God probably exists ii

[Sherlock Holmes]

That didn’t really answer my question. That there are inconsistencies or things you don’t understand about naturalism (and there are many many things nobody understands about the universe) is not evidence that a supernatural being exists.

I think I did answer the question, but what we have here is that you do not regard as evidence something that I do, and lets be clear we're discussing evidence not proof.

 

[watsup]

And atheists do tend to believe there is no evidence for God.

Ummmm...that's because we have not been presented with any to this point. We know with absolute certainty that there is a universe. There is no indication that such is "evidence" for a God.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Umm, you also have the ability to start a topic. If you think this is important, then do so. I don't feel like going to other rooms, so you can go to the Philosophy room and tell them about the topic and invite them to join in. I have no problem with people making criticisms of my inputs. I am here to learn in addition to joining in the discussions. And I have learned a lot from my fellow atheists, not so much from the theists, I'm afraid.

And I would want you to participate in the thread! Why would you not. If you have the guts, start it and let's see where it goes. Sort of like I just started the "Where's the beef?" thread. See you there.....

And when you start the thread, also ask if "X is evidence of Y" is valid when the evidence is not actually shown, only stated, as you do with your "the universe is evidence of God" bit.

Ha, we both know you'd never do it because you'd be quite rightly slapped down for saying such a stupid, meaningless thing otherwise you'd do it!

 

[watsup]

Ha, we both know you'd never do it because you'd be quite rightly slapped down for saying such a stupid, meaningless thing otherwise you'd do it!

:giggle1:

I stand by my statement. If you think that it is wrong, then start the topic to prove so. Until then you are all hat and no cattle.
Like usual.'
And you are welcome to reply to my "Where's the beef?" topic when you get the chance.
*L*

 

[zyzygy]

The supernatural appears to be undectable. How can we know that it exists?

 

[ataraxia]

I want to show evidence to the atheist who asks for it but they need to explain what it is their looking for in that evidence, different people expect different things as evidence, this is what I meant.

If I tell you that unicorns exist, and then if you ask me how I know, would I be justified in asking you to define exactly what you mean by a unicorn and what it is you are looking for before I can give you any evidence for my claim?

And no, the brute existence of the universe is not evidence for God. Neither are phenomena like consciousness that we do not yet understand.

 

[zyzygy]

If I tell you that unicorns exist, and then if you ask me how I know, would I be justified in asking you to define exactly what you mean by a unicorn and what it is you are looking for before I can give you any evidence for my claim?

And no, the brute existence of the universe is not evidence for God. Neither are phenomena like consciousness that we do not yet understand.

This 'it has to be a god because it has to be a god' pops up in all the threads in this forum and is becoming very boring. Faith is one thing, evidence is another.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If I tell you that unicorns exist, and then if you ask me how I know, would I be justified in asking you to define exactly what you mean by a unicorn and what it is you are looking for before I can give you any evidence for my claim?

Not sure if you phrased that back to front by mistake, so let me assume you did and your saying that the advocate for X must define X.

Well perhaps but no atheists has asked for this so far as I can tell, they've simply said "Show us evidence" or "300 posts and still no evidence" and so on, this is what I've seen so far anyway.

What they really mean is "convince us to agree with you" not "show us evidence".

And no, the brute existence of the universe is not evidence for God. Neither are phenomena like consciousness that we do not yet understand.

You do realize that this claim itself requires evidence? God might have created the universe and therefore its presence could be evidence of that act, so you cannot say unequivocally that the existence of the universe is absolutely, not evidence for God unless you provide evidence in support of this claim and that would be proof that it arose from some process other than God and that claim would require evidence like such a purported process does actually exist and can lead to the spontaneous emergence of matter and laws of nature and so on.

Can you do that?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This 'it has to be a god because it has to be a god' pops up in all the threads in this forum and is becoming very boring. Faith is one thing, evidence is another.

What if your incapable of correctly interpreting any evidence?

 

[Big Eye]

I’ve never mentioned mind independence or any criteria for proof of mind independence. I’m not even sure what you mean by the term.

Mind independence simply means existing without the aid of a mind...like when a materialist assumes that rocks exist whether or not a mind creates or perceives them. You'd need to prove such a thing exists in order to debunk my theory. This is where atheists go wrong, they jabber on about theists believing in unproven Gods but often don't realise that materialism is only an unproven theory.

 

[Big Eye]

Actually, after 13 billion years, jumbo jets did naturally emerge from humans creating them. Once you realize that human beings are a part of nature, rather than separate entities, a lot of these arguments tend to break down.

I agree that we are all a part of this existence...but unnatural is generally accepted as being made by human beings or other alien intellects ...but your theory of emergence is unproven. Prove that emergence is real or your point is moot....especially given that my idea covers all the bases and is far simpler.

 

[Big Eye]

There is a difference between something that we have made, and nature. Sorry, bad analogy. In fact, an amazing stupid one.

I agree that generally the word "unnatural" refers to man made...but setting aside how we use words it is clear that our intellects are a part of this existence...that's why we are able to add complex predictable systems to an already complex predictable system.It's a good point actually that consciousness is definitely a part of nature, it is not alien (as such), so extending its remit beyond our own minds is not unreasonable. Cheers.

 

[Big Eye]

This is exactly the response I was talking about. I have no desire to try and convert you to atheism and I'd appreciate it if you gave me the same consideration.
I can only be held accountable for my own actions and I don't hold you responsible for the horrors of the crusades for example which was lets say problematic in the way religious people treated others of other faiths or none.

I don't want to convert you either, I've gone out of my way not to talk about specific religions...so maybe try not to be so precious lol.


I merely pointed out that the belief in atheism has most definitely caused human misery on a massive scale...that's not to say that religion is not also guilty too though, but we can generally fight over anything, it's human nature.

 

[Big Eye]

It's just his usual gibberish.

I accept that you find it hard to understand....:lamo

 

[RAMOSS]

I agree that generally the word "unnatural" refers to man made...but setting aside how we use words it is clear that our intellects are a part of this existence...that's why we are able to add complex predictable systems to an already complex predictable system.It's a good point actually that consciousness is definitely a part of nature, it is not alien (as such), so extending its remit beyond our own minds is not unreasonable. Cheers.

What a very weird semantic argument. yes, our intellect is part of existence, it developed via evolution. But, why would it reasonable to extend it beyond the physical that developed over billions of years to the alleged supernatural>

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What a very weird semantic argument. yes, our intellect is part of existence, it developed via evolution.

This is speculation.

 

[Big Eye]

But that still leaves the question of where that programmer came from in turn.




Well not really. That’s how everything else in the universe works. It would be quite odd that this would be the one exception. Of course, the phenomenon of consciousness IS a particularly weird phenomenon. But, nonetheless, if there is such a repetitive and consistent pattern of how nature and the universe works, if one was a betting man, one might be more inclined that this one follows in the same pattern.

This conclusion is also particularly highlighted by the experience that we humans have been inclined to consistently use gods, souls, and other otherworldly entities to explain lots of things we haven’t understood, and that line of thinking has so far been consistently proven to be wrong as we have learned more about them. So it would make sense to realize this may be a particular weak point and trap of our thinking/psychology and be particularly skeptical and on-guard against repeating it.

Also there is no proof of causation insofar as objects like brains cause thoughts...that could be correlation , the cause could lie outside of the brain.

We know will exists 100%, we do not know a mind independent substrate exists...that substrate (reality) may be mind dependent.

I've already said that the programmer is an inevitable reality of there not possibly being nothing (nothingness can not exist). The simplest thing I could think of (in terms of thought) is will...ie, God.

You still seem to assume that mind independence exists, which is fair enough, but there is no evidence of such a thing...all we have is proof that reality is not dependent on our minds.

As for various religions, there is good and bad in them sure...but I know of no great civilisation without religion. That's probably due to the descent into moral relativism that follows on the coattails of atheism...I know Buddhism is atheistic by the way and it's also relativistic ...which explains why it is a failing religion (but that's another thread lol).

 

[Dragonfly]

belief in atheism

There is no such thing. This has been pointed out to you before.

Nobody believes in atheism. Just as nobody who doesn't collect stamps is a stamp collector.

belief in atheism has most definitely caused human misery on a massive scale...

No it absolutely has not. Complete nonsense you can't begin to support with any logical data.
Especially since the "belief in atheism" part is a false premise to being with.

 

[Big Eye]

Perception is an adaptive interface to reality like Windows is to that of a PC. Natural selection has shaped our perceptions in ways that help us survive. Our perception of reality is not based on complete objective truth but rather on our ability to adapt to our environment.

Abstract mental representation is a crucial component of our species success and technological advancement. It is impossible to launch a rocket, place a satellite in orbit, or construct a functioning cell phone based on perception alone. Moreover, perception and theory are far more intertwined than scientists admit. No perception is truly direct. Like everything else that takes place by way of the brain, perception is a product of neural representation and is subject to influence by theory-based phenomena.

But the information, the brain operates on and used to evolve into, was already preexistent within nature. Thoughts are the mind's biological representations and reflection of the universe's structure and, in a sense, did preexist as physical complexities encoded in reality's physical nature.

The universe evolves into a more and more complex form because the potential for it too is inherent within its substance and ability. Humans (life forms) may be the most complex and developed form of organized matter in the known universe, not just because of our brain's complexity, but its ability to process information as conscious self-awareness. Consciousness may not be a mere individual characteristic but could be global in nature as a result of our species interaction with nature and each other. Communication, in the way of thought and language, is an important key to our survival and over time has transformed into a herd mentality or collective intellect or swarm intelligence, ie; science and google. The complete objective truth of reality might be emerging as the evolution of humanity's mental ability to conceptualize the universe as a whole entity, not separated by distinctions.


http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/Interface_Theory_2

I still think this might be like a program lol.:lamo

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There is no such thing. This has been pointed out to you before.

Nobody believes in atheism. Just as nobody who doesn't collect stamps is a stamp collector.

I don't think this is true, it seems to me that all atheists believe there's no evidence for God, so it is based on beliefs.

 

[Dragonfly]

I don't think this is true, it seems to me ...

So you just go around telling others what they think and believe, while ignoring what they actually tell you they think and believe.


Arrogance is thy middle name isn't it?

 

[Big Eye]

What a very weird semantic argument. yes, our intellect is part of existence, it developed via evolution. But, why would it reasonable to extend it beyond the physical that developed over billions of years to the alleged supernatural>

Your point about evolution is a belief, it is unproven ...for instance why did atoms form life, what benefit is there for atoms to do such a thing ?

As I have said this could be a universe of correlation caused by the programmer.

If a force (like consciousness) is entirely natural then it may exist beyond where we assume.

 

[watsup]

This is speculation.

It’s science. Do you know what brain scans are?

 

[watsup]

So you just go around telling others what they think and believe, while ignoring what they actually tell you they think and believe.


Arrogance is thy middle name isn't it?

Yes, now you understand Sherlock perfectly. Absolutely chock full of strawmen.

 

[watsup]

I don't think this is true, it seems to me that all atheists believe there's no evidence for God, so it is based on beliefs.

It’s not a belief. None has been shown.