Cant disprove god? heres how to

Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cant disprove god? heres how to

Quote:
Intelligence requires: 
1. An external world
2. A body capable of translating events in the external world into "information"
3. Some device capable of processing this information in a nontrivial way and controlling the body.

For example, why are plants not intelligent but animals are? Because plants are rooted in place, but animals navigate an environment. Animals sensory apparatus input information about the external world, where it is processed by the brain and used to control the animal's movements. This is what intelligence is, it's the nontrivial processing of information coming from an external world for the purpose of navigating it.

As such God, and all things supernatural, are impossibilities. God was supposedly an intelligence floating around in nothingness. But intelligence is the nontrivial processing of information about an external world, what was the external world that corresponds to God? What was the information being processed by God's mind? How did God's body transfer information to his mind?

The real problem is that information requires matter. It doesn't matter if it's the molecule of DNA, nuerons in the brain, transistors in a computer chip,or patterns of ink on paper, all information requires a material representation. There is no such thing as information floating around in nothingness, in spirit form, or whatever. The concept of a mind outside of a brain, or information outside of matter is as meaningless as the concept of a 4 sided triangle or a flat sphere.

The sooner people realize this the sooner we can move on from humanity's superstitious roots.

If anyone thinks I've gone too far, feel free to give me an example of information not being stored in matter/energy/space/time or give me an example of intelligence not being the result of the nontrivial processing of information. If you can't give me an real example, try to come up with a thought experiment showing how it's possible to have information and/or intelligence not associated with matter/energy/space/time.

 

any theist wanna disprove what i just said
 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 is going to love this.

 

I think theists will say a god that can manufacture a universe can do whatever he wants - including defy his own laws - but I like this argument. The idea god is connected intimately at a molecular level to every particle in this universe from his vantage point in another universe has always seemed to me to be a crock of total shit. Why would the godly deny evolution which simply requires the development of adaptations to exploit environmental niches - a concept that we can demonstrate - and yet believe god has an ethereal intellect and perception - the ability to hear and see and understand everything everywhere, all the time, and to remember it, all the while being utterly aware of the entire future and the entire past?

The mind bending complexity of the appearance of a replicating cell from from a soup of substances that we know exist in this universe is more likely than the concept of an all-knowing god gallivanting about in another universe we have never seen.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Sorry, Adventfred this

 

Sorry, Adventfred this argument has inaccuracies and mistakes that I have to point out:

 

Adventfred wrote:

Intelligence requires: 
1. An external world
2. A body capable of translating events in the external world into "information"
3. Some device capable of processing this information in a nontrivial way and controlling the body.

These are your premises. Now I am going to show you why they are flawed, and why no self-respecting scientist would make such claims about intelligence.

Adventfred wrote:


For example, why are plants not intelligent but animals are?

Mistake #1 - Plants are intelligent.

Adventfred wrote:

There is no such thing as information floating around in nothingness, in spirit form, or whatever. The concept of a mind outside of a brain, or information outside of matter is as meaningless as the concept of a 4 sided triangle or a flat sphere.

Mistake #2 - It may not make much sense in our classical logic, true. But information beyond perceived matter does exist.

 

 

Adventfred wrote:

If anyone thinks I've gone too far, feel free to give me an example of information not being stored in matter/energy/space/time

Information is definitely an attribute of matter/space/time but you must understand the real nature of matter/space/time is actually quite strange to our senses. Our common, traditional-sense-based, concepts of matter space and time are so deeply flawed that in reality they are just as much mere superstition as any religion.

 

Adventfred wrote:


The sooner people realize this the sooner we can move on from humanity's superstitious roots.

I like this attitude, and for that reason I hope you can come up with a better argument.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Eloise

 

Eloise wrote:

 

Mistake #2 - It may not make much sense in our classical logic, true. But information beyond perceived matter

does

exist.

 

Could you help you understand how this works? Are you talking about matter that can't be perceived by our senses like dark matter that gravity suggests is there but we can't identify?

Also, if reality is governed in part by unprovables we are obliged to trust (and as hadron is my saviour, I have to confess I think this correct), do you think it's fair to say that it's endeavouring to discover the truth about reality

that elevates scientific effort above the level of mere superstition?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
I like that speculation. It

I like that speculation. It dovetails with some thoughts that I have been working on recently. I was not really feeling like they were ready to post just yet but let me give it a whirl.

 

OK, some some theists are now saying that god made time and space. But I have to ask myself what such could possibly mean. Where was god when he made space? When did god make time? Apart from some form of pop-theology nonsense allowing for general exclusions for god, the only sensible answers are that god was nowhere when he made space and nowhen where he made time.

 

Well, if god was nowhere and nowhen, then he did not exist in any meaningful sense. Could god have come into existence either with the beginning of the universe or just after? Well, that would be a very different sort of god than in the former case. Also, just saying that says nothing of what attributes god may possess.

 

Hence an additional problem arises. It is not sufficient to merely invoke god. One must invoke a specific idea of god with specific attributes. Given a particular definition of god, we can do as above and ask the question of whether that definition is consistent with facts that can be known through a process of inquiry.

 

If a given definition of god is not consistent with what can be certainly known through other lines of inquiry then that concept of god in inherently broken.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Eloise wrote:

 

Mistake #2 - It may not make much sense in our classical logic, true. But information beyond perceived matter

does

exist.

 

Could you help you understand how this works? Are you talking about matter that can't be perceived by our senses like dark matter that gravity suggests is there but we can't identify?

I suppose Dark Energy would also fit Adventfred's 'information in nothingness' requirement.... maybe... it's hard to say, but I wasn't referring to Dark Energy there, no.

Quantum Superposition is an entirely different concept which comes out of the math of a quantum theory description of matter - essentially what you've got with quantum superstition is (a lot of) information which must necessarily exist in some form but literally exists in nothingness according to our senses.

 

AtheistExtermist wrote:

Also, if reality is governed in part by unprovables we are obliged to trust (and as hadron is my saviour, I have to confess I think this correct), do you think it's fair to say that it's endeavouring to discover the truth about reality

that elevates scientific effort above the level of mere superstition?

We absolutely ought to respect the scientific method as above superstition, but it is not "endeavouring to discover the truth about reality" which makes it so. The Scientific method doesn't necessarily assume that there is any such "truth", that's a theory, ergo it's not the method itself.

While an individual theory usually appears to state an assumption that some possibility will be shown to be "true" for some observation, the scientific method itself, actually, assumes only that the possibility will stand as model (or analogue) of the observation. The rest is done by interpretation.

Through interpretation science is rendered into metaphysics - this part is subject to much superstition, but the preceding part, the actual science, is not.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Ta for that, Eloise

 

I really like this sort of thread - if you folks won't mind my trundling a cliche out of the garage I can't help feeling this is the bit where the rubber meets the road, god-wise.

Just wish we had more to go on. There's so much that contradicts and obfusticates - including my piffling ability to get my head around any of it. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise


Eloise wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Eloise wrote:

 

Mistake #2 - It may not make much sense in our classical logic, true. But information beyond perceived matter

does

exist.

 

Could you help you understand how this works? Are you talking about matter that can't be perceived by our senses like dark matter that gravity suggests is there but we can't identify?

I suppose Dark Energy would also fit Adventfred's 'information in nothingness' requirement.... maybe... it's hard to say, but I wasn't referring to Dark Energy there, no.

Quantum Superposition is an entirely different concept which comes out of the math of a quantum theory description of matter - essentially what you've got with quantum superstition is (a lot of) information which must necessarily exist in some form but literally exists in nothingness according to our senses.

 

AtheistExtermist wrote:

Also, if reality is governed in part by unprovables we are obliged to trust (and as hadron is my saviour, I have to confess I think this correct), do you think it's fair to say that it's endeavouring to discover the truth about reality

that elevates scientific effort above the level of mere superstition?

We absolutely ought to respect the scientific method as above superstition, but it is not "endeavouring to discover the truth about reality" which makes it so. The Scientific method doesn't necessarily assume that there is any such "truth", that's a theory, ergo it's not the method itself.

While an individual theory usually appears to state an assumption that some possibility will be shown to be "true" for some observation, the scientific method itself, actually, assumes only that the possibility will stand as model (or analogue) of the observation. The rest is done by interpretation.

Through interpretation science is rendered into metaphysics - this part is subject to much superstition, but the preceding part, the actual science, is not.

 

sorry for the confusion folks when i say nothingness im talking about a god that is outside of space and time and/or who created matter,space and time 

if he created all that what was he doing before or what disturbed his eternal equilibrium to create a universe

 

Also we know a mind without a brain is impossible so how could god just be intelligence without a brain to create the universe  


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: Sorry,

Eloise wrote:

 

Sorry, Adventfred this argument has inaccuracies and mistakes that I have to point out:

 

Adventfred wrote:

Intelligence requires: 
1. An external world
2. A body capable of translating events in the external world into "information"
3. Some device capable of processing this information in a nontrivial way and controlling the body.

These are your premises. Now I am going to show you why they are flawed, and why no self-respecting scientist would make such claims about intelligence.

Adventfred wrote:


For example, why are plants not intelligent but animals are?

Mistake #1 - Plants are intelligent.

Adventfred wrote:

There is no such thing as information floating around in nothingness, in spirit form, or whatever. The concept of a mind outside of a brain, or information outside of matter is as meaningless as the concept of a 4 sided triangle or a flat sphere.

Mistake #2 - It may not make much sense in our classical logic, true. But information beyond perceived matter does exist.

 

 

Adventfred wrote:

If anyone thinks I've gone too far, feel free to give me an example of information not being stored in matter/energy/space/time

Information is definitely an attribute of matter/space/time but you must understand the real nature of matter/space/time is actually quite strange to our senses. Our common, traditional-sense-based, concepts of matter space and time are so deeply flawed that in reality they are just as much mere superstition as any religion.

 

Adventfred wrote:


The sooner people realize this the sooner we can move on from humanity's superstitious roots.

I like this attitude, and for that reason I hope you can come up with a better argument.

 

also what you linked too is in our universe also information is different from intelligence 


Ctrl Y
Theist
Posts: 73
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
I have a problem with your

Quote:
Intelligence requires: 
1. An external world
2. A body capable of translating events in the external world into "information"
3. Some device capable of processing this information in a nontrivial way and controlling the body.

For example, why are plants not intelligent but animals are? Because plants are rooted in place, but animals navigate an environment. Animals sensory apparatus input information about the external world, where it is processed by the brain and used to control the animal's movements. This is what intelligence is, it's the nontrivial processing of information coming from an external world for the purpose of navigating it

As such God, and all things supernatural, are impossibilities. God was supposedly an intelligence floating around in nothingness. But intelligence is the nontrivial processing of information about an external world, what was the external world that corresponds to God? What was the information being processed by God's mind? How did God's body transfer information to his mind?

The bolded sections each seem intended as a definition of "intelligence." Pick one definition and stick with it. You can't base an argument on two contradictory definitions.

Quote:
As such God, and all things supernatural, are impossibilities. God was supposedly an intelligence floating around in nothingness. But intelligence is the nontrivial processing of information about an external world, what was the external world that corresponds to God? What was the information being processed by God's mind? How did God's body transfer information to his mind?

This paragraph ignores two things.

Firstly: "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." (Gen. 1:1) Water and a void existed in the beginning, from which it follows that God was not a mind floating in nothingness in the beginning.

Secondly, "floating" is a spatial concept, inapplicable to an immaterial being. God wasn't "floating" anywhere, ever.

Quote:
The real problem is that information requires matter. It doesn't matter if it's the molecule of DNA, nuerons in the brain, transistors in a computer chip,or patterns of ink on paper, all information requires a material representation. There is no such thing as information floating around in nothingness, in spirit form, or whatever. The concept of a mind outside of a brain, or information outside of matter is as meaningless as the concept of a 4 sided triangle or a flat sphere.

The sooner people realize this the sooner we can move on from humanity's superstitious roots.

If anyone thinks I've gone too far, feel free to give me an example of information not being stored in matter/energy/space/time or give me an example of intelligence not being the result of the nontrivial processing of information. If you can't give me an real example, try to come up with a thought experiment showing how it's possible to have information and/or intelligence not associated with matter/energy/space/time.

First, this begs the question against the Christian, who believes in an immaterial God and an immaterial soul that carry information.

Secondly, I can produce counterexamples. I can point to my personal experiences as evidence of the existence of an immaterial info-carrying God and an immaterial info-carrying soul, then conclude that information does not require matter. It would not satify you, but it shows that my position is internally consistent.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred wrote: also what

Adventfred wrote:

 

also what you linked too is in our universe

You mean Superposition States? Yes, that's true they're in our universe, our universe is in that sense, much more than what we perceive. However, to use the fact that superposition states are encoded in matter/space/time in our universe as an argument against theological claims is a fallacy known as 'moving the goal posts'.

None of this science was known when the original theological claims you're trying to refute were made. Quantum superposition states do exist outside the traditional-sense-based concepts of matter/space/time, and since it is those concepts that theological claims were put to and not these more contemporary, moreover still very uncommon and unusual, deeply scientific views, it's not logical to consider them bearing on theological claims in such a way as you are suggesting.

 

 

 

Adventfred wrote:

also information is different from intelligence 

I don't remember saying that information and intelligence were the same thing.

 

Also, Did you read the link I gave you on thinking plant life?

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 When did god make time?

 

 

 

 

   Actually God just had his secretary cancel a few appointments which allowed him the opportunity to start creating all that cosmic stuff and junk you guys are talking about.  I read it in the Old Testament somewhere...can't remember the exact verse, though.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Ctrl Y


Ctrl Y wrote:

Quote:
Intelligence requires: 
1. An external world
2. A body capable of translating events in the external world into "information"
3. Some device capable of processing this information in a nontrivial way and controlling the body.

For example, why are plants not intelligent but animals are? Because plants are rooted in place, but animals navigate an environment. Animals sensory apparatus input information about the external world, where it is processed by the brain and used to control the animal's movements. This is what intelligence is, it's the nontrivial processing of information coming from an external world for the purpose of navigating it

As such God, and all things supernatural, are impossibilities. God was supposedly an intelligence floating around in nothingness. But intelligence is the nontrivial processing of information about an external world, what was the external world that corresponds to God? What was the information being processed by God's mind? How did God's body transfer information to his mind?

The bolded sections each seem intended as a definition of "intelligence." Pick one definition and stick with it. You can't base an argument on two contradictory definitions.

Quote:
As such God, and all things supernatural, are impossibilities. God was supposedly an intelligence floating around in nothingness. But intelligence is the nontrivial processing of information about an external world, what was the external world that corresponds to God? What was the information being processed by God's mind? How did God's body transfer information to his mind?

This paragraph ignores two things.

Firstly: "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." (Gen. 1:1) Water and a void existed in the beginning, from which it follows that God was not a mind floating in nothingness in the beginning.

Secondly, "floating" is a spatial concept, inapplicable to an immaterial being. God wasn't "floating" anywhere, ever.

Quote:
The real problem is that information requires matter. It doesn't matter if it's the molecule of DNA, nuerons in the brain, transistors in a computer chip,or patterns of ink on paper, all information requires a material representation. There is no such thing as information floating around in nothingness, in spirit form, or whatever. The concept of a mind outside of a brain, or information outside of matter is as meaningless as the concept of a 4 sided triangle or a flat sphere.

The sooner people realize this the sooner we can move on from humanity's superstitious roots.

If anyone thinks I've gone too far, feel free to give me an example of information not being stored in matter/energy/space/time or give me an example of intelligence not being the result of the nontrivial processing of information. If you can't give me an real example, try to come up with a thought experiment showing how it's possible to have information and/or intelligence not associated with matter/energy/space/time.

First, this begs the question against the Christian, who believes in an immaterial God and an immaterial soul that carry information.

Secondly, I can produce counterexamples. I can point to my personal experiences as evidence of the existence of an immaterial info-carrying God and an immaterial info-carrying soul, then conclude that information does not require matter. It would not satify you, but it shows that my position is internally consistent.

Ok first how can an immaterial god interact with the physical ?

Also " in the beginning god created  created is a mistranslation among others

Also personal experience wont count because persons of other religions claim to have personal experience with there God

 

Also how do you define an immaterial soul or god 

What is it 


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Adventfred

Eloise wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

 

also what you linked too is in our universe

You mean Superposition States? Yes, that's true they're in our universe, our universe is in that sense, much more than what we perceive. However, to use the fact that superposition states are encoded in matter/space/time in our universe as an argument against theological claims is a fallacy known as 'moving the goal posts'.

None of this science was known when the original theological claims you're trying to refute were made. Quantum superposition states do exist outside the traditional-sense-based concepts of matter/space/time, and since it is those concepts that theological claims were put to and not these more contemporary, moreover still very uncommon and unusual, deeply scientific views, it's not logical to consider them bearing on theological claims in such a way as you are suggesting.

 

 

Adventfred wrote:

also information is different from intelligence 

I don't remember saying that information and intelligence were the same thing.

 

Also, Did you read the link I gave you on thinking plant life?

 

Yes i did but if it was god who created time/space etc.....  What was he doing or what caused him to want to create this universe 

also what is God before we go forth


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Space/time is "created" by

Space/time is "created" by the very matter that exists within space/time -- this is basic Einstein.  It's also why the Large Hadron Collider is out there looking for the Higgs Boson, because it's believed to be the particle that mediates "space" and/or mass.

The first unsupported premise is that any two 'spaces' or 'universes' are coupled -- that is, if Blargh of Glomonon is in "Universe B" and we're in "Universe A", unless it is possible for some information to flow between those two universes, we're out of luck and we'll never know about "Blargh of Glomonon".  Part of the reason for this is that "information" requires some form of messenger particle to "tell" something else about what it "saw".  The particle (really a "wavicle&quotEye-wink we are most familiar with is the "photon".  It tells us where it came from (more or less) and what it's been up to since then.  We already have this problem, to some degree, because the Universe is big enough that "information" may well be unable to flow from one "side" of the universe to the other "side" and actually get there.

The second is that any form of energy that doesn't interact with what we've got isn't going to provide us with information either.  We can detect photons, as well as the Weak (W and Z bosons) and Strong (gluons) nuclear forces, and hopefully the Large Hadron Collider will give us insight into the Higgs and whatever it does.  But if there is "something else out there" (Dark Matter and Dark Energy being two candidates at the moment), we're likewise out of luck.

The third is a universal sort of flaw in Theism / Atheism debates -- "If G-d exists, we should be able to detect G-d because ...", and then some reasons why.  The opposite of which is "G-d exists because I have a book that says so" or "G-d has to exist because otherwise ...", which is really a special case of the former since then it's "G-d exists because I have a book which says G-d has to exist because otherwise ..."

The last flaw is the one we have here -- "Assuming G-d exists, G-d must be made of ordinary (our Universe) matter, because all Intelligence requires Ordinary Matter in order to exist.  G-d claims to have created ordinary (our Universe) matter.  Furthermore, G-d claims that before creating our Universe that there was no matter.  Therefore, before our Universe existed, there was no matter hanging around to make up G-d."  This is refuted by the first basic flaw -- there's nothing to say that G-d (l'havdil) wasn't some corporeal entity hanging out in "Universe A" and then flung some "stuff" over to our corner of the whatever and created "Universe B".  In that scenario, unless "A" and "B" can share information, we ain't ever going to find "Universe A" and figure out G-d's mailing address.

Does all of this make sense?  Sure.  It and makes about as much sense as weird non-Euclidean geometries in which perhaps a sphere IS flat.  None of what I've described is "false", given what we know about Science today.  It's just that we tend to think of "intelligence" as something that exists only in terms of matter that WE comprehend.  If the Science of the past century has proven anything, it's that reality is far stranger than fiction AND that we don't have all the answers yet by a long shot.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Space/time is "created" by the very matter that exists within space/time -- this is basic Einstein.  It's also why the Large Hadron Collider is out there looking for the Higgs Boson, because it's believed to be the particle that mediates "space" and/or mass.

The first unsupported premise is that any two 'spaces' or 'universes' are coupled -- that is, if Blargh of Glomonon is in "Universe B" and we're in "Universe A", unless it is possible for some information to flow between those two universes, we're out of luck and we'll never know about "Blargh of Glomonon".  Part of the reason for this is that "information" requires some form of messenger particle to "tell" something else about what it "saw".  The particle (really a "wavicle&quotEye-wink we are most familiar with is the "photon".  It tells us where it came from (more or less) and what it's been up to since then.  We already have this problem, to some degree, because the Universe is big enough that "information" may well be unable to flow from one "side" of the universe to the other "side" and actually get there.

The second is that any form of energy that doesn't interact with what we've got isn't going to provide us with information either.  We can detect photons, as well as the Weak (W and Z bosons) and Strong (gluons) nuclear forces, and hopefully the Large Hadron Collider will give us insight into the Higgs and whatever it does.  But if there is "something else out there" (Dark Matter and Dark Energy being two candidates at the moment), we're likewise out of luck.

The third is a universal sort of flaw in Theism / Atheism debates -- "If G-d exists, we should be able to detect G-d because ...", and then some reasons why.  The opposite of which is "G-d exists because I have a book that says so" or "G-d has to exist because otherwise ...", which is really a special case of the former since then it's "G-d exists because I have a book which says G-d has to exist because otherwise ..."

The last flaw is the one we have here -- "Assuming G-d exists, G-d must be made of ordinary (our Universe) matter, because all Intelligence requires Ordinary Matter in order to exist.  G-d claims to have created ordinary (our Universe) matter.  Furthermore, G-d claims that before creating our Universe that there was no matter.  Therefore, before our Universe existed, there was no matter hanging around to make up G-d."  This is refuted by the first basic flaw -- there's nothing to say that G-d (l'havdil) wasn't some corporeal entity hanging out in "Universe A" and then flung some "stuff" over to our corner of the whatever and created "Universe B".  In that scenario, unless "A" and "B" can share information, we ain't ever going to find "Universe A" and figure out G-d's mailing address.

Does all of this make sense?  Sure.  It and makes about as much sense as weird non-Euclidean geometries in which perhaps a sphere IS flat.  None of what I've described is "false", given what we know about Science today.  It's just that we tend to think of "intelligence" as something that exists only in terms of matter that WE comprehend.  If the Science of the past century has proven anything, it's that reality is far stranger than fiction AND that we don't have all the answers yet by a long shot.

 

Agreed but if (just saying) god is from universe A he could well be an alien 

also intelligence without a brain is very very hard to stomach  


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred wrote:Agreed but

Adventfred wrote:

Agreed but if (just saying) god is from universe A he could well be an alien 

also intelligence without a brain is very very hard to stomach  

Heh.  But there are species which exhibit "collective intelligence" that we wouldn't even consider to be "intelligent animals".  I was reading up on a problem in Computer Science called "The Travelling Salesman Problem" (it's older than computers, but I studied it in Uni 20-odd years ago).  It turns out that "How ants find food" has become an entire form of computer algorithms used to solve what had been extremely difficult problems --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_colony_optimization

It could well be (just saying) that "G-d" is nothing more than the Natural Laws of the Universe.  Which would be extra weird since Judaism is a panentheistic religion according to many --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

If the Divine Intelligence is the very Laws that control the Universe, then what?  A "Law" exists without substance -- how much does "Obey the speed limit" weigh?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred wrote: Yes i did

Adventfred wrote:

 

Yes i did but if it was god who created time/space etc.....  What was he doing or what caused him to want to create this universe 

As I have it I would say the cause was desire to be as opposed to not being. You might find it quick to grasp if I say what I mean is an "anthropomorphic" twist on the inherent instability of an absolute vacuum state. Once you understand that, drop "anthropomorphic" because it is an affected, non-objective term - then you have why my god created the universe.

Adventfred wrote:

also what is God before we go forth

 

I am panentheist. My god is the universe and in the universe.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred wrote:For

Adventfred wrote:


For example, why are plants not intelligent but animals are? Because plants are rooted in place, but animals navigate an environment. Animals sensory apparatus input information about the external world,

Plants certainly do navigate their environment.  Much much slower ofcourse, they react with the temperature, wheather and seasons.  I know some species of vines can move almost visibly changing and creeping around other tress throughout the day.  A venus fly trap moves in real time, snap!!!   They certainly are inteligent in some way or else they would do nothing like a rock or empty shell, they would not act in an effort to survive.  Im sure trees can move to better climates slowly over thousands/millions of years and stake new teritorry for their species, and have epic wars for light and water with other plant species, but so slowly we barely notice.  They certainly aren't self concious, but i dont really thinks slugs are either for that matter, are slugs inteligent by your standards?  Or ants who build homes and gather food and protect eachother self-concious of these actions or is it just insictive uncontrolable programming.        


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder


FurryCatHerder wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

Agreed but if (just saying) god is from universe A he could well be an alien 

also intelligence without a brain is very very hard to stomach  

Heh.  But there are species which exhibit "collective intelligence" that we wouldn't even consider to be "intelligent animals".  I was reading up on a problem in Computer Science called "The Travelling Salesman Problem" (it's older than computers, but I studied it in Uni 20-odd years ago).  It turns out that "How ants find food" has become an entire form of computer algorithms used to solve what had been extremely difficult problems --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_colony_optimization

It could well be (just saying) that "G-d" is nothing more than the Natural Laws of the Universe.  Which would be extra weird since Judaism is a panentheistic religion according to many --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

If the Divine Intelligence is the very Laws that control the Universe, then what?  A "Law" exists without substance -- how much does "Obey the speed limit" weigh?

Yes i know this think of it like how our brain works 1 neuron by itself cant really do much but with millions of them look what happens 

its the same with the ants single not much together collective intelligence 

also panentheism is a different thing and is plausible not the christian god  

 


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Adventfred

Eloise wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

 

Yes i did but if it was god who created time/space etc.....  What was he doing or what caused him to want to create this universe 

As I have it I would say the cause was desire to be as opposed to not being. You might find it quick to grasp if I say what I mean is an "anthropomorphic" twist on the inherent instability of an absolute vacuum state. Once you understand that, drop "anthropomorphic" because it is an affected, non-objective term - then you have why my god created the universe.

Adventfred wrote:

also what is God before we go forth

 

I am panentheist. My god is the universe and in the universe.

ok fair enough its plausible but i wanna know do you worship the universe and if so why does it deserve worship


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred wrote:Eloise

Adventfred wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

 

Yes i did but if it was god who created time/space etc.....  What was he doing or what caused him to want to create this universe 

As I have it I would say the cause was desire to be as opposed to not being. You might find it quick to grasp if I say what I mean is an "anthropomorphic" twist on the inherent instability of an absolute vacuum state. Once you understand that, drop "anthropomorphic" because it is an affected, non-objective term - then you have why my god created the universe.

Adventfred wrote:

also what is God before we go forth

 

I am panentheist. My god is the universe and in the universe.

ok fair enough its plausible but i wanna know do you worship the universe and if so why does it deserve worship

What, you don't think the Universe and whatever processes by which the Universe, and everything in it, came to exist is just the most awesome thing out there?!?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

 

Yes i did but if it was god who created time/space etc.....  What was he doing or what caused him to want to create this universe 

As I have it I would say the cause was desire to be as opposed to not being. You might find it quick to grasp if I say what I mean is an "anthropomorphic" twist on the inherent instability of an absolute vacuum state. Once you understand that, drop "anthropomorphic" because it is an affected, non-objective term - then you have why my god created the universe.

Adventfred wrote:

also what is God before we go forth

 

I am panentheist. My god is the universe and in the universe.

ok fair enough its plausible but i wanna know do you worship the universe and if so why does it deserve worship

What, you don't think the Universe and whatever processes by which the Universe, and everything in it, came to exist is just the most awesome thing out there?!?

 

Ofcourse the universe is awesome but io wont worship it i would try to understand how it works !

also have anyone heard of quantum fluctuations 


Ctrl Y
Theist
Posts: 73
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred wrote:Ok first

Quote:
Ok first how can an immaterial god interact with the physical ?

Also " in the beginning god created  created is a mistranslation among others

Also personal experience wont count because persons of other religions claim to have personal experience with there God

Also how do you define an immaterial soul or god 

What is it

Our disagreements all center around my claim that my personal experience gives me good reason to believe in God. You argue that it does not, because people believe in other religions based on personal experience. But that only makes all religions equally well-supported from an objective perspective. Subjectively, I have experiences "towards Christianity" that I don't have "towards Islam" or "towards Hinduism." So I have good reason to be a Christian, but not a Muslim or Hindu. I grant that you cannot reasonably become a Christian based on my personal experiences, since you have not had them. I admitted that earlier, however, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up again.

Since I have good reason to be a Christian, I can dispatch the rest of your case summarily. How does God interact with the physical? Well, I know he does, so I don't need to know exactly how. He does. This may be a brute fact. Genesis was mistranslated? You provided no reason to believe that, so I'll ignore the claim for now. You want a definition of "God"? But why? You already admitted that you have an understanding of the concept by arguing against it. You can't argue against a concept you don't understand.

P.S. You failed to address my criticism that your argument begs the question against the Christian. Please refer to my previous post.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred wrote:ok fair

Adventfred wrote:

ok fair enough its plausible but i wanna know do you worship the universe and if so why does it deserve worship

I don't believe in worship. I think it's crude.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Ctrl Y wrote:Quote: Ok first


Ctrl Y wrote:

Quote:
Ok first how can an immaterial god interact with the physical ?

Also " in the beginning god created  created is a mistranslation among others

Also personal experience wont count because persons of other religions claim to have personal experience with there God

Also how do you define an immaterial soul or god 

What is it

Our disagreements all center around my claim that my personal experience gives me good reason to believe in God. You argue that it does not, because people believe in other religions based on personal experience. But that only makes all religions equally well-supported from an objective perspective. Subjectively, I have experiences "towards Christianity" that I don't have "towards Islam" or "towards Hinduism." So I have good reason to be a Christian, but not a Muslim or Hindu. I grant that you cannot reasonably become a Christian based on my personal experiences, since you have not had them. I admitted that earlier, however, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up again.

Since I have good reason to be a Christian, I can dispatch the rest of your case summarily. How does God interact with the physical? Well, I know he does, so I don't need to know exactly how. He does. This may be a brute fact. Genesis was mistranslated? You provided no reason to believe that, so I'll ignore the claim for now. You want a definition of "God"? But why? You already admitted that you have an understanding of the concept by arguing against it. You can't argue against a concept you don't understand.

P.S. You failed to address my criticism that your argument begs the question against the Christian. Please refer to my previous post.

 

ok heres 2 link 

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/god-is-not-the-creator-claims-academic-1911218.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100013261/just-because-genesis-is-a-myth-doesnt-mean-its-untrue/

 

Makes you wonder what else was mistranslated 

 

aslo a god who is self contradicting is impossible 

heres another link

http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

 

 


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Adventfred

Eloise wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

ok fair enough its plausible but i wanna know do you worship the universe and if so why does it deserve worship

I don't believe in worship. I think it's crude.

 

I think its worthless


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
There's a lot going on here,

There's a lot going on here, but I like physics so I'll chime in.

 

First, in order to cause an effect, one must do something that precedes the effect.  That is, causes occur before the effects that they produce.  Thus, if some god were to create the universe (as in cause it to exist) then it must have done so at some time before the universe existed.  However, spacetime, and thus time, is part of the universe.  Without the universe there is no spacetime and thus no time, so there is no before the universe in which a cause could exist.

 

Secondly, superposition is only one of several metaphysical interpretations of quantum mechanics.  My understanding is that superposition posits that particles actually assume all possible attributes simultaneously when unobserved, collapsing into a single attribute upon measurement.  This doesn't seem to pose any information problems, as the particle itself contains the information.  The Copenhagen interpretation, which posits that particles have no attributes when unobserved, only probabilities of attributes, might be a better example.  Still, the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't necessarily deny the existence of the particle itself, merely of the particle's attributes.  Thus the particle could carry the information containing its probability of being measured with a particular attribute value.  There are more interpretations too.  Most notable here is the many worlds interpretation, in which information would be stored in parallel universes.

 

Thirdly, using superposition to argue against theological claims is not "moving the goalposts."  Why should theological claims get away with meeting evidence that is thousands of years old, but not evidence that occurred since then?  I understand that the claims were maid a long time ago, but that's no defense.  Old claims that fly in the face of new evidence should not be regarded as true simply because the evidence came after the claim, nor is applying such standards "moving the goalposts."  If a theory becomes outdated because new evidence contradicts it, then the theory should be dismissed.

 

Fourthly, dark matter/energy is a poor analogy because according to the theories that posit their existence, they actually interact with non-dark matter/energy and thus can convey information.  As far as I can tell, the only thing "dark" about this form of matter/energy is that it's difficult to detect, possibly because it's not radiating light in all directions. 

"The second is that any form of energy that doesn't interact with what we've got isn't going to provide us with information either... But if there is 'something else out there' (Dark Matter and Dark Energy being two candidates at the moment), we're likewise out of luck."

  -FuzzyCatHerder

I've never heard dark matter/energy posited as some literally new form of matter/energy that doesn't interact with current forms.  In fact, the reason the concept came up at all is because we see an interaction but not its source, so scientists posited a source.

 

Fifthly, I would not argue that a mind without a brain is impossible.  More clearly, I would argue that a mind without a specific functional organization is impossible, because minds are essentially functional organizations.  Thus, if a god were to have a mind then it must be made up of functionally organized stuff.  The only such stuff we know of is matter and energy.

 

"I am panentheist. My god is the universe and in the universe."

  -Eloise

These are two separate claims, so I'll tackle them one at a time.

E:  My god is the universe

Me:  That's not much of a god.  In fact, why use the word god when we already have the word universe?

E: My god is in the universe

Me:  Okay, where?  And made of what?  Lets go find this god thing and demonstrate its god-like properties.

Also, taken together you've effectively claimed that your god is in itself.  While this could be true in some subset-like definition of "in" (all sets are subsets of themselves), it's certainly paradoxical when we use the more linguistic definition of "in."  Even in the case of the subset-like definition, the first claim is all that's really necessary.  The second becomes superfluous because everything would be "in" itself, so the second claim does nothing to differentiate god from non-god.

 

"But that only makes all religions equally well-supported from an objective perspective."

-Ctrl Y

But that only makes all religions equally well-unsupported from an objective perspective.  If something supports both A and B equally, then it doesn't help us determine between A and B.  Hence the dismissal of personal experience.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Adventfred

Eloise wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

ok fair enough its plausible but i wanna know do you worship the universe and if so why does it deserve worship

I don't believe in worship. I think it's crude.

 

 i don't know why, but that slays me!  didn't spinoza say that?  or groucho marx, or somebody like that?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote: First, in order

Zaq wrote:

 

First, in order to cause an effect, one must do something that precedes the effect.  That is, causes occur before the effects that they produce.  Thus, if some god were to create the universe (as in cause it to exist) then it must have done so at some time before the universe existed.  However, spacetime, and thus time, is part of the universe.  Without the universe there is no spacetime and thus no time, so there is no before the universe in which a cause could exist.

I essentially agree with you here.

 

Zaq wrote:

Secondly, superposition is only one of several metaphysical interpretations of quantum mechanics. 

Actually, superposition, in this context, is a property of waves. Basically, when two waves meet in space the resulting wave is the sum of both waves.

The fundamental equation of Quantum mechanics is the Schroedinger equation which employs a wavefunction to describe the material world as it is detectable at the quantum level, and superposition is a direct result of this equation.  For each configuration of the universe there is an associated wavefunction. Where-ever there are two separate configurations of the universe, there are two wavefunctions, one for each. So when there are two (or more) states of configuration that the universe can possibly be in, there also exists a combination of those states, a superposition. 

Superposition has been tested on various quantum size objects and proven. You can.... well you probably can't cause you don't have a vaccuum chamber and optical tweezers to do it with, but scientists have turned atoms in opposite directions at once to demonstrate that superposition is real.

Once, superposition of matter was barely more than an interpretation physicists had to forcibly accept because of the uncertainty principle but since then it has accumulated too much evidence to ignore. This is one reason why the many worlds interpretation of Quantum theory has gained so much ground in recent decades, because we have detected real superpositions of real matter, it's not so much just math anymore.

Zaq wrote:

My understanding is that superposition posits that particles actually assume all possible attributes simultaneously when unobserved, collapsing into a single attribute upon measurement. 

You've got two theories mixed together in there. The first one is Quantum Superposition, and the second is the collapse interpretation which is basically a convention which has been around for many years.

The collapse interpretation was proposed because the mathematics of going from quantum scale reality to macro-reality where observation takes place, is quite literally impossible to do with the fundamental equations of Quantum theory, there are uncountable interactions in that gap. Thus collapse is/was a reasonable simplifying assumption which could be taken from the information that had been gathered at the time. There was a clear dichotomy in the evidence -- undetected a quantum object would act as though in superposition, detected, it would not -- therefore, we can assume detection plays the key role.

More recently the convention has moved from assuming a singular collapse for one macro-scale interaction, to counting multiple smaller changes in a quantum state over many quantum interactions (ie decoherence).

Zaq wrote:

This doesn't seem to pose any information problems, as the particle itself contains the information. 

I'm glad you understand that.

 

Zaq wrote:

Thirdly, using superposition to argue against theological claims is not "moving the goalposts."  Why should theological claims get away with meeting evidence that is thousands of years old, but not evidence that occurred since then?

Theological claims do meet the evidence that has been discovered since then, so a moving the goalposts fallacy definitely occurs when someone says "well light is material because relativity has drawn the connection between matter and energy, so there is nothing that is not material", in this case science has redefined "material" thus excluding itself from the language employed by theological claims, it doesn't invalidate the claims, it just moves the goal post so that when theology says "X is immaterial, like light" it doesn't make sense anymore.

 

Zaq wrote:

I understand that the claims were maid a long time ago, but that's no defense. 

Just to be clear. The defense is that science has very significantly redefined the parameters of the original claim, not that the claim has simply aged. A very clear and distinct event of redefinition occurred in the recent history of science. In other words science re-established it's position relative to theology with a BIG MOVE, if you're just doing science and not considering theology then it doesn't matter, but if you are talking about theology then this must be taken into account.

Zaq wrote:

Old claims that fly in the face of new evidence should not be regarded as true

They don't fly in the face of the evidence, if you'll read what I originally posted again you'll see, they are getting confirmation from the evidence. 

 

Zaq wrote:

Fourthly, dark matter/energy

These are two different things. dark matter is matter you cannot detect using light and dark energy is the hypothetical force behind the accelerating expansion of the universe.

Zaq wrote:

is a poor analogy because according to the theories that posit their existence, they actually interact with non-dark matter/energy and thus can convey information. 

Superposition states actually interact with the real world too. But at any rate, the essential point is that the types of things theology claimed exist (invisible worlds and forces) do exist, just because science reclassifies them when they are found does not invalidate the claims of theology. You have to be more specific to actually logically invalidate theological claims, and that's all there is to it.

Zaq wrote:

As far as I can tell, the only thing "dark" about this form of matter/energy is that it's difficult to detect, possibly because it's not radiating light in all directions. 

Yep, that's right.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Eloise

iwbiek wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

ok fair enough its plausible but i wanna know do you worship the universe and if so why does it deserve worship

I don't believe in worship. I think it's crude.

 

 i don't know why, but that slays me!  didn't spinoza say that?  or groucho marx, or somebody like that?

I don't know if anybody else has said that, actually. It is my genuinely personal feeling on the matter, right from the heart.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:iwbiek

Eloise wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

ok fair enough its plausible but i wanna know do you worship the universe and if so why does it deserve worship

I don't believe in worship. I think it's crude.

 

 i don't know why, but that slays me!  didn't spinoza say that?  or groucho marx, or somebody like that?

I don't know if anybody else has said that, actually. It is my genuinely personal feeling on the matter, right from the heart.

 

 

i figured that.  i was just being facetious.

btw, along the lines of the idea of worship and how to worship, especially by not worshipping, i tried to pm you a few days ago to recommend a book but then i figured out you might not be "qualified" to receive pm's, so i guess this is as good a place as any to bring it up.  i'm in the middle of reading foucault's pendulum by umberto eco and i really think you'd like it, if you haven't already read it.  i recall we had an exchange a few months ago about jewish mysticism, and you said you weren't very familiar with it.  this novel is actually a fairly good introduction.  the chapters are organized around the zoharic conception of the sefirot, or the different manifestations of god.  it also very cleverly utilizes the ecstatic mysticism of abraham abulafia, in which new insights are acquired by manipulating the words and letters of the torah. 

it's been called the "thinking man's da vinci code," but i think even this appellation does it a grave injustice.  anyway, just a friendly recommendation.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:iwbiek

Eloise wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

ok fair enough its plausible but i wanna know do you worship the universe and if so why does it deserve worship

I don't believe in worship. I think it's crude.

 

 i don't know why, but that slays me!  didn't spinoza say that?  or groucho marx, or somebody like that?

I don't know if anybody else has said that, actually. It is my genuinely personal feeling on the matter, right from the heart.

Jews say the strangest things.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Is the universe actually

Eloise wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

 

Yes i did but if it was god who created time/space etc.....  What was he doing or what caused him to want to create this universe 

As I have it I would say the cause was desire to be as opposed to not being. You might find it quick to grasp if I say what I mean is an "anthropomorphic" twist on the inherent instability of an absolute vacuum state. Once you understand that, drop "anthropomorphic" because it is an affected, non-objective term - then you have why my god created the universe.

Adventfred wrote:

also what is God before we go forth

 

I am panentheist. My god is the universe and in the universe.

 

equipped to be described as a god or do you mean you approach the universe in a worshipful way?

How do you mean 'god'? Do you mean god god or just well - the universe is my god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

 

Yes i did but if it was god who created time/space etc.....  What was he doing or what caused him to want to create this universe 

As I have it I would say the cause was desire to be as opposed to not being. You might find it quick to grasp if I say what I mean is an "anthropomorphic" twist on the inherent instability of an absolute vacuum state. Once you understand that, drop "anthropomorphic" because it is an affected, non-objective term - then you have why my god created the universe.

Adventfred wrote:

also what is God before we go forth

 

I am panentheist. My god is the universe and in the universe.

 

equipped to be described as a god or do you mean you approach the universe in a worshipful way?

How do you mean 'god'? Do you mean god god or just well - the universe is my god.

 

Yeah, I mean god god. The universe is equipped to be described as 'God' (in the sense I presume you intend there) as equally as you or I are equipped to be described as "people".

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Eloise

iwbiek wrote:

Eloise wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

ok fair enough its plausible but i wanna know do you worship the universe and if so why does it deserve worship

I don't believe in worship. I think it's crude.

 

 i don't know why, but that slays me!  didn't spinoza say that?  or groucho marx, or somebody like that?

I don't know if anybody else has said that, actually. It is my genuinely personal feeling on the matter, right from the heart.

 

 

i figured that.  i was just being facetious.

btw, along the lines of the idea of worship and how to worship, especially by not worshipping, i tried to pm you a few days ago to recommend a book but then i figured out you might not be "qualified" to receive pm's, so i guess this is as good a place as any to bring it up. 

Yeah, I have a 1 next to "my inbox" on my navigation bar but I'm not allowed to access it. I was wondering what it was. 

iwbiek wrote:

i'm in the middle of reading foucault's pendulum by umberto eco and i really think you'd like it, if you haven't already read it. 

No I Haven't read that, I don't read a lot of fiction anymore and I'm really selective, but I was a big fan of Name of the Rose (one of my all time favourites as a teen) so I think I would probably like it and I've just ordered a copy from my library to look at.

iwbiek wrote:

i recall we had an exchange a few months ago about jewish mysticism, and you said you weren't very familiar with it.  this novel is actually a fairly good introduction.  the chapters are organized around the zoharic conception of the sefirot, or the different manifestations of god.  it also very cleverly utilizes the ecstatic mysticism of abraham abulafia, in which new insights are acquired by manipulating the words and letters of the torah. 

You know, that does sound like my kind of fiction. thanks for recommending. Smiling

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Sorry to be slow

Eloise wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

 

Yes i did but if it was god who created time/space etc.....  What was he doing or what caused him to want to create this universe 

As I have it I would say the cause was desire to be as opposed to not being. You might find it quick to grasp if I say what I mean is an "anthropomorphic" twist on the inherent instability of an absolute vacuum state. Once you understand that, drop "anthropomorphic" because it is an affected, non-objective term - then you have why my god created the universe.

Adventfred wrote:

also what is God before we go forth

 

I am panentheist. My god is the universe and in the universe.

 

equipped to be described as a god or do you mean you approach the universe in a worshipful way?

How do you mean 'god'? Do you mean god god or just well - the universe is my god.

 

Yeah, I mean god god. The universe is equipped to be described as 'God' (in the sense I presume you intend there) as equally as you or I are equipped to be described as "people".

 

Sorry to be slow here but rather than believing a first-cause pre-universe god made the universe you mean the universe itself is god?

I'm assuming this is a belief unlike classic/typical/mainstream religious belief? 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Sorry

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sorry to be slow here but rather than believing a first-cause pre-universe god made the universe you mean the universe itself is god?

Sort of...

You're not being slow, the difficulty is that it's easy to be vague with the word 'universe', it does, after all apply to something quite immense and partially beyond our scope of conception. But mind that it is also an entity with a dynamic range of being. 

There is really no referent for 'pre-universe' unless by 'universe' you mean, more precisely, to refer to some finite range of universal states delineated along some apparent time continuum (a season, say). In which case there might be a state which is accurately described as 'pre-universe', however, in the terms of the more generic definition of universe, it's the same entity. (ie pre-universe=post-pre-universe=universe)

 

AtheistExtremist wrote:

I'm assuming this is a belief unlike classic/typical/mainstream religious belief? 

Yeah, it is unlike the mainstream of contemporary theism which IMnsHO is a vulgarity.

My belief is grounded in reality, and open to scrutiny. It's not the most important thing in the world to me that you, or anyone, believe the universe is God, that is probably my most major point of difference with typical religion.

Respect for truth is important to me, and that tends to put me on the side of atheists, the major point of difference in my beliefs compared to atheism is the regard given to distinguishing ourselves from the universe. An atheist regarding it as mere convention (or establishment) would be a panentheist of my flavour, basically.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise

Eloise wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sorry to be slow here but rather than believing a first-cause pre-universe god made the universe you mean the universe itself is god?

Sort of...

You're not being slow, the difficulty is that it's easy to be vague with the word 'universe', it does, after all apply to something quite immense and partially beyond our scope of conception. But mind that it is also an entity with a dynamic range of being. 

There is really no referent for 'pre-universe' unless by 'universe' you mean, more precisely, to refer to some finite range of universal states delineated along some apparent time continuum (a season, say). In which case there might be a state which is accurately described as 'pre-universe', however, in the terms of the more generic definition of universe, it's the same entity. (ie pre-universe=post-pre-universe=universe)

 

AtheistExtremist wrote:

I'm assuming this is a belief unlike classic/typical/mainstream religious belief? 

Yeah, it is unlike the mainstream of contemporary theism which IMnsHO is a vulgarity.

My belief is grounded in reality, and open to scrutiny. It's not the most important thing in the world to me that you, or anyone, believe the universe is God, that is probably my most major point of difference with typical religion.

Respect for truth is important to me, and that tends to put me on the side of atheists, the major point of difference in my beliefs compared to atheism is the regard given to distinguishing ourselves from the universe. An atheist regarding it as mere convention (or establishment) would be a panentheist of my flavour, basically.

 

eloise, i've always meant to ask, just how the hell did you arrive at panentheism of all things?  i mean, it's hardly the obvious choice for most people.  of course, it's clear you're not "most people."  still, i'm curious.  did you go through a period of "classical" theism?  have you had some sort of intuitive experience that has led you to this worldview?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I think I get you

Eloise wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sorry to be slow here but rather than believing a first-cause pre-universe god made the universe you mean the universe itself is god?

Sort of...

You're not being slow, the difficulty is that it's easy to be vague with the word 'universe', it does, after all apply to something quite immense and partially beyond our scope of conception. But mind that it is also an entity with a dynamic range of being. 

There is really no referent for 'pre-universe' unless by 'universe' you mean, more precisely, to refer to some finite range of universal states delineated along some apparent time continuum (a season, say). In which case there might be a state which is accurately described as 'pre-universe', however, in the terms of the more generic definition of universe, it's the same entity. (ie pre-universe=post-pre-universe=universe)

 

AtheistExtremist wrote:

I'm assuming this is a belief unlike classic/typical/mainstream religious belief? 

Yeah, it is unlike the mainstream of contemporary theism which IMnsHO is a vulgarity.

My belief is grounded in reality, and open to scrutiny. It's not the most important thing in the world to me that you, or anyone, believe the universe is God, that is probably my most major point of difference with typical religion.

Respect for truth is important to me, and that tends to put me on the side of atheists, the major point of difference in my beliefs compared to atheism is the regard given to distinguishing ourselves from the universe. An atheist regarding it as mere convention (or establishment) would be a panentheist of my flavour, basically.

 

 

Ok - I think I get you. I was talking pre-big bang when i talked about pre-universe but as you say there's not much we can say about that. It's a common thing to find first cause traditional theists who maintain the "where did it come from position" who opt for a pre-universe 'time' and an external creator who presided over the BB or something similar. But as you say, from the point of our evidence, it's all the same universe regardless of expansion states/timelines.

My godly upbringing has loaded me with a particular concept of god, with associated feelings of worship, guilt and so forth that probably don't apply very well to looking at the universe itself as god.  It's an elegant concept in any case, given star nurseries and us being starpeople and such.

One of the things about atheism that's challenging is that open-ended position of not so much believing in nothing but waiting to believe in something. Thinking about this further, it possibly relates to waiting to understand something. Even oblique comprehensions of the universe, to me, are far too much to contain in a coherent thought. It's interesting to consider that the anthro-god represents a not unexpected simplification given the volume of the data and the inadequacy of the processor. 

The universe itself is far greater than any god we could possibly conceive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sorry to be slow here but rather than believing a first-cause pre-universe god made the universe you mean the universe itself is god?

Sort of...

You're not being slow, the difficulty is that it's easy to be vague with the word 'universe', it does, after all apply to something quite immense and partially beyond our scope of conception. But mind that it is also an entity with a dynamic range of being. 

There is really no referent for 'pre-universe' unless by 'universe' you mean, more precisely, to refer to some finite range of universal states delineated along some apparent time continuum (a season, say). In which case there might be a state which is accurately described as 'pre-universe', however, in the terms of the more generic definition of universe, it's the same entity. (ie pre-universe=post-pre-universe=universe)

 

AtheistExtremist wrote:

I'm assuming this is a belief unlike classic/typical/mainstream religious belief? 

Yeah, it is unlike the mainstream of contemporary theism which IMnsHO is a vulgarity.

My belief is grounded in reality, and open to scrutiny. It's not the most important thing in the world to me that you, or anyone, believe the universe is God, that is probably my most major point of difference with typical religion.

Respect for truth is important to me, and that tends to put me on the side of atheists, the major point of difference in my beliefs compared to atheism is the regard given to distinguishing ourselves from the universe. An atheist regarding it as mere convention (or establishment) would be a panentheist of my flavour, basically.

 

 

Ok - I think I get you. I was talking pre-big bang when i talked about pre-universe but as you say there's not much we can say about that. It's a common thing to find first cause traditional theists who maintain the "where did it come from position" who opt for a pre-universe 'time' and an external creator who presided over the BB or something similar. But as you say, from the point of our evidence, it's all the same universe regardless of expansion states/timelines.

My godly upbringing has loaded me with a particular concept of god, with associated feelings of worship, guilt and so forth that probably don't apply very well to looking at the universe itself as god.  It's an elegant concept in any case, given star nurseries and us being starpeople and such.

One of the things about atheism that's challenging is that open-ended position of not so much believing in nothing but waiting to believe in something. Thinking about this further, it possibly relates to waiting to understand something. Even oblique comprehensions of the universe, to me, are far too much to contain in a coherent thought. It's interesting to consider that the anthro-god represents a not unexpected simplification given the volume of the data and the inadequacy of the processor. 

The universe itself is far greater than any god we could possibly conceive.

 

 

agreed Why people cant accept things the way they are 

The universe is hear stop complaining how it came here 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:eloise, i've

iwbiek wrote:

eloise, i've always meant to ask, just how the hell did you arrive at panentheism of all things?  i mean, it's hardly the obvious choice for most people.  of course, it's clear you're not "most people."  still, i'm curious.  did you go through a period of "classical" theism?  have you had some sort of intuitive experience that has led you to this worldview?

Hey East Kentucky, I stopped by this thread to mention I'm reading Focault's Pendulum (in context) and I noticed I didn't answer your question. I must have forgotten, Sorry. 

So how did I arrive at Panentheism? Well, it was a windy road taking me from native american spirituality through moderate judeo-christianity and on to practicing esoteric arts, the three spiritual traditions that I was born into, and my keen interest in everything about them eventuated in, yeah you guessed it, an intuitive experience.

I'd like to say I didn't do anything too irrational in reaction to said experience... but I'd be lying. Radical experiences are easily misinterpreted.  But I did eventually find a calm and rational way to investigate it and this lead me to studying Rosicrucian Alchemy, The Vedas, other various creation legends, and, most recently, Tertiary Math and Science.

It took over a decade of investigating and studying to come to the understanding I presently have of my experience, which can be roughly described as the conclusion that I had perceived the 'soul' of the universe - it was not unlike looking in a mirror.  

I can state the same quite scientifically, as I have done on this forum more than once, however it is barely distinguishable from atheism to most atheists. What I said earlier in this thread sums it up well, the only real difference between my beliefs and atheism is how seriously one takes the convention of regarding our personage as above nature. It's pretty much the sum total of my theism that I do not regard myself or my consciousness as a thing above nature. 

So in summary, an experience lead me to question what the universe is made of, and what makes a 'person', and the answers I found to those questions lead me to panentheism. 

 

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't be too quick to

I wouldn't be too quick to minimize plants. Studies have shown that plants CAN sense danger and will respond with different chemical defenses or even go into a kind of circulatory "shock" when faced with it. [I'm sorry I don't have a source, it's been a very long time.] Whatever else that proves, it at least shows me that plants have a certain kind of "awareness" of their surroundings and will fight to survive.

It's one of the main reasons I consider vegetarianism so silly and arrogant.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Eloise

Eloise wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sorry to be slow here but rather than believing a first-cause pre-universe god made the universe you mean the universe itself is god?

Sort of...

You're not being slow, the difficulty is that it's easy to be vague with the word 'universe', it does, after all apply to something quite immense and partially beyond our scope of conception. But mind that it is also an entity with a dynamic range of being. 

There is really no referent for 'pre-universe' unless by 'universe' you mean, more precisely, to refer to some finite range of universal states delineated along some apparent time continuum (a season, say). In which case there might be a state which is accurately described as 'pre-universe', however, in the terms of the more generic definition of universe, it's the same entity. (ie pre-universe=post-pre-universe=universe)

 

AtheistExtremist wrote:

I'm assuming this is a belief unlike classic/typical/mainstream religious belief? 

Yeah, it is unlike the mainstream of contemporary theism which IMnsHO is a vulgarity.

My belief is grounded in reality, and open to scrutiny. It's not the most important thing in the world to me that you, or anyone, believe the universe is God, that is probably my most major point of difference with typical religion.

Respect for truth is important to me, and that tends to put me on the side of atheists, the major point of difference in my beliefs compared to atheism is the regard given to distinguishing ourselves from the universe. An atheist regarding it as mere convention (or establishment) would be a panentheist of my flavour, basically.

 

This is the first time I've seen someone on here describing a belief system that sounds suspiciously similar to mine.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:I wouldn't

smartypants wrote:

I wouldn't be too quick to minimize plants. Studies have shown that plants CAN sense danger and will respond with different chemical defenses or even go into a kind of circulatory "shock" when faced with it. [I'm sorry I don't have a source, it's been a very long time.] Whatever else that proves, it at least shows me that plants have a certain kind of "awareness" of their surroundings and will fight to survive.

It's one of the main reasons I consider vegetarianism so silly and arrogant.

 

What's silly and arrogant is making a claim like that in total ignorance to the dynamics of an ecosystem.

Even *if* the "awareness" of plants were the same kind and degree as that of humans and other animals (which I will get to in the next post), more plants in addition to animals die to yield food in a meat-based diet than in a plant based ones.  Those animals you're eating?  They also ate plants. 

And in a supply-and-demand system, you aren't thinning out the animal population and thus "saving" plants, but merely increasing its rate of turnover and resource consumption.

 

If a person was genuinely worried about not killing/harming as many plants, said person would still be vegetarian.  Beside that point, there is also fruitarianism, in which the bodies of "aware" living plants are not killed and eaten at all.

 

Fruitarianism *is* an argument.  Your rationalization, constructed to permit you to eat meat with a clear conscience, doesn't even resemble a valid argument.

 

Just say: "I'm selfish and don't give a shit about the misery other living things experience, or the environmental impact of my actions, for the sake of my particular tastes in foods."

 

That has no counter-argument.  That, at least, is an honest argument.  And honesty is all I'm asking.

I'm hard pressed to criticize anybody for not being a "saint", as we all do selfish dick things now and then (some more or less than others, in different ways)- what I will criticize are the bad rationalizations you make to avoid a ping on your conscience- you may not have your cake and eat it too.

 

I will address the issue of intelligence shortly.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred,I appreciate your

Adventfred,

I appreciate your post.  You are a *little* bit wrong on a few things, but the most important issue is that your premise itself has a simpler disproof for the standard conception of a creator god.

1. Intelligence is an emergent property
2. A creator god did not emerge

Therefore:

3. An intelligent creator god is impossible



Of course, that only covers an *intelligent* deity which is said to be the uncreated originator.

This makes up the majority of god-belief, but doesn't disprove the minority which doesn't hold that the deity is intelligent, or doesn't hold it to be the creator of all.



As to the minor issues:



1. Information is what we're talking about- matter is a kind of perception of that information, but not necessarily the only kind.

The reason this is not fatal to your argument:

Information needs a logistical source.  As zero can not equal one, neither can objective information be created from nothing.  Information still follows the postulated rules, just in a potentially different context.

You just need to clarify this.



2. Intelligence, as you defined it, is similar to awareness/responsiveness, and is a gradational thing.

You are correct in your requirements, but different things meet those to different *degrees*.

A plant is only intelligent to the extent that it meets those requirements- which is a very small, but non-zero extent.

That is, a plant's intelligence is inconsequential, but not necessarily non-existent by your definition.


The reason this is not fatal to your argument:

The postulated god doesn't meet these requirements at all- not even to the extent of a plant- ergo, zero intelligence.


My suggestion: consider intelligence quantitatively, rather than qualitatively.

As to the nature of intelligence, though, this may help:



Intelligence can be considered in numerous ways.

1.

The most liberal approach is to consider anything that can react to stimulus intelligent- since stimulus are just physical interactions that yield results, this includes, to varying degrees, "non-living" chemicals.

One can react to a particular stimulus, or in different ways to more complex stimuli.

The more advanced forms of this involve multidimensional sets of reactions, where combinations of stimuli provide different reactions than the independent stimuli alone.

Still accounted for in simple Chemistry.
This can also be represented mathematically, by equations of varying complexity.

2.

Take a step up, and those multi-dimensional sets of reactions become more complicated, as the 'intelligent' body becomes more complicated.

A single reaction, in this case, can yield more stimuli that act hold that information longer than the immediate presence of that stimulus.

That is, a few cells can produce a hormone, or a certain set of proteins can produce an enzyme of catalyst, that hangs around and augments the reaction to other stimuli in any near time frame.

This is a kind of "working memory", and can actually become very complex.  This is basically what plants do, but in a rather simplistic way.

This is easy to produce programmatically with a little scripting, wherein variables can be stored.

These are commonly known as AI, or artificial intelligence.



3.

Take another step up, and we get adapting/evolving neural networks.  These are done by changing the rules "randomly" (whether truly random, or simply chaotic), and then using other rules to evaluate the suitability of the change in the rule set (kind of like natural selection).  It is this static rule set which *is* the very nature of pleasure and pain, and the evolution of the dynamic rule set which is thought- without these, any hormones involved are merely chemical signals that augment simple reactions (in potentially complex, but thoughtless ways).

These can emerge naturally from cellular systems, and can be emulated programmatically- and when they are, it *is* real intelligence, insofar as any intelligence can be real.

The term becoming more common for these programmatic systems is SI, or synthetic intelligence- as there's nothing artificial about it.

This is what everything from insects to humans use- though *possibly* not very small mites, which may not have enough brain cells to achieve the effect.

In order to demonstrate this kind of intelligence, the ability to be conditioned is needed- that is, controlling the evolution of the intelligence rules by making use of the static rule set which evaluates those changes; generally an effect of pleasure and pain, which guides extreme changes in the original state of behavior.

This exists as a gradation in adaptability found in intelligent animals.  It is unlikely that plants have this, and it has not been demonstrated that all animals have it (some of the simpler ones).  True computer-based intelligences do have this.


4.

The final qualifier some use is "self-consciousness", which is esoteric bullshit set arbitrarily by its proponents, and implied by any static set of self-evaluation rules necessary for the process of an evolving neural-net.

"Self recognition", such as the mirror test, is a gradation of response to stimuli which mirror one's actions (stimuli arriving from an unexpected source, such as a mirror), and is found in the most intelligent animals. [not all humans pass the mirror test]

This doesn't really have anything to do with the definition of intelligence, but is a kind of expression of it.








I believe the definition you *really* want is #3, the evolving neural-net (as the most common/mature definition).


This has an even simpler proof against many concepts of a god:

In short, an evolving neural net is a changing, adapting thing; an omniscient god would be fundamentally incapable of this, because its knowledge and reactions are already "perfect".  And without intelligence, this god doesn't process or understand the information; it is merely a force of nature.

But, of course, omniscience already has plenty of disproofs.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:  Hey East

Eloise wrote:

 

 

Hey East Kentucky, I stopped by this thread to mention I'm reading Focault's Pendulum (in context) and I noticed I didn't answer your question. I must have forgotten, Sorry. 

So how did I arrive at Panentheism? Well, it was a windy road taking me from native american spirituality through moderate judeo-christianity and on to practicing esoteric arts, the three spiritual traditions that I was born into, and my keen interest in everything about them eventuated in, yeah you guessed it, an intuitive experience.

I'd like to say I didn't do anything too irrational in reaction to said experience... but I'd be lying. Radical experiences are easily misinterpreted.  But I did eventually find a calm and rational way to investigate it and this lead me to studying Rosicrucian Alchemy, The Vedas, other various creation legends, and, most recently, Tertiary Math and Science.

It took over a decade of investigating and studying to come to the understanding I presently have of my experience, which can be roughly described as the conclusion that I had perceived the 'soul' of the universe - it was not unlike looking in a mirror.  

I can state the same quite scientifically, as I have done on this forum more than once, however it is barely distinguishable from atheism to most atheists. What I said earlier in this thread sums it up well, the only real difference between my beliefs and atheism is how seriously one takes the convention of regarding our personage as above nature. It's pretty much the sum total of my theism that I do not regard myself or my consciousness as a thing above nature. 

So in summary, an experience lead me to question what the universe is made of, and what makes a 'person', and the answers I found to those questions lead me to panentheism. 

 

 

 

 

 

hey koala land Eye-wink  we're two peas in a pod because i just now noticed this post.  funnily enough, i'm now reading the name of the rose, which you told me you'd read.  i only saw the film way back in college for one of my religion courses.  i heard signor eco was dissatisfied with it.  what do you think of foucault's pendulum?  what "context" exactly are you reading it in?

you know, i've always been prone to a sort of mystical experience myself.  they usually come in spring or early autumn and they're a sort of sudden apprehension of the unity of all phenomena.  they come and go quickly.  i refer to them as satoris, though i doubt if any zen master would recognize them as such.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Adventfred,I


Blake wrote:

Adventfred,

I appreciate your post.  You are a *little* bit wrong on a few things, but the most important issue is that your premise itself has a simpler disproof for the standard conception of a creator god.

1. Intelligence is an emergent property
2. A creator god did not emerge

Therefore:

3. An intelligent creator god is impossible



Of course, that only covers an *intelligent* deity which is said to be the uncreated originator.

This makes up the majority of god-belief, but doesn't disprove the minority which doesn't hold that the deity is intelligent, or doesn't hold it to be the creator of all.



As to the minor issues:



1. Information is what we're talking about- matter is a kind of perception of that information, but not necessarily the only kind.

The reason this is not fatal to your argument:

Information needs a logistical source.  As zero can not equal one, neither can objective information be created from nothing.  Information still follows the postulated rules, just in a potentially different context.

You just need to clarify this.



2. Intelligence, as you defined it, is similar to awareness/responsiveness, and is a gradational thing.

You are correct in your requirements, but different things meet those to different *degrees*.

A plant is only intelligent to the extent that it meets those requirements- which is a very small, but non-zero extent.

That is, a plant's intelligence is inconsequential, but not necessarily non-existent by your definition.


The reason this is not fatal to your argument:

The postulated god doesn't meet these requirements at all- not even to the extent of a plant- ergo, zero intelligence.


My suggestion: consider intelligence quantitatively, rather than qualitatively.

As to the nature of intelligence, though, this may help:



Intelligence can be considered in numerous ways.

1.

The most liberal approach is to consider anything that can react to stimulus intelligent- since stimulus are just physical interactions that yield results, this includes, to varying degrees, "non-living" chemicals.

One can react to a particular stimulus, or in different ways to more complex stimuli.

The more advanced forms of this involve multidimensional sets of reactions, where combinations of stimuli provide different reactions than the independent stimuli alone.

Still accounted for in simple Chemistry.
This can also be represented mathematically, by equations of varying complexity.

2.

Take a step up, and those multi-dimensional sets of reactions become more complicated, as the 'intelligent' body becomes more complicated.

A single reaction, in this case, can yield more stimuli that act hold that information longer than the immediate presence of that stimulus.

That is, a few cells can produce a hormone, or a certain set of proteins can produce an enzyme of catalyst, that hangs around and augments the reaction to other stimuli in any near time frame.

This is a kind of "working memory", and can actually become very complex.  This is basically what plants do, but in a rather simplistic way.

This is easy to produce programmatically with a little scripting, wherein variables can be stored.

These are commonly known as AI, or artificial intelligence.



3.

Take another step up, and we get adapting/evolving neural networks.  These are done by changing the rules "randomly" (whether truly random, or simply chaotic), and then using other rules to evaluate the suitability of the change in the rule set (kind of like natural selection).  It is this static rule set which *is* the very nature of pleasure and pain, and the evolution of the dynamic rule set which is thought- without these, any hormones involved are merely chemical signals that augment simple reactions (in potentially complex, but thoughtless ways).

These can emerge naturally from cellular systems, and can be emulated programmatically- and when they are, it *is* real intelligence, insofar as any intelligence can be real.

The term becoming more common for these programmatic systems is SI, or synthetic intelligence- as there's nothing artificial about it.

This is what everything from insects to humans use- though *possibly* not very small mites, which may not have enough brain cells to achieve the effect.

In order to demonstrate this kind of intelligence, the ability to be conditioned is needed- that is, controlling the evolution of the intelligence rules by making use of the static rule set which evaluates those changes; generally an effect of pleasure and pain, which guides extreme changes in the original state of behavior.

This exists as a gradation in adaptability found in intelligent animals.  It is unlikely that plants have this, and it has not been demonstrated that all animals have it (some of the simpler ones).  True computer-based intelligences do have this.


4.

The final qualifier some use is "self-consciousness", which is esoteric bullshit set arbitrarily by its proponents, and implied by any static set of self-evaluation rules necessary for the process of an evolving neural-net.

"Self recognition", such as the mirror test, is a gradation of response to stimuli which mirror one's actions (stimuli arriving from an unexpected source, such as a mirror), and is found in the most intelligent animals. [not all humans pass the mirror test]

This doesn't really have anything to do with the definition of intelligence, but is a kind of expression of it.








I believe the definition you *really* want is #3, the evolving neural-net (as the most common/mature definition).


This has an even simpler proof against many concepts of a god:

In short, an evolving neural net is a changing, adapting thing; an omniscient god would be fundamentally incapable of this, because its knowledge and reactions are already "perfect".  And without intelligence, this god doesn't process or understand the information; it is merely a force of nature.

But, of course, omniscience already has plenty of disproofs.

 

thanks  glad i got that cleared up


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:*some stuff

Eloise wrote:

*some stuff about moving the goalposts*

 

Unfortunately I must have completely missed what theological claims we were talking about here.  When the heck did materialism enter into anything?

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what goalposts you claim are moving.  Is it a changing definition of material, physical, natural, observable, or what?  What theological claims have suffered from moving goalposts?

 

"well light is material because relativity has drawn the connection between matter and energy, so there is nothing that is not material..."

I would argue that light is material because it comes in photons, not because matter = energy.  Still, the conclusion that mattter = energy and thus energy is material doesn't rely on a redefinition of material, it relies on a discovery about the nature of energy.

 

"...the essential point is that the types of things theology claimed exist (invisible worlds and forces) do exist, just because science reclassifies them when they are found does not invalidate the claims of theology."

The problem I have with this is that people tend to use "invisible" to mean something very different from "can't be seen."  I'm not terribly familiar with older theological claims but most claims these days involve the existance of worlds and forces that are forever beyond scientific explanation, which is a much stronger use of the word "invisible."  If I claim that X is forever beyond scientific explanation and then two years later science explains X, it's not moving the goalposts.

Also, theology doesn't just claim that invisible stuff exists.  It also makes claims about the properties of said invisible stuff (often that it is sentient or at least morally aligned in some way) and the way it interacts with the visible stuff (the power of prayer and positive thinking, talking to spirits, whatever).  Many of these claims do fly in the face of current evidence.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:Still, the

Zaq wrote:

Still, the conclusion that mattter = energy and thus energy is material doesn't rely on a redefinition of material, it relies on a discovery about the nature of energy.

I don't know how you can think that is relevant, my argument is simply that the redefinition of material relies on the discovery about the nature of material (ie that it is essentially indistinct from energy). In the absence of such knowledge or, equivalently, in a context that does not assume such knowledge, it is perfectly resonable to refer to light as an example of substance which is 'immaterial' (ie not possessing certain evident characteristics of a material thing). It just means that your reference for the term "material" is unscientific.

As a general rule, theological tracts are unscientific so we can apply the above reasoning to them.

So, generalising - to expect that theistic tract, penned in a prescientific era, will speak contemporarily to science rather than the definitions and customs of its time, is moving the goal posts. If the theology accurately addresses materialism on its own terms then it can be considered validated.

 

 

 

Zaq wrote:

I'm not terribly familiar with older theological claims but most claims these days involve the existance of worlds and forces that are forever beyond scientific explanation, which is a much stronger use of the word "invisible."

 

In my opinion this can often be attributed to the theists moving the goalposts themselves for fear that science touching their conception of god somehow makes it less "godly",  or they don't have the level of knowledge required to fully understand scientific arguments against their conception of god so try to exempt themselves from having to answer them.

 

Zaq wrote:

If I claim that X is forever beyond scientific explanation and then two years later science explains X, it's not moving the goalposts.

 

Indeed. I'd have to agree with that, but there are definitely traditional thesitic claims in existence that are not such a case.

 

 

Zaq wrote:

Also, theology doesn't just claim that invisible stuff exists.  It also makes claims about the properties of said invisible stuff (often that it is sentient or at least morally aligned in some way) and the way it interacts with the visible stuff (the power of prayer and positive thinking, talking to spirits, whatever).  Many of these claims do fly in the face of current evidence.

 

 

I will have to disagree with you here. The claims about properties and funcions of the 'invisible' stuff do not fly in the face of scientific discovery. I would contend they are actually quite intriguing in light of it.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:I don't know

Eloise wrote:

I don't know how you can think that is relevant, my argument is simply that the redefinition of material relies on the discovery about the nature of material (ie that it is essentially indistinct from energy). In the absence of such knowledge or, equivalently, in a context that does not assume such knowledge, it is perfectly resonable to refer to light as an example of substance which is 'immaterial' (ie not possessing certain evident characteristics of a material thing). It just means that your reference for the term "material" is unscientific.

As a general rule, theological tracts are unscientific so we can apply the above reasoning to them.

So, generalising - to expect that theistic tract, penned in a prescientific era, will speak contemporarily to science rather than the definitions and customs of its time, is moving the goal posts. If the theology accurately addresses materialism on its own terms then it can be considered validated.

Okay, I see what you're saying now.  It used to be that material was more or less defined as a set of properties, but later changed to incorporate more stuff, being less about the properties and more about what physics can explain.

You seem to be saying "light is immeterial" means that light lacks certain properties.  If you pick the right properties, then yeah, this is true.

I was under the impression that saying "light is immaterial" meant that light does not follow the same rules as matter (much like claims that "spirits are immaterial" being used to dismiss scientific analysis).  This claim is not true.

You seem to be arguing that the definition of material changed from what you describe to what I describe (or to something alltogether different).  I'm not a historian of any sort, so I have no idea whether or not that's true.  Either way, if the definition of material changed, it wasn't just science that changed it.  As science began explaining more and more, theologians changed their definitions to keep religion away from science.  Furthermore, we have to consider that the meanings of words change as a natural part of the evolution of language.  Given the time spans we're talking about here, plus the issues involved in translating texts, maybe theologians just need to translate their claims into modern english.  The words they're using might not mean the same thing as they used to, but they could recover the old (presumably true) claim using different words.  Even more to the point, few current theologians were theologizing back when material had a different meaning (assuming such a shift occurred), so the goalposts weren't actually moved on them.

The problem is that in the modern day, people are repeating, more or less word for word, the old claims.  If the meanings of the words involved have changed gradually over time, then modern day people need to reword their claims (they will still be making the same claims, just with different words).

For instance, the word gay once meant happy, but is now almost exclusively used as an insult or to mean homosexual.  As a heterosexual, I don't want to run around shouting "I'm gay" even if I really mean that I'm happy.  I should update my claim to take current meanings into account.  If I was very old and grew up in a time when gay almost always meant happy, then it would be at least somewhat understandable for me not to keep up with the times.  But younger generations lack such an excuse.

Simply put, I don't think changing the goalposts really applies to the fact that languages evolve over time.  If I say "prove X" and you prove X, but then I say "no, I meant Y," that's changing the goalposts.  But if I say "prove X" and you prove X, and then a century later someone looks at your proof and says "that's not X, it's Y" because the definition of X changed, then that's failure to properly translate your proof into the new time period, not moving the goalposts.

Also, what is a thological tract?  And why is it unscientific? 

Eloise wrote:

Zaq wrote:

Also, theology doesn't just claim that invisible stuff exists.  It also makes claims about the properties of said invisible stuff (often that it is sentient or at least morally aligned in some way) and the way it interacts with the visible stuff (the power of prayer and positive thinking, talking to spirits, whatever).  Many of these claims do fly in the face of current evidence.

I will have to disagree with you here. The claims about properties and funcions of the 'invisible' stuff do not fly in the face of scientific discovery. I would contend they are actually quite intriguing in light of it.

I really don't see how you can claim that "possession by immaterial evil spirits causes illness" isn't a false claim about how invisible stuff interacts with the visible stuff.  Especially when you add in more properties to the spirits like agency.  How about "Apollo pulls the sun across the sky in a chariot."?  That doesn't fly in the face of current evidence for the geocentric model?

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.