• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why The Monotheistic God Is Too Improbable To Believe, Even On Faith

And String Theories are only theoretical - no evidence for them yet. Let's take the Standard Model to demonstrate my point. It has been verified by experiment. It explains all sorts of subatomic particles. Here is the catch: when combined with Einstein's equation E = mc^2, all of those particles have an energy related to their rest mass and their velocity. When you view those particles as waves of a certain energy, they arren't particles any longer. There are 2 ways to view "reality".
Furthermore, analysis of these particles demonstrates that they are mostly empty space, with point concentrations of probability where the particle will be when observed subjectively. Particles are bound energy states.
Right. There are 2 ways to view one thing. Now, how is this indicative of the existence of a spiritual realm? If this is an illusion how do you know what else isn't or is an illusion? How can you use illusions as proof for something that is "real" (like a spiritual realm)?


Natural selection did not cause self-awareness. Self-awareness is not an emergent property of our brains. Our consciousness is separate from our mind.
Yes it did, yes it is, and no it's not.


The problem with that is that there are as many unanswered questions about this "reality". The main one being, where did consciousness come from? Not so easy and simple without a compelling answer to that question.
Consciousness/Self-Awareness is an "emergent property", a property that's only expressed in a system due to interactions of the parts of the system, rather than a property of the parts themselves.
On a more neurobiological level, we can, at the least, localize it as far as the cerebrum. Destruction of the cerebrum leaves a person nothing but a vegetable, even if everything else is intact, while destruction or replacement of other body parts either has no effect or is simply instantly fatal.
In effect these parts, are somewhat self autonomous and made to interact with other parts that are similar, as a consequence a phenomenon emerges called consciousness. I would say what differentiates consciousness from other everyday processes is that consciousness operates via a feedback loop between perception and cognition. What we perceive is influenced by what we're thinking about, and what we're thinking about is influenced by what we perceive. In a biological sense this is likely manifested in the form of cortico-thalamo-cortical loops.
The whole universe is made up of a handful of different fundamental particles and forces. You could understand what these are and how they interact on a basic level and still not be able to predict any of the macro-scale structures and behaviors we see every day. Basically, everything we experience is a complex emergent property. Life, and by extension consciousness, is just an extremely complex emergent property among other complex emergent properties.
In terms of the long term storage of fixed memory, the human brain is not a good design. In other words, although the brain can store fixed data, the amount of possible data storage is extremely large, yet our reliable fixed memory is only a tiny fraction. For example, we can read a book and see all the words. Once done very few can recite it verbatim. We can summarize it and add our interpretation. A year later, even more is gone. I am not saying we don't remember, but we forget more than we remember. As time goes on, we also see the same things in a different ways.
What this brings to the picture for consciousness, is the changing memory grid within the brain, is conducive to conscious awareness. One is more aware of changes in a routine that when acting via a fixed routine. If you get up in the morning, you can run on radar and go through the motions of getting ready, even while half asleep or half conscious. If someone moves your toothbrush and hides the cereal, the changes wake you up to action because of the adaption needed. One has to crank up consciousness and become more aware to adapt.
Routine is easier to deal with, like a robot. Consciousness is heightened when we have to alter the routine of fixed memory and face the unexpected. When a person jumps out of a plane, they jump into the unknown. They feel heightened awareness.
 
Last edited:
The whole universe is made up of a handful of different fundamental particles and forces. You could understand what these are and how they interact on a basic level and still not be able to predict any of the macro-scale structures and behaviors we see every day. Basically, everything we experience is a complex emergent property. Life, and by extension consciousness, is just an extremely complex emergent property among other complex emergent properties.
I just wanted to emphasize this part of what I said. This is why you don't get consciousness (and by extension the belief in the existence of a spiritual realm) from the basic fundamental "energy" of the universe. Many (if not infinite) emergent properties need to exist before you get to the emergent property of consciousness. As you described accurately, particles (or quarks) are "bound energy states". Particles are an emergent property of energy. In turn, you get protons and neutrons, made up of quarks, atoms made of protons and neutrons, molecules made of atoms, cells made of molecules, and bodies (or brains) made of cells. Notice how you can't get consciousness until you have the emergent property of cells. Atoms don't have consciousness, neither do molecules, quarks or cells. Nor stars, galaxies or universes. Why? Because each emergent property requires the existence of a previous one to exist. You could say that when we think about the very small and the very big (with us seemingly in the middle and we seem to continually discover more smaller things and more larger things) that it is our way of interpreting/perceiving or being aware of infinity. And no mystical states, meditations, or spiritual realms were needed in acquiring this awareness.
 
Last edited:
Right. There are 2 ways to view one thing. Now, how is this indicative of the existence of a spiritual realm? If this is an illusion how do you know what else isn't or is an illusion? How can you use illusions as proof for something that is "real" (like a spiritual realm)?

My point is that there are 2 different ways to view one thing...why not a third way? I am illuminating that the possibility exists, not trying to prove the existence on a spiritual realm. I demonstrate that nothing disproves it, so it remains a valid possibility.


reefedjib said:
Natural selection did not cause self-awareness. Self-awareness is not an emergent property of our brains. Our consciousness is separate from our mind.
Yes it did, yes it is, and no it's not.

This is the crux of our disagreement. I would add that thoughts are separate from our minds, as well.

I just wanted to emphasize this part of what I said. This is why you don't get consciousness (and by extension the belief in the existence of a spiritual realm) from the basic fundamental "energy" of the universe. Many (if not infinite) emergent properties need to exist before you get to the emergent property of consciousness. As you described accurately, particles (or quarks) are "bound energy states". Particles are an emergent property of energy. In turn, you get protons and neutrons, made up of quarks, atoms made of protons and neutrons, molecules made of atoms, cells made of molecules, and bodies (or brains) made of cells. Notice how you can't get consciousness until you have the emergent property of cells. Atoms don't have consciousness, neither do molecules, quarks or cells. Nor stars, galaxies or universes. Why? Because each emergent property requires the existence of a previous one to exist. You could say that when we think about the very small and the very big (with us seemingly in the middle and we seem to continually discover more smaller things and more larger things) that it is our way of interpreting/perceiving or being aware of infinity. And no mystical states, meditations, or spiritual realms were needed in acquiring this awareness.

I think you must have emergent properties to host a consciousness, or even thoughts for that matter. So evolution is definitely involved and is a real phenomena. When the brain reaches a certain complexity it can host thoughts. A further level of complexity and it can host consciousness. There are planes of existence which we know very little about: the plane of thought and the plane of consciousness.

We have reached a fundamental disagreement as to the origin of consciousness. I doubt either of us can prove it one way or another, so we are left with them being merely our opinions.

What may be closer to experimental analysis, that we disagree on, is whether thoughts are emergent or whether they exist independently of our brains. I think the brain creates, sends and receive thoughts, but they exist independently. You disagree. The reason I point out thoughts is that it may more feasible to experiment there than on consciousness. The results in this case will shed some light on our more fundamental disagreement.

Do you agree or disagree with what I have written these last three paragraphs?
 
My point is that there are 2 different ways to view one thing...why not a third way? I am illuminating that the possibility exists, not trying to prove the existence on a spiritual realm. I demonstrate that nothing disproves it, so it remains a valid possibility.
No, it is not a valid possibility. It is an extremely unlikely possibility. We went over this with my explanation of how we used to view the motion of the Sun. There are many ways to view something. One of our views of the sun's motion was that of a god driving a burning chariot across the sky. It was also viewed as one of the many objects in the heavens that orbited the earth. Now, we view it as a massive sphere of hydrogen and helium gas and plasma pressed together by gravity, creating a fusion reaction at the core. Once you actually investigate and account for all the other evidence (the sun's movement across the background stars and the motions of the other planets), rather than just believe what your eyes, priests/shamans, etc. are telling you, then you become truly aware.
Speaking of alternate views, lets take an alternate view to how you are presenting your argument. Imagine you are discussing hurricanes and the difficulty of predicting how many storms there will be and where they will land. Imagine that a person responds and says that the hurricanes are controlled by democratic leaning spirits and that is the reason why they struck the U.S. while Bush was president, to make him look bad. You respond by pointing out observable evidence (like I did) that disproves this belief that hurricanes are controlled by democratic leaning spirits as being a "valid possibility". You ask why hurricanes have struck the U.S. while Democrats were president and the person responds, "Those are hard questions. Let's wait and see how someone with a better imagination than me can support my belief. While we wait, my explanation remains a "valid possibility"."


I think you must have emergent properties to host a consciousness, or even thoughts for that matter. So evolution is definitely involved and is a real phenomena. When the brain reaches a certain complexity it can host thoughts. A further level of complexity and it can host consciousness. There are planes of existence which we know very little about: the plane of thought and the plane of consciousness.

What may be closer to experimental analysis, that we disagree on, is whether thoughts are emergent or whether they exist independently of our brains. I think the brain creates, sends and receive thoughts, but they exist independently. You disagree. The reason I point out thoughts is that it may more feasible to experiment there than on consciousness. The results in this case will shed some light on our more fundamental disagreement.
If we are able to connect a computer to a brain and have the person move a mouse cursor and type by merely thinking about it, then the computer should automatically be able to pick up these "thought signals" being sent and received to the "host brain". It doesn't, which is why it's connected directly to the brain to receive these signals. There are no other planes of existence, so we can't know very little about something that doesn't exist. Thoughts and consciousness originate from the brain. Plain and simple. Observable. No hard questions left to answer.


We have reached a fundamental disagreement as to the origin of consciousness. I doubt either of us can prove it one way or another, so we are left with them being merely our opinions.
Do you agree or disagree with what I have written these last three paragraphs?
Based on the results of our debate, the only thing I would agree on is that my opinion is a valid possibility and yours is not.
 
Last edited:
No, it is not a valid possibility. It is an extremely unlikely possibility.

Blow me.


There are no other planes of existence, so we can't know very little about something that doesn't exist. Thoughts and consciousness originate from the brain. Plain and simple. Observable. No hard questions left to answer.

Not convincing.


Based on the results of our debate, the only thing I would agree on is that my opinion is a valid possibility and yours is not.

Kiss my ass. You are intellectually dishonest. I am bored with you. Goodbye.
 
You see? Thoughts do originate from the brain. This quote could have only been generated by a brain developed in Western culture in the 20th century.


Not convincing.
I never expected to convince you. You're too hard-headed, which is more proof against your idea that thoughts are signals. How could any signal penetrate that thick layer of bone in your head?

Kiss my ass. You are intellectually dishonest. I am bored with you. Goodbye.
I'm intellectually dishonest? I'm not the one ignoring all the hard, unanswered questions that make it extremely difficult to believe in your ideas. Truly, Faith is blinding.
 
Last edited:
You see? Thoughts do originate from the brain. This quote could have only been generated by a brain developed in Western culture in the 20th century.



I never expected to convince you. You're too hard-headed, which is more proof against your idea that thoughts are signals. How could any signal penetrate that thick layer of bone in your head?


I'm intellectually dishonest? I'm not the one ignoring all the hard, unanswered questions that make it extremely difficult to believe in your ideas. Truly, Faith is blinding.

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods." - Albert Einstein
 
LOL. I see that Egofftib has replied to this thread and I get excited becuase I think all the hard questions will have answers. Instead I get a quote from Einstein that is poorly applied to the context of this debate. What a let down. Why the name change, Egofftib?

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods." - Albert Einstein
I seriously doubt that when Einstein made this statement he was insinuating that people who refuse to believe in delusions (ideas that create a lot of hard, unanswerable questions) means that they are setting themselves up as judge of Truth and Knowledge.
 
LOL. I see that Egofftib has replied to this thread and I get excited becuase I think all the hard questions will have answers.
I would gladly answer your "hard" questions, but we both know you will more than likely not care for the answers I give.

Why the name change, Egofftib?
It was time for a change! :)

I seriously doubt that when Einstein made this statement he was insinuating that people who refuse to believe in delusions (ideas that create a lot of hard, unanswerable questions) means that they are setting themselves up as judge of Truth and Knowledge.
It was nothing more than a friendly reminder to stay humble.
 
I would gladly answer your "hard" questions, but we both know you will more than likely not care for the answers I give.
Well, yes, if the answers will be based on more unprovable, unobservable, evidence, then don't bother.


It was time for a change! :)
Change is good! Er, well, not all change. (Just trying to stay humble):)


It was nothing more than a friendly reminder to stay humble.
Pleeeaasee. I'm an employee and a husband. Believe me when I say that I am humble.;)
 
Well, yes, if the answers will be based on more unprovable, unobservable, evidence, then don't bother.
Why then were you disappointed or surprised that I had not answered your questions? I'm not going to put in the effort if my entire post is going to be dismissed by the mere wave of your hand.
 
Why then were you disappointed or surprised that I had not answered your questions? I'm not going to put in the effort if my entire post is going to be dismissed by the mere wave of your hand.

Because I was hoping you'd realize after me telling you several times that providing simple, observable evidence that doesn't create more hard questions to answer are the best way to present an idea or theory. I know that you use this same criteria when applying it to everything else in your life (politics, relationships, etc.), which is why you don't consider the idea that hurricanes are caused by democratic-leaning spirits as being "valid", nor any other "crazy" idea, so why not with beliefs in a god or thoughts being independent of the brain?

Why are you so concerned with me dismissing your post. If you have knowledge that will enlighten all of us (because the questions I asked are questions everyone asks), then don't let humble little me get in the way of enlightening humanity.
 
Back
Top Bottom