Agnostics are Believers

[watsup]

The question of the consciousness or non-consciousness of reality obviously cannot be answered by scientific methods at the present or in the likely near future

Gee, how many times have a heard a similar statement from the theist/Christians. Plenty. It is yet another lame excuse by yourself and them for not having any objective, reality-based evidene for your imaginings/

but it's irrational to think that means it's not a question worth asking and doubly irrational to think that the lack of a scientific answer is somehow in itself a conclusive answer

You sure do like the term "irrational", don't you? Who exactly appointed you as the king of determining whether a statement is "rational" or not. Answer: nobody. Just because you say it does not make it true, and you make lots of statements that fall under that description in each and every one of your posts. What is actually irrational is thinking that you should be able to simply imagine an entity or item of some sort and then demand that it be knocked down without providing any solid evidence of it in the first place. That applies to both you and your fellow travelers, the theist/Christians.

 

[watsup]

If anything, the discoveries of quantum mechanics and general relativity really shook up any 19th century notions of a reliable, consistent, solid physical reality

Know how I keep saying that your claims essentially mirror those of the theist/Christians? Well, this is yet another example. The theist/Christians like to throw in scientific terms, too, just like you just did above. Like you, they especially like to throw in quantum mechanics as if it was some sort of door to their claims of an imaginary entity, essentially the same thing that you are doing above. Here's a hint: it doesn't work. Trying to associate scientific theory with your imaginings are two totally different items.

Arthur Eddington, a British astrophysicist of the early 20th century, wrote in his book The Nature of the Physical World that the stuff of the world is mind-stuff, adding that "The mind-stuff of the world is, of course, something more general than our individual conscious minds."[73] . . . .The physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: "The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter."[75] . . . .Bernard d'Espagnat, a French theoretical physicist best known for his work on the nature of reality, wrote a paper titled The Quantum Theory and Reality. According to the paper, "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."[77]

Do you ever read the inputs of Tosca? If you do, you would understand how little credibility she has, and what you did directly above is one of her favorite techniques, which is to quote one or two scientists and then generalize as if what these one or two individials said as if it was a centrality of mainstream science. That is exactly what you are doing above. It's called "cherry picking" isn't it, and it is yet another of the continuing signs of desperation on your part.

The opinions of these physicists of course don't prove anything about the truth of the matter, only that these questions are indeed left wide open by current science.

What questions are left wide open? Because you cherry picked the quotes of a couple of scientists and do not even provide a cite or a source so that we can see them in context proves absolutely NOTHING. But then, you already know that, or you should, shouldn't you? Generalizing from a limited cherry picked couple of quotes is yet more desperation.

 

[Mithrae]

It is simply one group of people believe something that has no evidence to back it claiming that that is the equal of the reality that there is no evidence. It is your fantasy versus reality.

It's two groups of people if that's the way you want to look at it, you in one of those groups, with folk like me somewhere in the middle.

No, you then went on to make some poor arguments that have been dismissed many times.

"Dismissed" isn't the same as answered, obviously: Both you and Watsup have literally proved my point on the fourth one I raised; on the third you've kind of ham-fistedly suggested that "Dr Who went back in time to start the big bang" is a statement with same merit as "Thought is an observed mechanism for developing complexity from simpler antecedents"; there's some more interesting discussion on the first two points, but certainly nothing that resembles a refutation.

This is a good example of your poor arguments. If you want to go down the rabbit hole of pretending existence is imaginary then consciousness can also be just as imaginary. You have no more idea who is doing your thinking than you do about the existence of your own body. Please stop using descartes failed bullshit of an argument that is actually about proving the existence of his imaginary god, not the simplistic cliche you have have reduced it to.

"I can question or deny my own consciousness without using my own consciousness" - do you think that statement is true? What is the word "I" referring to in that statement, in the scenario you're imagining?

Which tells me that consciousness is nothing more than a by product of life. Common as muck . Nothing special.

If it's common as muck and nothing special, why would you assume that it's only associated with 'living' things? What's so special about living things, that they would produce consciousness?

As always with those pretend they are giving a an intelligent response but in reality are just quoting lines they read but do not understand you have contradicted yourself. The statement above and your earlier statement

You cannot have it both ways. Either every body recognises or there is a bias.

If you understand what a bias is, there's obviously no contradiction; most people are capable of recognizing some things in spite of their biases. So I have to ask... do you understand what a bias is? More to the point the two statements you highlighted don't even have the same subject; one focusing on household pets (which virtually everyone does recognize as having consciousness) and the other focusing on the animals we eat (for which we do have a tremendous bias against consciously acknowledging their capacity for suffering). Are you actually disagreeing with either of those statements? Or were you just unsuccesfully trying to do some 'clever' nit-picking in the hopes that would take the place of substantive discussion?

Contradiction again. If we cannot recognise consciousness then how does virtually everyone recognise it as a trait?

Good grief, you could try actually reading the paragraph: As I said, "strictly speaking we can't even detect consciousness in humans... [but] we can reasonably infer the presence of consciousness in humans and mammals by analogy of structure and behaviour." I don't know whether you're being deliberately dishonest by mangling my words in in a feeble attempt drum up a supposed 'contradiction' for your would-be gotcha points... or whether it's just a little bit above your level of understanding. Either way, it doesn't make for a very interesting or productive discussion, so between that and the character limit I think I'll leave my response at that for now.

 

[Mithrae]

*waits with bated breath for Watsup to once again do his white knight routine about what a meanie Mithrae is*

I swear, you believe the dumbest stuff.

Plus you are very dishonest since you did not include the entire story, as above.

failed bullshit of an argument

No one is going to fall for that shit bit of manipulation.

Pure blather.

I say again, you have spent so much time engaged in your fantasies and double-talk that you have simply lost your grasp on actualy reality.

 

[soylentgreen]

It's two groups of people if that's the way you want to look at it, you in one of those groups, with folk like me somewhere in the middle.

Irrelevancy as it does not change the fact that it is just a proposed fantasy versus reality which is not equal.

"Dismissed" isn't the same as answered, obviously: Both you and Watsup have literally proved my point on the fourth one I raised; on the third you've kind of ham-fistedly suggested that "Dr Who went back in time to start the big bang" is a statement with same merit as "Thought is an observed mechanism for developing complexity from simpler antecedents"; there's some more interesting discussion on the first two points, but certainly nothing that resembles a refutation.

True, dismissed means that the answer given as refuted your claim. Pity it would seem you got entirely wrong message out of the dr who reference. It was meant to mean that such discussions about multiverses or dr who have exactly the same status. There is simply no way to test these ideas. They are speculation, not theory.

"I can question or deny my own consciousness without using my own consciousness" - do you think that statement is true? What is the word "I" referring to in that statement, in the scenario you're imagining?

Of course you can. You dismissed reality with just a wave of the hand. Why can't your consciousness just be part of someone else's dream?

If it's common as muck and nothing special, why would you assume that it's only associated with 'living' things? What's so special about living things, that they would produce consciousness?

The closest I have come to an inorganic intelligence is my pet rock. And he doesn't talk much.

If you understand what a bias is, there's obviously no contradiction; most people are capable of recognizing some things in spite of their biases. So I have to ask... do you understand what a bias is? More to the point the two statements you highlighted don't even have the same subject; one focusing on household pets (which virtually everyone does recognize as having consciousness) and the other focusing on the animals we eat (for which we do have a tremendous bias against consciously acknowledging their capacity for suffering). Are you actually disagreeing with either of those statements? Or were you just unsuccesfully trying to do some 'clever' nit-picking in the hopes that would take the place of substantive discussion?

No I am not disagreeing with that. But I am disagreeing with your trying to make a cliche from a failed argument sound as if it made any sense. It does not. "I think therefor I am." Therefore existence is dependent on thought. The universe exists so it must be because something is thinking of it. That someone can only be god. The universe exists therefor god exists. Philosophers of descarte's time could get away with crap like this. Not any more.

Good grief, you could try actually reading the paragraph: As I said, "strictly speaking we can't even detect consciousness in humans... [but] we can reasonably infer the presence of consciousness in humans and mammals by analogy of structure and behaviour." I don't know whether you're being deliberately dishonest by mangling my words in in a feeble attempt drum up a supposed 'contradiction' for your would-be gotcha points... or whether it's just a little bit above your level of understanding. Either way, it doesn't make for a very interesting or productive discussion, so between that and the character limit I think I'll leave my response at that for now.

Is that the royal "we", or just the common everyone on the planet knows exactly the same we? The common lay person may be able to get all philosophical about it but people such as neuroscientists might have a different approach. Yours as I pointed out seems to be to want to try and muddy the water on what consciousness is so that you can lay a foundation for a particular type of consciousness. I am not as confused about what consciousness is as you would need me to be for that to work.

 

[soylentgreen]

*waits with bated breath for Watsup to once again do his white knight routine about what a meanie Mithrae is*

My apology if I caused offense. I was aiming those statements at descarte not you.

 

[VySky]

If you argue that there is a god or is not a god, you are stating opinion, not science.

You do realize science is full of 'opnions' right?

 

[Gordy327]

You do realize science is full of 'opnions' right?

The difference is, scientific "opinion" is backed with evidence, experimentation, research, observation, ect..

 

[VySky]

The difference is, scientific "opinion" is backed with evidence, experimentation, research, observation, ect..

IOW speculation.

 

[Gordy327]

IOW speculation.

Not even a little. Perhaps you should try and understand science before showing off your ignorance of it.

 

[watsup]

*waits with bated breath for Watsup to once again do his white knight routine about what a meanie Mithrae is*

Ask and ye shall receive:

Or were you just unsuccesfully trying to do some 'clever' nit-picking in the hopes that would take the place of substantive discussion?

So I have to ask... do you understand

Good grief, you could try actually reading the paragraph:

I don't know whether you're being deliberately dishonest by mangling my words in in a feeble attempt

for your would-be gotcha point

whether it's just a little bit above your level of understanding.

it doesn't make for a very interesting or productive discussio

I have no idea why you and your fellow superstitionists (theists, religionists, ID proponents) have the need to constantly put down others but, as I have repeatedly said, it shows a weakness on YOUR part, not on that of others since your snide remarks simply ring hollow and untrue. If you can’t debate without the apparent need for ad hom, then you need to look inward to see why not.
So you’re taking a break? Good riddance.

 

[Mithrae]

My apology if I caused offense. I was aiming those statements at descarte not you.

No you didn't cause offense Most of us have a tendency when debating (and particularly when not convincing the other person of something that seems pretty obvious to us) of adopting a slightly more robust style of discussion, to varying degrees - myself obviously included and particularly when the other person has done the same thing. Nothing wrong with that for those so inclined, particularly for those mature enough not to carry any acrimony across to other discusssions; adds a little spice and flourish to discussions.

I just find it amusing when watsup (who is one of those most notable for frequently crossing the line into ad hominem and straight up insults) tries to use his 'eternal victim' or 'white knight' routines whenever big bad Mithrae responds in kind

 

[watsup]

f it's common as muck and nothing special, why would you assume that it's only associated with 'living' things? What's so special about living things, that they would produce consciousness?

Why would you ASSUME that consciousness is associated with other than “living things” when you have not an iota of objective, reality-based evidence that such is so? And are you saying that flora also have consciousness, in addition to certain fauna? And are you saying that rocks and water, for instance, have consciousness? Although I know how loath you are to answer questions about your strange claims, so I don’t actually expect straightforward answers.

the other focusing on the animals we eat (for which we do have a tremendous bias against consciously acknowledging their capacity for suffering).

Another untruth from you. Those of the Jewish faith have specifically noted the suffering of anImals for millenia by insisting that they be killed in “humane” manner so as to be kosher. Also, a core principle of PETA is to acknowledge the suffering of animals and push for laws that would decrease it, even as the animals go to slaughter. Actually, I really don’t know anyone who would claim that animals do not suffer, and even, for some, in an “emotional” manner when they lose a close animal relative or a member of their social group. Fishermen evidently think that fish either don’t suffer or they simply don’t care since they are willing to “catch and release” the same fish over and over by “hooking” them in the mouth and then removing the hook for it to happen again and again.

 

[watsup]

Most of us have a tendency when debating (and particularly when not convincing the other person of something that seems pretty obvious to us) of adopting a slightly more robust style of discussion, to varying degrees - myself obviously included and particularly when the other person has done the same thing. Nothing wrong with that for those so inclined, particularly for those mature enough not to carry any acrimony across to other discusssions; adds a little spice and flourish to discussions.

A bit of psychoanalysis, if you please.
I noted when I first arrived here the tendency of the “believers” of various sorts to basically be unable to debate without a steady stream of ad hom/insults contained therein. It has not changed since then and it includes those who invoke an “intellectual basis” for their claims. In fact, they are often some of the worst offenders.
So why is this so, I have often wondered, and I think that I have finally figured it out. It is because the “believers” (including you) are, deep down, quite uncertain of the validity of said beliefs. As such, they (you) tend to lash out at their debate opponents because of a certain FEAR that what they believe lacks said validity. That is also the reason why they (you) don’t like it when asked for objective, reality-based evidence, because they (you) know that there is none. Bottom line, per the psychoanalysis: deep-seated fear that their (your) belief is simply wrong causes them (you) to include so much ad hom/insult in their (your) posts.
As for your claim of consciousness beyond the human brain, I think of the scene in Animal House that goes like this:

• Pinto : OK, so that means that our whole solar system could be like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being Giggle. This is nuts! That means that one tiny atom in my fingernail could be...
• Jennings : ... could be one tiny little universe!

In other words, as I have said before, your claim of consciousness beyond the human brain is on the level of freshman college dorm bull sessions.

 

[Mithrae]

A bit of psychoanalysis, if you please.
I noted when I first arrived here the tendency of the “believers” of various sorts to basically be unable to debate without a steady stream of ad hom/insults contained therein. It has not changed since then and it includes those who invoke an “intellectual basis” for their claims. In fact, they are often some of the worst offenders.
So why is this so, I have often wondered, and I think that I have finally figured it out. It is because the “believers” (including you) are, deep down, quite uncertain of the validity of said beliefs. As such, they (you) tend to lash out at their debate opponents because of a certain FEAR that what they believe lacks said validity. That is also the reason why they (you) don’t like it when asked for objective, reality-based evidence, because they (you) know that there is none. Bottom line, per the psychoanalysis: deep-seated fear that their (your) belief is simply wrong causes them (you) to include so much ad hom/insult in their (your) posts.

Whereas the reason you (and to a lesser extent various other athiests such as Soylentgreen) make rude, insulting and ad hominem remarks - often before any recriprocal rudeness by other people, such as the OP of this thread, and in your case often constituting entire posts with zero substantive content at all - is just because you are so obviously correct and totally confident in your beliefs and you're simply frustrated with all the dumb people who don't see it like you do

 

[watsup]

Whereas the reason you (and to a lesser extent various other athiests such as Soylentgreen) make rude, insulting and ad hominem remarks - often before any recriprocal rudeness by other people, such as the OP of this thread, and in your case often constituting entire posts with zero substantive content at all - is just because you are so obviously correct and totally confident in your beliefs and you're simply frustrated with all the dumb people who don't see it like you do

See the discussion in post #436.
And there is a phrase near the end of the last sentence above that is correct, and you could see that if you read some of the inputs from some of them.

 

[watsup]

so between that and the character limit I think I'll leave my response at that for now.

More hilarity. As if even more words would somehow show your fatuous claims to have validity. NOT!

 

[Individual]

The difference IMO, between an agnostic and an atheist is the agnostic believes a supernatural God being might be possible, while the atheist believes a supernatural God being is not possible. The theist, agnostic, and atheist share one thing in common, the impossibility of proving a supernatural God being does or does not exist. Life goes on.

 

[Mircea]

And yes, the god of energy has been mentioned numerous times before in here.

Yeah, but it's energy and not a god.

As an Atheist, I see no point in bashing my Agnostic brethren for thinking energy had a hand in things.

 

[Mr Person]

A typical agnostic will claim that “there is the possibility of a God/gods/ID, but then add a qualifier such as “but the probability is extremely low” to show their lack of confidence in the actuality of such an entity. It reminds me of the old saying “you can’t be just a little bit pregnant”. In this case, once you acknowledge the “possibility”, no matter how slight, of a God/gods/ID, then you have assumed the mantle of “believer” every bit as much as a Tosca or a Daisy or the rest of them in here and elsewhere.
I ask the question: why should I believe in the possibility of such an outrageous concept as a God/gods/ID? Answer: as an atheist, I reject that. In addition to other reasons, almost every religionist/theist will eventually claim that because the universe and everything in it is just too complex to have come Into being on its own, then there “MUST” be a God as an explanation/“cause”. I have seen many agnostics such as DrewPaul at the present time also user that line of “reasoning”. That is a statement that has holes big enough to drive the proverbial Mack truck through, namely that said God/ID would have to be almost infinitely more complex than the universe to be able to just “create” such an almost infinitely complex entity in the first place. It boggles the mind think that “believers” such as religionists/theists and believers can actually buy into such a concept.

The position of an agnostic is that it the existence or not of a God is necessarily unknowable.

 

[soylentgreen]

Whereas the reason you (and to a lesser extent various other athiests such as Soylentgreen) make rude, insulting and ad hominem remarks - often before any recriprocal rudeness by other people, such as the OP of this thread, and in your case often constituting entire posts with zero substantive content at all - is just because you are so obviously correct and totally confident in your beliefs and you're simply frustrated with all the dumb people who don't see it like you do

and again what rude or insulting remarks did I make? Pointing out that descartes is a failed fantasy rather than a philosophical statement is a view point , not an insult.

 

[Mithrae]

The position of an agnostic is that it the existence or not of a God is necessarily unknowable.

That would be 'strong agnosticism,' and IMO it's a particularly weak position: It purports to know that direct divine revelation has not/will not/cannot occur, and to know enough about reality to assert that we can never infer the existence or non-existence of a God... all in order to say "we can't know." It shares some characteristics of deism in that it's a sort of extreme attempt at a middle ground which ends up making assertions just as bold as the theism and strong atheism it wants to avoid.

 

[Paradoxical]

My primary complaint regarding agnostics is that they "put on airs" by heavily inferring or even outright stating that they are more intellectually pure than atheists because of the "don't know" or "can't know" statements that they make regarding a God/gods ID. Those are just words, and I, at least, prefer evidence (lack of) as the basis for my atheist outlook, like the scientists do.

The human mind can't prove or disprove the existence of a creator which also says whether or not the entire universe sprouted from nothing or something. This is the meaning of agnosticism.

I debated Christians for decades and like a religious apologist named William Lane Craig, they use the above tactic against nonbelievers of their particular "God construct" and he is not the only apologist who does this. A guy named Turek does the same thing. At least Willaim Lane Craig was good enough to admit that he knows he does this and once he gets people to admit the possibility that an intelligence started the ball in motion, he leaps from there to "It must be the Christian God" with silly arguments over what he calls the "evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus. This is similar to what all believers will do, also. When push comes to shove and they can not prove one bit of the bible except that they got some geography right and some history, they will say "If there is no God how did we all get here?" which question doesn't prove that there is any Christian God.

Agnosticism is indeed the correct belief system because an atheist cannot prove how the first cause originated and if humans are going to give vague responses as to what they mean by "God" a first cause could be it/Him/Her

 

[Mithrae]

and again what rude or insulting remarks did I make? Pointing out that descartes is a failed fantasy rather than a philosophical statement is a view point , not an insult.

....

No one is going to fall for that shit bit of manipulation.

 

[Mr Person]

That would be 'strong agnosticism,' and IMO it's a particularly weak position: It purports to know that direct divine revelation has not/will not/cannot occur, and to know enough about reality to assert that we can never infer the existence or non-existence of a God... all in order to say "we can't know." It shares some characteristics of deism in that it's a sort of extreme attempt at a middle ground which ends up making assertions just as bold as the theism and strong atheism it wants to avoid.

It's got nothing to do with deism except what deism postulates: the concept of the biblical god is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present. This God simultaneously exists at all points in spacetime and encompasses spacetime (and any other heretofor unimagined reality).

Given that the universe is reality, a being within it cannot know, measure, guess at anything outside of it. In fact the concept of outside reality is logically incoherent. Yet religion postulates that outside of reality is also a thing this god encompasses. To know that there is a god such as is believed in, those in reality would have to be able to measure what is outside of it and measure this god's presence at all measurable points. That is impossible.

Within reality, no observation no matter how many supposedly known laws it violates can disprove anything about what is 'outside reality' let alone establish that there is an 'outside reality'. And further, those in reality have no way of distinguishing between an act of a god that violates known physical laws and an act of an incomprehensibly advance alien species that appears to be so magical it is an act of god but in fact is possible due to yet unknown greater physical laws. I don't see how we can ever know that there is nothing left to know no matter how advanced we get. All we can determine is whether or not what we know is accurate in light of new measurements.


The existence of a god is necessarily unknowable.