Kevin vs Eloise: Atheism / Theism Showdown (Semi-Formal Debate)

Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Kevin vs Eloise: Atheism / Theism Showdown (Semi-Formal Debate)

Welcome to semi-formal, peer-reviewed debate between myself and Eloise. To start things off, I am simply going to go over the format and rules for the debate for the sake of the reader:

THE FORMAT

The debate will consist of opening statements by Eloise and myself, detailing our worldviews, the evidence for our worldviews, and our reasons and evidence for finding atheism / theism (respectively) fallacious / irrational.

Each opponent will then write a rebuttal to the opening statement, and their opponent will write a response to this rebuttal. Opponents will then rebut and counter-rebut 4 more times.

DeludedGod and Hambydammit have agreed to be an impartial, credible peer-reviewing body during the debate. As such, the debate will be paused twice for them to review the arguments leveled so far, pull-apart the statements of Eloise and myself and examine their veracity, and state their opinion as to who has the stronger position based on what they've reviewed.

After the final rebuttal is posted, the peer reviewers will weigh-in with concluding statements regarding the strengths / weaknesses of the debating positions, an encapsulation of their own thoughts on the issues raised here, and a mutual decision of whom they feel won the debate.

A visual idea of what the debate will look like:

K's Statement -> E's Rebut ->  K's Rebut ->               -> E's Rebut -> K's Rebut ->               ->E's Rebut -> K's Rebut

                                                                    -> Panel                                               -> Panel                                        -> Verdict

E's Statement -> K's Rebut -> E's Rebut  ->              -> K's Rebut -> E's Rebut ->                ->K's Rebut -> E's Rebut

 

THE RULES

 

1.) The debate will be civil. No swearing or name-calling (this should prove far tougher for me than Eloise. Sticking out tongue)

2.) The debate is between Eloise and myself. Mods, is it possible to have this thread locked so that only Eloise, myself and the peer reviewers may talk in it? If not, I would simply really appreciate everyone's cooperation in being readers, and not just jumping-in (if you do, you'll be ignored).

3.) Neither party is to argue with the peer reviewers. For all intents and purposes, they will focus on their opponent, and under no circumstances bring what the peer reviewing body may have to say directly into the discussion.

 

Hamby or Deluded, would you mind starting us off with a coin toss? Heads will have Eloise posting her opening statement first, tails will have me posting mine first. That should be a fair way of arbitrating who posts first.

 

 

 

EDIT IN BY SAPIENT:  I've created the "ONE on ONE debate" forum to make moderation duties more simply.  Both Eloise and Kevin have been given a special role via our site to allow them to post in this forum.  Only high level mods and RRS housemates have moderating or editing privs in this forum.  That means that not even Kevin can currently mod this forum, it's on lockdown.  So enjoy the show.  Here is the peanut gallery thread.   Feel free to spread the word about this discussion(digg, reddit, stumble, etc) , I know both parties to be both intellectual and civil. 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
The coin has been flipped,

The coin has been flipped, and Eloise goes first.

 

Just to throw in my own mission statement with regard to this debate, as a reviewer, it's not my position to say who I do or don't agree with.  Everyone knows that I'm an atheist, and I can't claim to have an impartial opinion.  What I intend to do instead is weigh the strength, consistency, and relevance of the arguments presented.  Just as many people feel that, say, Brian and Kelly didn't present a strong enough position in the Ray and Kirk debate, if either Kevin or Eloise presents a weak argument, it will fall to DG and me to point that out.

For those of you reading this debate, it would be a good exercise to try to remove yourself from your own opinion, be it theism or atheism, and try to decide for yourself not who is correct, but who is presenting a stronger case.  This, after all, is the essence of being openminded.

As for the rules, this thread is reserved STRICTLY for Eloise and Kevin.  Any posts other than theirs will be summarily deleted.  To anyone thinking of breaking this rule, consider that you'll be pissing off the Mod God and the Bazooka Wielding Deluded God.  Bad idea on both counts.
 

As ground rules for both parties:

1) Technical language not readily accessible to the audience should be either avoided, or when used, explained in enough detail that the readers can reasonably hope to grasp the subject.

2) Though there is no word limit on posts, please remember that this is a public debate, not a doctoral dissertation.  Try to keep your posts within a manageable length for the average reader.  If you are going to be presenting a long chain of logic, consider posting it in parts through multiple rounds.

 

With that, I will bow out until the first round of review.  Again, Eloise goes first with her opening statement.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:With that, I will bow

Quote:
With that, I will bow out until the first round of review.  Again, Eloise goes first with her opening statement.

I lied.  I've set up a peanut gallery thread for people to comment on this thread.  I'd like for the two of you to come to an agreement about viewing that thread.  I don't care one way or another, but if one of you is reading it and the other not, that would constitute an unfair advantage.

Just let me know what you work out, and that will be the agreement.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I'm here now. Just a quick

I'm here now. Just a quick thing about timings and responses. Kevin and Hamby, I'm about 12 hours out of synch with you,give or take 3 hours depending on your positions in the continental US. Eloise, I'm essentially on the same clock as you, being an hour behind.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:I'm here

deludedgod wrote:

I'm here now. Just a quick thing about timings and responses. Kevin and Hamby, I'm about 12 hours out of synch with you,give or take 3 hours depending on your positions in the continental US. Eloise, I'm essentially on the same clock as you, being an hour behind.

 

I'm glad we're talking clocks here cause yes, it's morning for me now and when I get my opening statement up (which I am working on now as fast as my almost with it, now, brain will carry it) it might be too late an hour of night for Kevin and Hamby to read right away - and vice versa.. I think we should probably stay aware of this so it will hopefullly be less of a problem that one or two of of us might be sleeping while the others are waiting on a contribution (namely you guys waiting for me right now) I promise I'll be forgiving if Hamby and Kevin can be. Smiling

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Opening Statement

Opening statement:

I'd like to start with borrowing from a recent topic in the AvT forum - Whether or not God exists is not of particular importance. If there is NO God the issue of God's existence is decidedly unimportant and to that end I expect you (Kevin, Panel and Gallery) will hold me to my own standard - I am not here to compel any agreement that God's existence is necessary.

What is important is that something does exist of which our lives are an indivisible part, what is this that exists is! an important question. If it is God or if it is not, it is equally important to know this existence for what it is.

And this will be the basis of my argument, I will ask you only to consider -

What is this that exists?


I am here to show you a realistic ontology which leads logically to conclude that all that exists is qualitatively equal to your own sense of existence therefore a sentient, living being, by your own measure, and quantitatively equal to your own massive potential, thus a God in whose image are we.

I will begin with some slightly technical definitions from the standard model of particle physics - one of our best theories of physical existence at this time. These definitions are what we will use to differentiate between the sometimes confusing concepts of the nakedly visible material universe and the more technical expositions of the material universe that include its non-classical attributes.

The standard model postulates that the universe is madeup of particles, sometimes referred to as quanta. Each of these particles is endowed with a strange property known as intrinsic angular momentum or spin.

Aside: I say this property is strange because there exists no formal agreement among physicists as to what spin actually is, it is a mysterious but very real part of the fundamental material universe. As there is no properly established theory explaining the phenomenon of spin I will not enter into any speculation about it at this time. I will only use respected and well understood spin theory make points in this debate.

Intrinsic angular momentum can be separated into two fairly clear categories - Integer Spin and Half-Integer Spin. Particles in the half-integer spin category are generally responsible for the rigid exclusive states which we would normally refer to as matter, the Integer Spin category most generally contains those particles which we would normally refer to as forces.

A very important particle type in the half integer spin category is the fermion (electrons are fermions) and thus I will, in this debate, refer to the classical world of rigid matter in the general sense as fermi objects in a fermi field of fermi neighbours.

This category of things obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics and the Pauli Exclusion principle - you will only need to basically understand the implications of the pauli exclusion principle ie the fermi objects we are talking about will repel each other because no two electrons of the same energy can occupy the same space and it is this that is inherently responsible for most of our everyday experience of classical matter.

In the Integer spin category are Photons (light and electromagnetic force) and Bosons (possibly Gravity) which obey Bose-Einstein statistics and thus can do things which fermi objects are excluded from doing such as occupy the same space at the same energy. These particles are most generally, what is exchanged in force interactions, thus they represent forces. For example, in Pauli exclusion a virtual particle exchange force exists between Fermions which causes them to repel each other (it is this that gives us the sensation of feeling something hard against our fingertips). In a fermi neighbourhood information from an integer spin force precedes the reaction that causes the appearance of rigidness between fermi neighbours so this Bose-Einstein field intersects our fermi neighbourhood on a non-classical axis.

So with that the definitions are -

Half-integer spin-Fermion category
1. The part of the material universe with classical material properties.
2. To be known as Fermi objects in a fermi field of fermi neighbours.

Integer Spin-Boson/photon category
1. The part of the material universe with quasi-classical properties (forces, waves and energy)
2. To be known as the Bose-Einstein field intersecting the Fermi neighbourhood non-classically.


In the Fermi Neighbourhood:

As I have implied above the Bose-Einstein field of integer spin particles is causal on more fronts than those generally ascribed to it in a classical model of the universe. In classical thought the field of forces is encompassed by the notion of a determinate fermi object harnessing and using some form of energy directly via itself as in Newtons equation F=MA in which the cause of the force is clearly the energy objectively distributed over the fermi object.

In the case of Pauli exclusion, information is exchanged across the Bose-Einstein field and the fermi neighbourhood takes a state according to that information.  There is no clear cut direction of causality in this exchange. The Information exchanged beteen the fermi neighbours is information about their individual state, yet their individual state also depends on having that information.

** You can note here that the B-E field appears to be able to defy the very notion of cause by distributing information before it could possibly have that information. However, again, for the purposes of a clean debate I am going to refrain from speculating on the concept of non-locality and stick to the well worn road - it is enough for us to see that the integer spin field is so deeply involved in the causal structure of the fermi neighbourhood.

Because the cause of force in the fermi neighbourhood loops back around the quantum states of fermi objects and into the information in the Bose-Einstein field. It is important for us to consider the relationship between these two categories of physical existence and what their relationship implies about that physical existence.
 

As indicated in the first paragraphs we will consider this relationship as it applies to your own human and sentient existence.

Your material existence is comprised, with a small degree of contrived simplicity, of the intersection between these two categories of the material universe.

Your rigid corporeal form and its dynamic system of interactions is a fermi neighbourhood. Information in that neighbourhood is distributed, generally, by the presence of a non-classically intersecting Bose-Einstein field of integer spin states. Within your body's systems information is exchanged via the B-E field between fermi objects in the neighbourhood.

To generalise and get to the point fairly quickly information about your state and the state of the universe you inhabit will pass between your environment and your brain in this way. We can concieve of information passed via this field to the brain over multiple channels.

Ordinarily one can concieve of the B-E field distributing information through your external senses and directly through nerve channels to the brain which recognises and organises those messages. This is a given.

In a less ordinary sense, we can also conceive of another sensory mechanism more directly linked to the relationship between the fermi neighbourhood and the B-E field whereupon information distributed through the field of forces energy and waves is relied upon by the fermions intrinsic to your physical being in order to maintain their consistent physical state. In this way one can say that at a level removed from your normal everyday senses the material portions of your being sense their environment using the exact same principles that govern your cognitive senses - information exchange distributed by an integer spin field.

Aside: Reiterating an important qualification - This integer spin field defies our classical sense of causality, how it does this is yet an important subject, however it is fairly sure to be beyond denying that upon discovering how it does this we are very unlikely to discover that it doesn't at all. It is enough to be going with that we will need to consider the distribution of information given by integer spin is a thing unto itself that must relate to what we are certain about in our existence. We will not go into the question of whether it is random (and thus how does it know to follow consistent laws) or whether it is fully actualised (and thus where are the other universes) or whether it is secretly chosen by a simple entity (and thus how, if ever, will we overcome the impossible barrier to observe that entity). Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows which of these is my preferred answer, but I won't be addressing that in this opening statement.

Suffice it to say that this distribution of information preceeds the configuration of the universe in any stage of its evolution, including the state of your physical being, and so your physical being is informed, by this distribution, how to be.

So far we have fairly simply established that what exists operates under the very same rules as those that govern the sensory attributes of a sentient organism, but in order to be considered fully sentient according to the characteristics of a God it probably should have a more striking resemblance to specialised organ of sentients.

And So... Pre-empting any possible objections, I agree it is not enough for existence to be able to sense itself by the same means that we sense ourselves, it should also, in order to be sentient as humans are, possess some specialised organisational structure analogous to a brain in which to order and 'compute' the sensory data.  

Again we look at the internal sensory faculty which recieves the distribution of information producing, to our physical senses, a dynamic system supportng the existence of the specialised instrument and fermi object which is a living brain.

There is a real perspective here in which it can be said that the brain produces itself from the data it has exchanged with its fermi neighbours. To this end the living brain is an entity not unlike the human being in which it resides, it is an entity unto itself no less than we are an entity unto ourselves in the universe in which we reside. In the terms of our classical perspective on the relationship we have with our brains one would say that the brain is less an entity unto itself in us than we are one unto ourselves in the universe. But if that is true, and the relationships between integer and half integer quantum objects is also true, then we are precisely less an object unto ourselves in the universe than we have supposed.

And if this is the case then our brains are no more belonging to us, than to the universe which we belong. That is to say, the universe is sentient in being specialised in computation, just as we are, in fact exactly as we are.

In summary of the concluding points.

1. Qualitatively the sentience of a living being is inseparable from the fundamental processes that produce a physical universe - a half integer spin field exchanging information over integer spin distribution.

2. Quantitatively the classical concept of an individual sentience belonging to a human entity is impossible unless that sentience belongs equally to the universe in which it operates.

C: All that exists is both qualitatively equal to our own sense of existence and quantitatively equal to its massive potential. Ergo all that exists is completely compatible with the definition of an omni-being God of which we are the image.

 
QED.

Thankyou and I shall now look forward to Kevin's opening statement.
 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Opening Statement   My

Opening Statement

 

My primary objective in this debate is to impress upon the reader that atheism – that is, a lack of belief in a supernatural deity of any form – is the most rational and reasonable way to approach the examination of the world. Atheism make no presupposition; it simply acknowledges that no compelling evidence for a God has yet been discovered, and until it does, belief that God exists is irrational.

 

I will support this objective through the use of what is known as 'The Scientific Method', which is the time and experience-hardened process of experimentation that scientists have used throughout history to explore our world, our solar system, our galaxy and our universe and all of their underlying mechanics to the best of their ability. The scientific method is responsible for spawning every piece of technology our civilization takes advantage of, establishing the physical laws and principles of the universe and uncovering everything from the origins of life to the origins of the universe itself.

 

The scientific method employs a number of well-established golden rules to ensure fair testing, accurate results and, most importantly, the production of practical applications:

 

  • All conclusions must be based on evidence. Conclusions that are presupposed, and then have evidence made to fit them, are neither scientific or valid.

  • Objective measurements are expected to be made; guesswork establishes nothing

  • All testing must be blind

  • Sample numbers must be sufficiently large

  • Controls and variables must be established and made obvious

  • Sources of information must be cited, and said information must be verifiable, reliable and backed-up by it's own evidence.

  • Fact and opinion are not the same thing, and one should be made clearly separate from the other.

 

Keeping these rules in mind, the scientific follows a rigorous and linear procedure in order to establish a claim as a valid scientific theory:

 

  1. A problem is identified (often one that a researcher has an interest in: for example, 'Where did humans come from?')

  2. A hypothesis is proposed that the researcher thinks may resolve the problem (for example, 'I think humans were created by a magical deity,')

  3. A prediction is made to explain how the researcher's hypothesis works (for example, 'I predict that the magical deity creates life on a whim, out of nothing, so we will see that animals have no relation to each other both at a DNA level and in the fossil record')

  4. Testing of the prediction is then rigorously done, often taking-up many years worth of work. If the data and experimentation proves the prediction wrong, the researcher will need to start all over again with another hypothesis (for example, 'the fossil record and DNA evidence show that animal species all descend from common lineages, so my hypothesis needs to be changed because the evidence does not show it is correct'), but this is not a negative thing; it simply means he is opening-up new channels of insight (for example, 'my hypothesis is now that humans descended from an animal, like all other species') that can now be explored for their own veracity.

  5. A prediction that passes the researcher's tests is then submitted to publication and subjected to peer review. Experts throughly examine it for any mistakes.

  6. If peer review is successful, the results of the tests are published in a scientific journal.

  7. Other experts, reading the publication, will then try to replicate the researcher's results / observations. If they cannot be replicated, the claim will be discarded as erroneous.

  8. The claim must also be shown to be falsifiable (that is, the claim can possibly be proven false if certain conditions are proven factual in another test with stronger results)

  9. After all of the prior criterion are met, the researcher's work is considered a scientific theory (the highest level of establishment possible for a scientific claim).

 

The scientific method has never been appropriately used to demonstrate the existence of a God. Until it is, God is nothing but pure speculation and wishful thinking; a concept dreamed-up in more primitive times to explain what humans were curious about, but had no means of really examining.

 

 

My secondary objective here is to demonstrate that religious 'moderation' is an unsuitable term for anyone to take for themselves. There is no such thing as as a 'moderate' (or, at the very least, there's not nearly as much distinguishable difference between a moderate and a fundamentalist as a majority of moderates would like to believe). Both fundamentalists and moderates put faith blindly into extraordinary claims, and both pick and choose different parts of religious doctrine that they want to have for themselves based on how palatable they are in their own eyes.

 

There's no objective criteria for being a moderate or a fundamentalist; it's strictly opinion and personal value used to make the judgment. Some moderates think that abortion is murder, some don't. Some moderates take Biblical passages to be literal, some don't. Some moderates support stem cell research, some don't. Some moderates think that Hell is literally a fiery place of eternal torment, some don't.

 

This is not a system of healthy contrasts. The lines here are blurred, at best; more likely, they're hardly existent at all.

 

 

(So, now that the opening statements are up, rebuttals are next. Just remember: both of our rebuttals must be up before we post counter-rebuttals, to keep things organized).

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Rebuttal 1Quote:I'd like to

Rebuttal 1

Quote:

I'd like to start with borrowing from a recent topic in the AvT forum - Whether or not God exists is not of particular importance. If there is NO God the issue of God's existence is decidedly unimportant and to that end I expect you (Kevin, Panel and Gallery) will hold me to my own standard - I am not here to compel any agreement that God's existence is necessary.

I disagree.

If God does exist, that the discovery of he/she/it would be extraordinarily important - more or less so depending on it's permutation. If we were to somehow discover that the Abrahamic God and his eternal realms of Heaven and Hell are a reality, for example, we would suddenly have very compelling reason to offer prayers and worship, because it's unlikely we would want to burn forever. If the god you later describe in your post is a reality, it would have huge potential practical applications - likely it would lead to unimaginable technological progress, as we learned to manipulate such a consciously-generated environment.

If God does not exist, however - or, as it is currently, is not clearly shown to exist - than it is extremely important that this is accepted on a factual level. If it isn't, and we simply shrug ad say, 'Well, it's alright for people to make-up what they want about the universe and it's origins,' we're retarding the scientific method. More importantly, we're enabling fanatics with an easy scapegoat; Scientologists with their 'fair game' policy, Muslims with their misogynistic doctrines and deadly martyrdom, Christian 'faith healers' and televangelists who sew death and misery through fraudulence, etc.

Quote:

What is important is that something does exist of which our lives are an indivisible part, what is this that exists is! an important question. If it is God or if it is not, it is equally important to know this existence for what it is.

And this will be the basis of my argument, I will ask you only to consider -

What is this that exists?

I agree that this is an important problem; as such, it is one that wholly deserved to be examined through the rigors of the scientific method. As such, I'm going to plug your ensuing argument into the procedure model for the scientific method, to see if it might qualify as a theory. As such, however, while I will be making sure to address you opening statement as a whole, I cannot address it in the order you posted it.

Let's take a look:


 

  1. Problem:

    Quote:

    What is this that exists?

 

  1. Hypothesis:

    Quote:

    All that exists is both qualitatively equal to our own sense of existence and quantitatively equal to its massive potential. Ergo all that exists is completely compatible with the definition of an omni-being God of which we are the image.


 

  1. Prediction:

    Quote:

    1. Qualitatively the sentience of a living being is inseparable from the fundamental processes that produce a physical universe - a half integer spin field exchanging information over integer spin distribution.

    2. Quantitatively the classical concept of an individual sentience belonging to a human entity is impossible unless that sentience belongs equally to the universe in which it operates.

  2. Test:

    .....

Here we have our first hang-up. And remember, this is where the really important processes begin for determining the veracity of a scientific theory.

Eloise, you've provided plenty of data, which is very appreciable, but if we look back on the golden rules of the scientific method, we see that this data fails to meet a lot of the criteria. Even though my understanding of physics (and thereby quantum mechanics) is extraordinarily limited, it's still easy for me to state that the data you've presented has little merit:

The particle physics information is presented largely without citations, and many of the terms use an imprecise language that suggests speculation rather than established principle...

Quote:

In a less ordinary sense, we can also conceive of another sensory mechanism more directly linked to the relationship between the fermi neighbourhood and the B-E field whereupon information distributed through the field of forces energy and waves is relied upon by the fermions intrinsic to your physical being in order to maintain their consistent physical state. In this way one can say that at a level removed from your normal everyday senses the material portions of your being sense their environment using the exact same principles that govern your cognitive senses - information exchange distributed by an integer spin field.

This, for example, is outright speculation. Not established principle. 'One can say' a number of things, about any topic; that does not make what is said valid.

Quote:

Aside: Reiterating an important qualification - This integer spin field defies our classical sense of causality, how it does this is yet an important subject, however it is fairly sure to be beyond denying that upon discovering how it does this we are very unlikely to discover that it doesn't at all. It is enough to be going with that we will need to consider the distribution of information given by integer spin is a thing unto itself that must relate to what we are certain about in our existence. We will not go into the question of whether it is random (and thus how does it know to follow consistent laws) or whether it is fully actualised (and thus where are the other universes) or whether it is secretly chosen by a simple entity (and thus how, if ever, will we overcome the impossible barrier to observe that entity). Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows which of these is my preferred answer, but I won't be addressing that in this opening statement.

Again, this is speculation. I'm highlighting where the key indicators of this are.

Moreover, the sentence in this paragraph has no worth; it's just a form of baiting. Science isn't concerned with what your preferred answer is; it's concerned with what the data shows.

Quote:

So far we have fairly simply established that what exists operates under the very same rules as those that govern the sensory attributes of a sentient organism, but in order to be considered fully sentient according to the characteristics of a God it probably should have a more striking resemblance to specialised organ of sentients.

And So... Pre-empting any possible objections, I agree it is not enough for existence to be able to sense itself by the same means that we sense ourselves, it should also, in order to be sentient as humans are, possess some specialised organisational structure analogous to a brain in which to order and 'compute' the sensory data. 

...We have not established anything, actually. We certainly haven't established that 'existence itself' operates the same way a biological organism's brain does. At best, you've argued (without citations, and with arguments that very much appear to be strictly speculative) that our brains can perceive B-E fields outside of physical sensory mechanisms. Even if this were true (and you'd need good data to support such an argument), it wouldn't be evidence that the universe 'thinks'.

Quote:

There is a real perspective here in which it can be said that the brain produces itself from the data it has exchanged with its fermi neighbours. To this end the living brain is an entity not unlike the human being in which it resides, it is an entity unto itself no less than we are an entity unto ourselves in the universe in which we reside. In the terms of our classical perspective on the relationship we have with our brains one would say that the brain is less an entity unto itself in us than we are one unto ourselves in the universe. But if that is true, and the relationships between integer and half integer quantum objects is also true, then we are precisely less an object unto ourselves in the universe than we have supposed.

And if this is the case then our brains are no more belonging to us, than to the universe which we belong. That is to say, the universe is sentient in being specialised in computation, just as we are, in fact exactly as we are.

This is, again, purely speculative. We have no data that suggests our own brains or bodies are projections of the universe, no evidence that the universe 'thinks' to begin with, and no evidence that our brain has any perception beyond that which is provided by it's body's sensory components.

It is important to note, since it has appeared so many times, that 'information' is nothing more than a human abstraction. When something happens, we want to be able to quantify it, so we assign information to it. Everything can be said to comprised of information – it is important not to conflate a human abstraction with an actual naturalistic process.


 

Now, if we go to the next two steps in the procedure model of the scientific method, we run into further problems. While plenty of papers have been published on quantum mechanics and particle physics, not a single paper pertaining to a universal consciousness has seen print in a scientific journal. While this alone does not constitute evidence that the hypothesis is therefore wrong, it does demonstrate that the theory has no scientific corroboration despite having had a fairly considerable amount of time for examination.

The eighth step is the final nail in the coffin. There is simply no way whatsoever to falsify the notion that perhaps we are constructs of the universe's imagination. The theory isn't concrete enough to be testable, much less approached with competing ideas that would prove it false.


 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
1st Rebuttal - Eloise -


1st Rebuttal - Eloise -

Thankyou Kevin, you have made a number of points that I am not inclined to disagree with at all. That said it is yet relevant to the context of this debate that as my ontology leads to the existence of a being which is compatible with the theological omni-being God that I am essentially advocating the results of theological methods for examination of the world. Or, in other words, I'm saying "they are right" so am I, by de facto, then saying that their methods are sound?

Kevin wrote:


Kevin R Brown wrote:




My primary objective in this debate is to impress upon the reader that atheism – that is, a lack of belief in a supernatural deity of any form – is the most rational and reasonable way to approach the examination of the world. Atheism make no presupposition; it simply acknowledges that no compelling evidence for a God has yet been discovered, and until it does, belief that God exists is irrational.


 

I will support this objective through the use of what is known as 'The Scientific Method', which is the time and experience-hardened process of experimentation that scientists have used throughout history to explore our world, our solar system, our galaxy and our universe and all of their underlying mechanics to the best of their ability. The scientific method is responsible for spawning every piece of technology our civilization takes advantage of, establishing the physical laws and principles of the universe and uncovering everything from the origins of life to the origins of the universe itself.



Given my opening statement it's probably clear that I am not going to argue against the epistemic utility of the scientific method, obviously, since I am relying on it myself to support my conclusions, I am inclined to agree that it is a most rational method of examination of existence.

I also agree that the abscence of hypotheses of idealism, such as the assumption of some existing perfect being, does nothing to detract from the reasonableness of the method of science.

I would argue, however, that an absence of irrational idealism can serve to detract from the success of the method of science. Perfectness and other irrational constructs of the human imagination can be drawn upon for scientific inspiration (like the demons of Maxwell and Laplace) and are thus extremely valuable epistemic tools, unrealistic expectations are all too often what are found to be met by scientific investigation and at least intimately part of the reason for the spawning of every wonderful piece of technology our civilisation takes for granted.    

So I will advocate the reasonableness of irrational theistic epistemology to the extent that I will say even fictions of Gods have epistemological value, even if they serve only to be disproved. To this end I will say that atheism of the weak variety indicated (ie simple lack of belief) is the not most voracious espistemic standpoint for investigation of the world in being inherently accepting of a certain sense of banality that is not shared with radical idealists who would seek a decisive answer one way or the other, although given no evidence of a God it is the most reasonable default position.

I will simply say that it as at least as investigatively effective to be a dreamer, and your dream may be of Gods or god like entities and still be a reasonable and valuable contribution to the collective knowledge of the human race. 

This may spur you to ask where I believe the epistemic line should be drawn, if we are to give irrationally idealised hypotheses their turn at the table and acknowledge them as a valuable contribution to our collective knowledge, how then do we objectively deal with quackery. And my answer is that we should draw the line where it has always been drawn by rational people, imagination, intuition or revelation are sources but not arbitrators of reliable knowledge. The deciding of epistemic reliability must be justifiably methodological but the encountering of it, need not be.
  



Kevin R Brown wrote:


The scientific method has never been appropriately used to demonstrate the existence of a God. Until it is, God is nothing but pure speculation and wishful thinking; a concept dreamed-up in more primitive times to explain what humans were curious about, but had no means of really examining.



This is a veiled appeal to authority which is invalid, a significant reason for the success of a scientific community is that it can provide collectively many differing viewpoints on the same things, it is not necessary nor desirable that every one in a scientific community desire to establish the same theories or the same one theory, only that they construct their arguments for a respectable theory from the same agreed basic ontological elements.

Additionally, the scientific method has uncovered and demonstrated any number of previously unthinkable possibilities, and moreover significant numbers of human advances in knowledge were thoroughly and completely established in principle and unconnected parts far prior to being demonstrated in conjunction as a complete science or theory.


Kevin R Brown wrote:


My secondary objective here is to demonstrate that religious 'moderation' is an unsuitable term for anyone to take for themselves. There is no such thing as as a 'moderate' (or, at the very least, there's not nearly as much distinguishable difference between a moderate and a fundamentalist as a majority of moderates would like to believe). Both fundamentalists and moderates put faith blindly into extraordinary claims, and both pick and choose different parts of religious doctrine that they want to have for themselves based on how palatable they are in their own eyes.

 

There's no objective criteria for being a moderate or a fundamentalist; it's strictly opinion and personal value used to make the judgment. Some moderates think that abortion is murder, some don't. Some moderates take Biblical passages to be literal, some don't. Some moderates support stem cell research, some don't. Some moderates think that Hell is literally a fiery place of eternal torment, some don't.

 

This is not a system of healthy contrasts. The lines here are blurred, at best; more likely, they're hardly existent at all.
 




I will agree with you that the concept of moderate religiosity can not be clearly and unambiguously delineated from fundamental religiosity. We can only evaluate the parts of an individual religious belief for logical consistency. To wit, I am not sure I can debate this issue with you as I see no logical inconsistency in your statement. Moderate religiosity is not a free pass to get one's idealistic notions an exemption from reasonable scrutiny. 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
2nd Rebuttal- Eloise


Kevin R Brown wrote:

Eloise wrote:


    I'd like to start with borrowing from a recent topic in the AvT forum - Whether or not God exists is not of particular importance. If there is NO God the issue of God's existence is decidedly unimportant and to that end I expect you (Kevin, Panel and Gallery) will hold me to my own standard - I am not here to compel any agreement that God's existence is necessary.



I disagree.

If God does exist, that the discovery of he/she/it would be extraordinarily important - more or less so depending on it's permutation. If we were to somehow discover that the Abrahamic God and his eternal realms of Heaven and Hell are a reality, for example, we would suddenly have very compelling reason to offer prayers and worship, because it's unlikely we would want to burn forever.


Ouch, fair point. I concede. If you'll allow me to correct myself, I mean to say that it is not important to me a priori that God exists, and I would aim to achieve the demonstration of that in my argument. I might not wish for Hellfire if, as such, the abrahamic jealous punisher of evil exists, but neither would I wish any given to be unlikely hellfire into existence just because it must be. It is somewhat of a relief to find inconsistency in the stories of maniacal bloodthirsty Gods, I'll admit, and as you said, if such a God exists it would be important to know that it does in order to freely choose your afterlife destiny - still.... given some of those fundamentalist-type abrahamic Gods, personally I'm not sure I would comply with his demands.... but, I digress.... back to the matter at hand.

   
`
Kevin R Brown wrote:


 If the god you later describe in your post is a reality, it would have huge potential practical applications - likely it would lead to unimaginable technological progress, as we learned to manipulate such a consciously-generated environment.


I submit that my opening statement may not have been entirely clear on a few points. It may not have been clear to you that the fermi-neighbourhood is not 'consciously' generated as such, it is, at best* (*where best means I have not made any glaring logical errors) deeply unconsciously generated. The generation of matter and the generation of consciousness share means but they do not share attentive purpose that we have yet objectively discerned. That is, the brain goes about it's business of making itself and the consciousness about it's business of making itself, and though they do this side by side and in the same way, we have not formally observed the manner of any communication that they may have between each other of their respective ends, only the principle in which it is possible that they might.


Kevin R Brown wrote:


If God does not exist, however - or, as it is currently, is not clearly shown to exist - than it is extremely important that this is accepted on a factual level. If it isn't, and we simply shrug ad say, 'Well, it's alright for people to make-up what they want about the universe and it's origins,' we're retarding the scientific method. More importantly, we're enabling fanatics with an easy scapegoat; Scientologists with their 'fair game' policy, Muslims with their misogynistic doctrines and deadly martyrdom, Christian 'faith healers' and televangelists who sew death and misery through fraudulence, etc.



We have a general accord here. Unfortunately this is more difficult in practice than in our sense of idealism. Ideally we would all take our respective positions on the philosophical questions of the universe and only question or defend them in a peaceful and constructive manner eventuating in rational and undisputed agreement over the most likely conclusions.  Science and reason are our attempts to reach for this ideal and religion is often the anthithesis of it. Because I share that ideal, I am personally enamoured of science and not religion.

**This might not be weighable in the debate, but perhaps it is weighty on your mind, Kevin, to profess myself a theist in this day and age and thus potentially contribute a sense of credibility to the unfortunate state of theistic communities is not something I take lightly. If I thought it was the best choice in light of those things I would lie and profess atheist because I am genuinely moved by your appeal.  

 

 
Kevin R Brown wrote:


Eloise wrote:


    What is important is that something does exist of which our lives are an indivisible part, what is this that exists is! an important question. If it is God or if it is not, it is equally important to know this existence for what it is.

    And this will be the basis of my argument, I will ask you only to consider -

    What is this that exists?


I agree that this is an important problem; as such, it is one that wholly deserved to be examined through the rigors of the scientific method. As such, I'm going to plug your ensuing argument into the procedure model for the scientific method, to see if it might qualify as a theory. As such, however, while I will be making sure to address you opening statement as a whole, I cannot address it in the order you posted it.

Let's take a look:


 

   1.

      Problem:

      Quote:

          What is this that exists?


 

   2.

      Hypothesis:

      Quote:

          All that exists is both qualitatively equal to our own sense of existence and quantitatively equal to its massive potential. Ergo all that exists is completely compatible with the definition of an omni-being God of which we are the image.


 

   3.

      Prediction:

      Quote:

          1. Qualitatively the sentience of a living being is inseparable from the fundamental processes that produce a physical universe - a half integer spin field exchanging information over integer spin distribution.

          2. Quantitatively the classical concept of an individual sentience belonging to a human entity is impossible unless that sentience belongs equally to the universe in which it operates.



Those aren't really the predictions there. These are a reiteration of the hypotheses which make the predictions:

a. that the qualitative reality of human sentience can be explained in terms equal to the fundamental processes which generate the material universe. This is done by demonstrating that conscious information and physical information is distributed to ontologically equal entities by equal process.

and

b. that the quantitative reality of human sentience has been defined only to a potential. This is demonstrated by taking applying the concept in (a) to another entity to demonstrate the extent of implication of the equivalency relationship.




 
Kevin R Brown wrote:


   4.

      Test:

      .....

Here we have our first hang-up. And remember, this is where the really important processes begin for determining the veracity of a scientific theory.

Eloise, you've provided plenty of data, which is very appreciable, but if we look back on the golden rules of the scientific method, we see that this data fails to meet a lot of the criteria. Even though my understanding of physics (and thereby quantum mechanics) is extraordinarily limited, it's still easy for me to state that the data you've presented has little merit:

The particle physics information is presented largely without citations, and many of the terms use an imprecise language that suggests speculation rather than established principle...



My apologies for the omission here, I did not anticipate that you would expect citable references for the concepts which I spoke of as they aren't controversial subjects, and I made a decided effort to avoid saying anything that might be too controversial for an opening statement.


Kevin R Brown wrote:

Eloise wrote:


    In a less ordinary sense, we can also conceive of another sensory mechanism more directly linked to the relationship between the fermi neighbourhood and the B-E field whereupon information distributed through the field of forces energy and waves is relied upon by the fermions intrinsic to your physical being in order to maintain their consistent physical state. In this way one can say that at a level removed from your normal everyday senses the material portions of your being sense their environment using the exact same principles that govern your cognitive senses - information exchange distributed by an integer spin field.



This, for example, is outright speculation. Not established principle. 'One can say' a number of things, about any topic; that does not make what is said valid.



Okay, this is not really outright speculation, as it were. I have given you an established principle - that of information distribution over the integer spin field - and two very seemingly different phenomena to which it applies equally. It is not outrightly speculative to draw from this demonstration an equivalency of the two phenomena. It would seem your impression of that comes more directly from my cautious choice of language than from an obviously apparent leap in the logic of my statement.

If I were to say, for example, banging on a drum makes a sound and causing a disturbance in the particles which make up the system of a tightly bound cloth and it's environment with a stick creates a travelling wave of energy to your ear which your brain then translates thus one could say excited particle waves beating against the inner ear and sound are qualitatively equal phenomenon. Would you disagree with that based on my choice to phrase it with those particular words?


 
Kevin R Brown wrote:


Eloise wrote:


    Aside: Reiterating an important qualification - This integer spin field defies our classical sense of causality, how it does this is yet an important subject, however it is fairly sure to be beyond denying that upon discovering how it does this we are very unlikely to discover that it doesn't at all. It is enough to be going with that we will need to consider the distribution of information given by integer spin is a thing unto itself that must relate to what we are certain about in our existence. We will not go into the question of whether it is random (and thus how does it know to follow consistent laws) or whether it is fully actualised (and thus where are the other universes) or whether it is secretly chosen by a simple entity (and thus how, if ever, will we overcome the impossible barrier to observe that entity). Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows which of these is my preferred answer, but I won't be addressing that in this opening statement.



Again, this is speculation. I'm highlighting where the key indicators of this are.



This is an aside, and I am saying it in anticipation of you or the audience perhaps wondering if my argument is based on speculation about the nature of spin phenomena. I am saying that I am trying to avoid speculative territory, although I'm aware some might be interested in my views on it and whether those views would be directly relevant to my argument.


Kevin R Brown wrote:

Moreover, the sentence in this paragraph has no worth; it's just a form of baiting. Science isn't concerned with what your preferred answer is; it's concerned with what the data shows.


My apologies again Kevin, I am not overtly attempting to bait you here, my thoughts were with the reader not the scientific community. I will curb the asides for the rest of the debate.


Kevin R Brown wrote:

Eloise wrote:


    So far we have fairly simply established that what exists operates under the very same rules as those that govern the sensory attributes of a sentient organism, but in order to be considered fully sentient according to the characteristics of a God it probably should have a more striking resemblance to specialised organ of sentients.

    And So... Pre-empting any possible objections, I agree it is not enough for existence to be able to sense itself by the same means that we sense ourselves, it should also, in order to be sentient as humans are, possess some specialised organisational structure analogous to a brain in which to order and 'compute' the sensory data.



...We have not established anything, actually. We certainly haven't established that 'existence itself' operates the same way a biological organism's brain does.



Yes, you are correct about that, I should have noted that neural synapse is a fermi state governed by the distributions of the integer spin field somewhere in there and I didn't. Forgive my poor construction of that particular point in the argument.

Kevin R Brown wrote:


.... it wouldn't be evidence that the universe 'thinks'.



This is a misconception of my argument which I hoped not to have lead you into. The thrust of my point about the quantitative reality of sentience is that we can strip ourselves of it as easily as we can strip the universe of it. We can, with sharp equivalence, define neural patterns as entities unto themselves as we can define humans; given my proposed ontological basis.  We may be declaring our sentience our own rather arbitrarily, it is its own no less and in the course of claiming it our own we concede to 'the universe' the exact same ontological justification.

 

Additional Note: I am surprised not to see you raise what I imagined were likely objections or questions regarding my God concept - for example I thought you might question whether (since I am asserting that the universe is ontologically justified in claiming our sentience and is a God) I also believe, as I logically should, that the collective race of humanity is omniscient?  For which I could refer you to Omega Point Theory (with strict instructions to ignore the outlandish theological assertions) wherein it is theoretically established that in some universe causally connected to this one, we are. 

It occurs to me, consequently, that I have made my points difficult to understand with my unfortunate verbosity affliction, I hope you won't hesitate to ask for any clarification that you may need on any point, however small or obscured by wordiness it is.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Is the panel permitted to

Is the panel permitted to comment now?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Yes, DG.  This is the first

Yes, DG.  This is the first round of panel commentary.  It will probably be tomorrow before I can get my first comments up, but feel free to jump in whenever you're ready.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I have been informed that

I have been informed that the panel is indeed permitted to comment.

There is one thing I wish to point out, that Eloise did not make clear enough, and may have confused readers as a result. The property of "corporeality", that is, the "hardness" we associate with material bodies, is purely the result of the electromagnetic force. That is, when you have, for example, a book on a table, the fact that the book does not fall through the table is absolutely nothing to do with the occupation of space by rigid, featureless spheres of matter, it is in fact, because the electrons in the book repulse the electrons in the table. Every single material interaction ever experienced on a meaningful level by humans is basically the result of two things: Gravity and electromagnetism.

With that out of the way, let the commenting begin:

Eloise: I was happy going through Pauli Exclusion, B-E statistics and fermionic/bosonic distinction, all familiar ground. Firstly, a terminological question. I've never heard the term Bose-Einstein field. I presume you mean a Bose-Einstein distribution, or rather, a Bosonic field, a field which obeys BE distribution.

At any rate, all material interactions and processes as we understand them are the result of the interaction you described. But the second half of the post seemed primarily concerned with the problem of personal identity. It was not clear what precisely you meant by the point that sentience belongs to the universe. What do you mean to state that this property belongs to something? If material processes result from interactions within a Bosonic field (which they do) then where the distribution of information within the field causes the material process as observed, then all the properties of material objects themselves, and their processes, result, however indirectly from QM .But what you were essentially doing, therefore, was drawing an analogy. To state that two processes are analogous and that, as a result, if one process has some property, the other process must have the same property, is a non sequitur. It seemed that the primary implication of the principle being advocated was that personal identity is a problematic process, because material objects are not composed of immutable substances which are distinct from their external world. You need to decide what you are talking about. This debate is not about the philosophical problem of personal identity.

You seemed to go on two different tangents pertaining to the interpretations that can be drawn from the understanding of how material causal interactions work. On the one hand, you were discussing the implications of BE distribution for the problem of personal identity. At least, that would have been the impression I got from reading what you wrote. We know the brain is not an entity unto itself, indeed, a philosopher would point out that we don't need QM to tell us that anyway. The brain, is, as was correctly pointed out, basically a process. This process is similar to the process by which information is distributed in a Bosonic field, but since the process that the brain runs (processing sensory information) is in itself the result of the very process which you described (information distribution in a BE field) you are in an extremely difficult position when trying to say that this implies that the whole physical system must also be endowed with this property.

On the other hand, you went with the idea that this in effect means that the universe is computing, that is, it is effectively executing a program informing material causal processes (presumably a short program). This is digital physics. This is an interpretation which was slipped in among factual statements about the information distribution on a bosonic field.

That's basically my input on the first part. The part about the BE distribution and its resulting explanation for the material causal processes we experience is correct. The implications of this (that matter itself is merely a process) for personal identity were outlined correctly, but the conclusion, that the universe itself must be endowed with the same properties, cannot be argued on this basis. I was suprised. Most of the time, when people want to link QM to the idea that there must an innate sentience endowed in the universe, they argue for the Consciousness causes collapse interpretation of QM. This usually doesn't work because CCC is called an "interpretation" for a good reason. The same goes for Digital physics, the interpretation you argued for. At least it was more original.

Kevin: You got nailed on the QM. Most of the things Eloise said are commonly understood principles of QM, as in the E-B distribution, Pauli exclusion and Fermi-Dirac statistics. There wouldn't be much point in referencing works by other people as these principles are named after the people that would probably be referenced. You're in danger of getting crushed on the physics aspect of the debate. 

Now, consider this:

Eloise's topic discussion:

-The implications of quantum mechanical explanations for forces and matter and their implications for our ontological understanding of the nature of reality

Kevin's Discussion topic:

-The scientific method, the irrationality of belief in God and the problems of moderate religion

See the problem? When I first read your opening statements, it almost seemed like you two were posting opening statements from totally different debates. You need to establish common debating points before your opening statements. The fact that Eloise was talking about Fermi-Dirac statistics while Kevin was talking about the evils of moderate religion indicates you didn't establish this very well. The pair of you need to be more rigorous in the points about which you are debating, and, when both of you use the same word, such as "God" etc. you must be sure that both of you know precisely what the other means, or you are in danger of equivocating.

Who Has the Stronger position?

I can't tell you that until you affirm opposing positions on a matter. At the present, I can't even tell the precise nature of your disagreement. In a normal atheism-theism debate, the theist believes in some sort of being-unto-itself that exists in some supernatural extra-material realm and is responsible for the existence of the universe, like Newton's Great Mechanic, and the atheist does not. This is not the case here, so find something to disagree on and I'll get back to you.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I was expecting to have a

 I was expecting to have a harder job critiquing this first round, just looking at the length of it.  DG is the authority on QM, and I have nothing to add to his assessment of Eloise's statements.  I concur with his statement that there has yet to be a proper debate because of poor coordination of positions.

It appears to me that you both agree on the merit of the scientific method, so that can be taken as a given.  It also appears to me that religion is several steps ahead of Eloise's propositions, and as she has not yet satisfied the burden of proof, I'd suggest that Kevin needs to back up quite a few steps.

Before the next round, I would like you to get together and decide what you're debating.

 {EDIT:  erk... I should have said, "She has not yet satisfied the burden of proof for the claim that the analogous nature of sentience is indeed a real relationship}


 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Err... Hamby? The judges

Err... Hamby?

 

The judges weren't supposed to go yet.  Sticking out tongue

(I still had a 2nd rebuttal to do).

 

 

That said, good idea. Eloise and I should likely confer at this point.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Err...  sorry.   In any

Err...  sorry.  Smiling

 

In any case, if you'd gone another round, we'd have said the same things.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
HAHAHA!...Okay, this is just

HAHAHA!

...Okay, this is just way too funny (even if I'm just laughing at myself). This is what I initially challenged Eloise with:

Quote:

I think I might be at risk of derailing the thread that I'm all hot-fingered over right at the moment. I want to challenge you to a public debate in the A vs T forum. Will you accept?

A public debate! A public debate about...

....

....who knows?

Sticking out tongue

 

After that part of my message to her, I just dive right into the format and rules, without even a second though that perhaps - just maybe - it would be a good idea to actually propose something to debate over, rather than simply propose a debate.

So, ahem, yeah. The disconnect seen here is my fault.

Oops.

 

I've asked Eloise if she'd like to start again, but with an actual topic in mind this time, or just let the debate go. Hey, if nothing else... the format was a good idea, right? Sticking out tongue

(I'm very, very sorry!)

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Well, uh... I know the

Well, uh... I know the peanutgallery might be a tad upset at this anti-climax, but:

 

Eloise and I are putting this one away. I don't know QM or physics (as I had previously mentioned), Eloise has said she doesn't contest the scientific method as a voracious mechanism for exploring the world, and at any rate, there's little to no disagreement here regarding te traditional idea of God.

Intuitively (based on a lack of peer-reviewed lterature on the subject), I think digital physics is junk science, but that's not a field of study I've researched, so I can't really argue against it. At any rate, a huge thanks to DG and Hamby for agreeing to be the panel for the debate, and a huge thanks to Brian for setting-up this One on One arena so nicely for us.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Well,

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Well, uh... I know the peanutgallery might be a tad upset at this anti-climax, but:

 

Eloise and I are putting this one away. I don't know QM or physics (as I had previously mentioned), Eloise has said she doesn't contest the scientific method as a voracious mechanism for exploring the world, and at any rate, there's little to no disagreement here regarding te traditional idea of God.

Intuitively (based on a lack of peer-reviewed lterature on the subject), I think digital physics is junk science, but that's not a field of study I've researched, so I can't really argue against it. At any rate, a huge thanks to DG and Hamby for agreeing to be the panel for the debate, and a huge thanks to Brian for setting-up this One on One arena so nicely for us.

 

I'd also like to thank everyone hugely for their contributions. and apologise for my own lack of forethought in deciding with Kevin what topic we would debate. We did, obviously incorrectly, presume that our respective views on the existence of a God entity would provide enough meat for a good debate, but in hindsight, it's clear we should have been much more specific as to what detail of those contrasting views we would concentrate on.  I am really sorry to everyone disappointed by the premature ending of this thread, I hope this won't be the end of the one on one format here at RRS.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com