing understandings of what is material or not.
To me a dream is, rationally, purely material.
But then so is any subjective experience - emotion, thoughts etc. All, rationally, are just the result of the vastly complex interactions within the brain.
Yes - it might be nigh on impossible to ever understand even the remotest parts of what consciousness really is, how it is formed etc.

Well, one thing I find interesting is that in this scientific day in age people seem for some reason seem to think their subjective expereince is unimportant. For some reason because it isn't subject to third person verification it should at this time more or less be ignored as something from which we can gain understanding of the universe. Any system of thought that leaves subjective experience out of the equation of describing the universe must necessarily be incomplete, but that is exactly the current state of affairs as far as I can tell.

And philosophically it may be easier to regard consciousness as utterly separate and "non-material" to help us understand it better...

But these are not reasons enough to believe that it really is - as there remains no evidence either for that or for ANY non-material things.

It will remain a possibility until proven otherwise.
As will God.
But until then the rational position falls in favour of where all the evidence currently resides.

I don't think you have the only rational position. And there are serious problems with just lumping in consciousness, which seems not to fit the mold of simply physical, with all other material phenomena which science has so far been able to explain.

 

[Wisconsin Crippler]

New to this board. And I didn't feel like reading through all the posts.

Just wanted to throw my POV out there.

I consider myself an atheist, but I use the term loosely, because there is an element of atheism that is just as arrogant and dangerous as relgions. I personally feel that my lack of faith in a higher power, is by no means superior to someone elses faith. Alot of atheists take a superiorist attitude towards believers, and I feel that it is no different than people of religion feeling superior to other peoples religions. And atheism without tolerance would be every bit as dangerous as militant Islam. Maybe more so

 

[spidergoat]

Good thing atheism has an inherent quality of doubt and tolerance.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am not going to address each of your points that addressed one of my points which addressed one of your points, or we shall be here all year. I shall pick out a couple however.

I'm glad you know agents need not be conscious or intelligent. Which means "Intelligent Design" isn't your belief necessarily?

Of course it's not my ****ing belief. If I was in favour of capital punishment I'd give serious consideration to imposing it on promoters of the concept. (And please.....that is an example of the literary device known as hyperbole. Don't try to prove from this that I am intolerant.)

All I have been doing in this thread is to dispute the statement that there is no evidence. I find that to be a statement that is indefensible on any scientific basis; I maintain that those who make it are not thinking things through; I contend that if scientists, or those with a scientific background, make this statement then they are following dogma - they think they are defending science, when they are undermining it.

.

II agree that the universe is evidence of a precipitation/reaction of some sort that started the Universe. I do not agree that the existence of the universe is however evidence of any coherent entity. There is simply not enough evidence of that.

Again, you fail to see the vital distinction between evidence and proof. (And I am not forgetting that in science all 'proof' is provisional; all conclusions are subject to change.
I don't think the evidence is very good, but it is evidence. My scientific objectivity requires that I acknowledge it as evidence. That is what I am doing.

 

[peta9]

The existence of this universe or even our consciousness is not evidence of a creator but could be just some sort of process we can't understand. I believe consciousness is neutral in it's purest form and the concept of an entity negates, belittles, malforms and is brought down to our narrow understanding of it. Existence could be a stage in the process to eventual oblivion.

 

[Ophiolite]

Existence could be a stage in the process to eventual oblivion.

That is certainly consistent with your previously expressed views, such as mass euthenasia being preferable to living in misery. I like consistency.

 

[Sarkus]

We have no objective evidence for any subjective experiences, which is actually part of the evidence of why it is immaterial,

No - this is where you start down your irrational conclusion.

Just because we can not explain something does NOT make it false.
We can not (yet) explain consciousness in terms of material, but that does not mean it is evidence for non-material.
To think otherwise is irrational.

Secondly, we know there is a difference between metnal phenomenon and physical phenomenon so at least, based upon this, the self-evident position seems to be that mental phenomenon are not physical.

Again - an irrational conclusion.
The rational conclusion is that mental phenomena are a different type of material phenomena to matter that can be held in the hand, for example - just as a television image of a brick is material - but can not be held in the hand.

There is no evidence for subjective experience at all and yet we all know subjective experience is a fact.
Part of the point is that no evidence can be provided for subjective experience and yet we know it is a real phenomenon.

But this is NOT, in itself, evidence for non-material - unless you think irrationally.

But you are making it sound like here that I can't make a rational conclusion that consciousness is immaterial. I think I have.

And I have shown you where your thinking is flawed.
You are, to put it simply, using a lack of evidence FOR as evidence AGAINST.

Just a question. Why in your opinion is it rational to accept that other people dream?

Several reasons:
1. I know I do.
2. It has been shown that the brain enters certain states when it dreams (REM, alpha waves etc) - which has been tested in the lab - and is repeatable.

The problem with this analogy is that both the football and the leprechaun is that they are both material. Our comparison is between the material and the immaterial.

The comparison is between something for which there is evidence and something for which there is no evidence. The analogy, in this respect, is sound.

Okay, I see what you're saying. But, I think you are making it sound like the one and only rational position.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it IS the only rational position.
So, either I am missing the point of what constitutes evidence or not, or you are missing the point of why your evidence really isn't evidence FOR non-material things.

I'm pretty sure I've been trying to make a case based on rationality.

I don't doubt your efforts, or your sincerity in this, and apologies if this comes over as arrogant or elitist (not my intention) but your reasoning is flawed.

When I start telling you that consciousness should be accpeted as immaterial because some religous text says so than I will accpet the notion that I've abandoned rationality. I haven't made any appeals based on faith.

Understood and accepted - which is why we are still having such a long dialogue.

And there are serious problems with just lumping in consciousness, which seems not to fit the mold of simply physical, with all other material phenomena which science has so far been able to explain.

This seems to be an argument from incredulity. And it may stem from subtle (but significant) differences in what we classify as material or not.

Second, I've tried to demonstrate that their is an obvious difference between a physical object and a mental representation of that object.

This is where we differ - in that you think the mental representation is non-material - whereas I hold that rationally it should be considered material.

Well, one thing I find interesting is that in this scientific day in age people seem for some reason seem to think their subjective expereince is unimportant. For some reason because it isn't subject to third person verification it should at this time more or less be ignored as something from which we can gain understanding of the universe. Any system of thought that leaves subjective experience out of the equation of describing the universe must necessarily be incomplete, but that is exactly the current state of affairs as far as I can tell.

And that's another thread entirely.