Atheist arguments for God

[Mithrae]

I'm bored and a little drunk, so I figured I'd give this a shot. I don't believe in a god, but I always find it quite stimulating to think of the pro and con arguments. Limited by belief in biblical infallibility, conservative Christians are easy prey for atheists. But weighing both sides of a position, I've been known to change my own mind on occasion, so if nothing else that might make it an interesting endeavour to see how convincingly I might argue for the existence of a god.

'God' is here defined as an infinite personal Creator of everything. I won't argue (and don't believe) that concepts like 'good' and 'evil' have any true meaning with or without such a being's existence; with a God, he calls the shots, and without they're meaningless. I won't argue for biblical infallibility or even that the monotheistic faiths are the only ones with experience of this god; though some arguments will come from Judaism/Christianity if I get 'round to it.

I'll try to be relatively brief in my initial post, but since the responses will probably be considerable, it may take time to cover all points. For the sake of convenience, I'll broadly number my arguments and hopefully those responding will follow suit.



1 - Berkeley's immaterialism
This is based essentially on the problem of epistemology (the theory of 'knowing'). All science and a great deal of other human knowledge is based, ultimately, on observation; yet 'observation' for any individual amounts ultimately to nothing more than perceptions in the mind. If you've seen The Matrix, it's obvious that anyone plugged in has no way of knowing that what they see, feel, hear etc. isn't real. The difference is that there's no real world with machines running the Matrix.

Berkeley agreed with the sciences of his day that what we observe is real, and also with the philosophers that what we observe occurs in the mind. Reality, therefore, is a thing of the mind, not of some ultimately unprovable material world. Thus either I am the only mind in existence, and everything and everyone I've perceived is a figment of my imagination, or there are indeed other minds whose generally shared perceptions must necessarily be part of a greater Mind. The problem of epistemology is a significant one regarding the reliability of the sciences - observations occur only in the mind - but a wholly immaterial universe can be both largely consistent and largely comprehensible. There's genuine evidence for the phenomenon of perception (and less certainly, for shared perception between minds), but there's no genuine evidence for a material world - so why postulate one?

---
2 - Consciousness
Quite briefly, it's obvious that I possess a quality which I call consciousness, and it's equally obvious that a rock does not. There is no evidence for any theory suggesting that physical molecules grouping together in a complex enough fashion could give rise to this non-physical phenomenon known as consciousness. Related to and compatible with the above, but ultimately distinct, each person has genuine evidence for consciousness, but no genuine evidence regarding a physical basis for it. Pure immaterialism may or may not be the best explanation for this phenomenon, though an alternative is the existence of some non-material aspect of the universe somehow linked to the material.

---
3 - First cause and contigency
Everyone's probably familiar with the 'first cause' cosmological argument. Logically, the universe must be attributed either to an infinite regress of prior universes or some precedences (which seems unlikely) or it is self-caused or uncaused (equally unlikely). The same applies to the concept of God, of course. But there's a distinction which non-theists often don't seem to grasp; since long before the birth of Christ, the monotheistic concept of God has consistently been that of a timeless, uncaused Creator. The concept of material reality by contrast has consistently been that of a contingent existent, each aspect relying on previous aspects for its existence and nature. Whether it's a combination of the cosmological and ontological arguments, or Aquinas' first three arguments (I'm not enough of a philosopher to make the point clearly), the outcome is the same. An ultimate self-causation, non-causality or infinite regress in a contingent universe seems absurd compared to the possibility that a non-contingent entity caused all else.

---
4 - Evolution
Paleo-biology is an even weaker point for me than philosophy, but it's my understanding that there's virtually no evidence in the fossil record for transitional forms between major classes, let alone phyla. This contrasts severely with the expected findings of the phyletic gradualism theory of evolution initially envisaged by Darwin, giving rise eventually to the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution - suggesting, if memory serves, that significant major phases of evolution occured in restricted environments under greater selective pressure, before the resultant changes spread more widely and became visible in the fossil record. I don't know whether there's other theories around, nor how many scientists still adhere to the idea of phyletic gradualism.

However in the absense of any real evidence, the theory of punctuated equilibrium seems a tacit admission that the mere factors of genetic variation, random mutation and natural selection are not borne out by the available data as the sole cause of the earth's biodiversity. A confined ecosystem and greater selective pressure cannot, to my understanding, exessively increase the range nor rate of possible available genetic variants; so what we're left with is a theory which seems somewhat to rely on an inexplicable jump in mutations in those supposed confined spaces with high selective pressure.

If any biologists can correct me on any mistakes made above, it would be welcome. However from a layman's point of view, it seems that phyletic gradualism is grossly unevidenced in the fossil record, while punctuated equilibrium seems an intelligent but not particularly persuasive effort to explain the discrepancies. Is there any reason to go for an 'inexplicably increased rate in mutations and evolution'-of-the-gaps theory, rather than god-of-the-gaps?

---
5 - Prophecy of Daniel
The biblical book of Daniel was written partly in Hebrew (ch 1 and 8-12) and partly in Aramaic (2-7). I contend that there's no compelling reason to believe that the Hebrew portion is not genuine 6th century BCE material. Based mostly on the 11th chapter, secular scholars argue that such knowledge of the long interactions between the 'king of the north' (Seleucid Greeks) and 'king of the south' (Ptolemaic Greeks) could only be the product of a later author and, based on 11:36ff suppose that it was written shortly before Antiochus IV Epiphanes failed to do those things.

Besides the presupposition that the chapter must be naturalistic in origin, there are two major flaws with this view. Firstly the idea that a king (Antiochus IV) who'd spent much effort attempting to Hellenize the Jews would suddenly "show no regard for the gods of his ancestors" (11:37) and instead exalt a foreign god (38-39). Such an idea would be virtually inconceivable to a Jewish author living under Antiochus' reign. Secondly, the fact that the 'abomination of desolation' from v. 31 was prophecied at a specific time - Daniel 9:25-27 says it will occur roughly 70 sevens after the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Depending on the starting date, to a later Jew that could have meant anywhere from c53 BCE to c42 CE - either way, it's clear that Daniel 11:31 does not refer to anything which happened under the reign of Antiochus IV Ephiphanes (c167 BCE).

Above all, Daniel 8 refers to 'king' Belshazzar, a figure unknown to historians until a few cuneiform inscriptions were found in the last century. He was actually son to the last king of Babylon, Nabonidus, but ruled in his stead while Nabonidus resided elsewhere (memory fails me at this point, but pending confirmation I believe that one inscription mentions the name Belshazzar, while a different one clarifies his co-regency). Belshazzar is a name unknown in any Greek history - so while it would have been natural for a 6th century Jew to refer to 'king' Belshazzar, it's a mystery how a 2nd century BCE Jew would even know the name, let alone that he was crown prince and co-regent to Babylon's last king.

The balance of evidence suggests that Hebrew Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE, containing remarkable prophecy regarding the Greeks - and, even more intriguingly, arguably that it prophecies a messiah who would be 'cut off' sometime in the 30s CE (9:26).

[Goat]

The balance of evidence suggests that Hebrew Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE, containing remarkable prophecy regarding the Greeks - and, even more intriguingly, arguably that it prophecies a messiah who would be 'cut off' sometime in the 30s CE (9:26).

This is absolutely and totally false. The balance of evidence shows that the book of Daniel was written between 165 and 163 BCE. No other book in either the Jewish scripture or the Christian additions can be narrowed down to so small. There are the little details of anachronisms creeping up in Daniel, such as Persian terms that did not get introduced until Persia defeated Babylon, misspelling of King Neb, and the predictions
are accurate for the trials and tribulations of the Jews under Antioch until 163 BC, when it goes totally wrong.


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel

The Book of Daniel (Hebrew: דני�ל) is a book in the Hebrew Bible. The book tells of how Daniel, a Judean exile at the court of Nebuchadnezzar II (605 to 562 BCE), the ruler of Babylon, becomes a high government official[1] and delivers various prophecies. The book was probably composed about 165 BCE,[2] shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164.[3]

Just because you claim that one thing does not refer to the King Antioch situation doesn't mean it doesn't, since you gave no support, because you didn't also take into account the anachronisms.

[Mithrae]

This is absolutely and totally false. The balance of evidence shows that the book of Daniel was written between 165 and 163 BCE. No other book in either the Jewish scripture or the Christian additions can be narrowed down to so small. There are the little details of anachronisms creeping up in Daniel, such as Persian terms that did not get introduced until Persia defeated Babylon, misspelling of King Neb, and the predictions
are accurate for the trials and tribulations of the Jews under Antioch until 163 BC, when it goes totally wrong. . . .

Just because you claim that one thing does not refer to the King Antioch situation doesn't mean it doesn't, since you gave no support, because you didn't also take into account the anachronisms.

As I said, my initial post was quite brief. I gave three initial points supporting my position on Hebrew Daniel; the unlikelihood of a Jew at the time predicting that Anthiochus would abandon his fathers' belief and existing policy, the fact that the 'abomination of desolation' was predicted for a date at least century after Antiochus' reign, and especially the fact that a 2nd century Jew would know nothing of 'king' Belshazzar. I enjoy discussions with you Goat, but ignoring my points to claim that I gave no support doesn't make for a good start.

As you say, I didn't mention anachronisms - though to be honest I haven't heard mention of Persian terms in Daniel previously. That could simply be because Persia conquered Babylon before Daniel supposedly died, so the point is moot. Or you may mean the Greek terms in Daniel; they're the musical instrument names in chapter 2, which are in the Aramaic portion and which was indeed probably written sometime in the Greek period. If it's something else, I'd be interested in to learn more on the subject though.

Spelling of Nebuchadnezzar rather than Nebuchadrezzar I haven't seen advanced as an argument against authenticity either; but tomorrow I'll try to find whether Daniel spells it different than Jeremiah or Kings, to see if it's a valid point. There's other arguments too of course and they're fun to discuss, but please try not to be so presumptuous; or at least not until you've answered the points I made in my initial post, at least.

[Goat]

This is absolutely and totally false. The balance of evidence shows that the book of Daniel was written between 165 and 163 BCE. No other book in either the Jewish scripture or the Christian additions can be narrowed down to so small. There are the little details of anachronisms creeping up in Daniel, such as Persian terms that did not get introduced until Persia defeated Babylon, misspelling of King Neb, and the predictions
are accurate for the trials and tribulations of the Jews under Antioch until 163 BC, when it goes totally wrong. . . .

Just because you claim that one thing does not refer to the King Antioch situation doesn't mean it doesn't, since you gave no support, because you didn't also take into account the anachronisms.

As I said, my initial post was quite brief. I gave three initial points supporting my position on Hebrew Daniel; the unlikelihood of a Jew at the time predicting that Anthiochus would abandon his fathers' belief and existing policy, the fact that the 'abomination of desolation' was predicted for a date at least century after Antiochus' reign, and especially the fact that a 2nd century Jew would know nothing of 'king' Belshazzar. I enjoy discussions with you Goat, but ignoring my points to claim that I gave no support doesn't make for a good start.

As you say, I didn't mention anachronisms - though to be honest I haven't heard mention of Persian terms in Daniel previously. That could simply be because Persia conquered Babylon before Daniel supposedly died, so the point is moot. Or you may mean the Greek terms in Daniel; they're the musical instrument names in chapter 2, which are in the Aramaic portion and which was indeed probably written sometime in the Greek period. If it's something else, I'd be interested in to learn more on the subject though.

Spelling of Nebuchadnezzar rather than Nebuchadrezzar I haven't seen advanced as an argument against authenticity either; but tomorrow I'll try to find whether Daniel spells it different than Jeremiah or Kings, to see if it's a valid point. There's other arguments too of course and they're fun to discuss, but please try not to be so presumptuous; or at least not until you've answered the points I made in my initial post, at least.

No, it isn't.. there also are the greek words that are used, that 2 of them are not known to have been in use in the 6th century bce.

As for the use of the King Neb, from the wiki


Even the name Nebuchadnezzar contains a veiled reference to Antiochus Epiphanes to those acquainted with Hebrew numerology. In Hebrew, as in many other ancient languages, names and words often have numerical value (see Gematria). Nebuchadnezzar's name in cuneiform is Nabû-kudurri-uṣur which should be transliterated into Hebrew as נבוכדנ�צר or Nebuwkadne'tstsar (as it is in Jer. 46:2, 39:11). It is unlikely to be a coincidence that when the numbers represented by "Nebuwkadne'tstsar" are added up, they come exactly the same figure (423) as the numbers of the name "Antiochus Epiphanes".[


And also


This conclusion regarding the date of composition was first drawn by the philosopher Porphyry of Tyros, a 3rd century pagan and Neoplatonist, whose fifteen-volume work Against the Christians is only known to us through Jerome's reply. The identification of Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel, however, is a much older[59] interpretation which seems to be reflected, for example, in 1 Maccabees 1:54 (c100 BCE), where an idol of Zeus set up upon the altar of burnt offering under Antiochus is referred to as an "abomination of desolation" (cf. Dan. 9:27, 11:31).[60] This identification is made explicit in Josephus' exposition of Daniel chapter eight (Antiquities 10:11, c94 AD) where he almost certainly cites a common Jewish interpretative tradition by identifying the "little horn" as Antiochus. According to British historian Bryan Rennie, the conclusion that the Book of Daniel was written at the time of the profanation of the Temple by Antiochus IV would explain why the author is not very precise about 6th century events, why he is so precise about the time of Antiochus, and why he was never counted among the prophets.[55] Scholars are virtually unanimous in regarding the Book of Daniel as a message of encouragement to those people(hasidim)[61] suffering for their faith under the oppression of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

[LiamOS]

Logically, the universe must be attributed either to an infinite regress of prior universes or some precedences

Logically, yes. But in this case logic is operating under the premise of causality.

The same applies to the concept of God, of course.

Of course not. Causality in this universe is dubious at best, but to infer causality for something not inside the universe is just baseless speculation. It's as bad as assuming the existence is meaningful without the universe.

An ultimate self-causation, non-causality or infinite regress in a contingent universe seems absurd compared to the possibility that a non-contingent entity caused all else.

Absurdity doesn't cut it when you're dealing with physics. If you were to jump into some Quantum Field Theory, you'd call it absurd(And I'd almost agree), but it's quite clearly extremely accurate.

Even if that was a valid argument, one is still no closer to a Deity, as an entity that is not the universe does not posses the properties that a Deity must.

Quite briefly, it's obvious that I possess a quality which I call consciousness, and it's equally obvious that a rock does not.

It isn't until you define consciousness.

There is no evidence for any theory suggesting that physical molecules grouping together in a complex enough fashion could give rise to this non-physical phenomenon known as consciousness.

This is best summed up by a string of words which should remain unsaid on this forum.

Your argument is no different to saying "There is no evidence for any theory suggesting that physical molecules grouping together in a complex enough fashion could give rise to this non-physical phenomenon known as the wetness of liquid water."
Emergence is an interesting concept in relation to this. You can build castles and towers out of lego, and you can build a car out of atoms. There is nothing distinctly 'towery' about lego nor is there anything inherently 'car-ish' about atoms.

[Mithrae]

Logically, the universe must be attributed either to an infinite regress of prior universes or some precedences (which seems unlikely) or it is self-caused or uncaused (equally unlikely). The same applies to the concept of God, of course.

Logically, yes. But in this case logic is operating under the premise of causality. ...

Of course not. Causality in this universe is dubious at best, but to infer causality for something not inside the universe is just baseless speculation. It's as bad as assuming the existence is meaningful without the universe.

You snipped out the bit about self-causation or non-causation. Anything that exists either had a cause, or it didn't have a cause; that's the logical principle of excluded middle. 'Self-causation' at a glance seems a dubious notion at best, but again logically if something has a cause it is either distinct from the thing, or it isn't. I'm not talking about observed physical causality which, as you say, isn't necessarily a universal law. But the only logically possible options are that either the universe stems from some kind of infinite regress, or at some point there would have be something which is self-caused or uncaused. As far as I'm aware, there are no other alternatives.

An ultimate self-causation, non-causality or infinite regress in a contingent universe seems absurd compared to the possibility that a non-contingent entity caused all else.

Absurdity doesn't cut it when you're dealing with physics. If you were to jump into some Quantum Field Theory, you'd call it absurd(And I'd almost agree), but it's quite clearly extremely accurate.

Even if that was a valid argument, one is still no closer to a Deity, as an entity that is not the universe does not posses the properties that a Deity must.

This isn't physics I agree that the argument falls short of my beginning definition of 'God,' since the first cause needn't logically be a personal entity. However it's a good step towards that definition.

Quite briefly, it's obvious that I possess a quality which I call consciousness, and it's equally obvious that a rock does not.

It isn't until you define consciousness.

Awareness - the difference between someone in a coma and someone awake.

There is no evidence for any theory suggesting that physical molecules grouping together in a complex enough fashion could give rise to this non-physical phenomenon known as consciousness.

This is best summed up by a string of words which should remain unsaid on this forum.

Your argument is no different to saying "There is no evidence for any theory suggesting that physical molecules grouping together in a complex enough fashion could give rise to this non-physical phenomenon known as the wetness of liquid water."

Experience and perception are elements of consciousness, yes, and as far as I'm aware there aren't any explanations regarding why our perception of 'wetness' is the way it is. But given consciousness, the physical properties of water, the contact with nerves in our skin and transfer through the nervous system to the appropriate region of our brain can all be mapped by science. Given consciousness, it can generally be explained how we perceive (though probably not why we perceive as we do). It's consciousness itself which is the big issue.

While it refers to computers and understanding, a variation on John Searle's Chinese Room analogy may be helpful for some folk's understanding. No matter how complicated the system, there's no point at which 'consciousness' can be expected to arise in either a part or the whole. By now we've got a pretty good idea of the physical properties, phenomena and explanations for things like heat, light, colour, smell, gravity etc. etc. But when it comes to consciousness, I'm pretty sure there's not even any viable theory as to how physical molecules in the brain could produce such a thing.

Emergence is an interesting concept in relation to this. You can build castles and towers out of lego, and you can build a car out of atoms. There is nothing distinctly 'towery' about lego nor is there anything inherently 'car-ish' about atoms.

They're physical blocks and atoms, arranged into a particular physical form. What those physical forms mean to us has no bearing on the blocks or atoms, and nor did the blocks or atoms produce that meaning.

-------

No, it isn't.. there also are the greek words that are used, that 2 of them are not known to have been in use in the 6th century bce.

Aye, but they're in chapter 3 (my mistake from earlier), the Aramaic portion of the book. More than any other work in the Tanakh, Daniel's two languages suggest multiple authorship. The Aramaic author's historical knowledge is faulty (Nebuchadnezzar's madness, Belshazzar his 'son,' Darius the Mede ruler of the Persian empire etc.), and other evidences such as these Greek words show that it was written later than the 6th century.

Indeed the contents of the Aramaic section are interesting, since they seem very much to reflect the Hebrew portion. Daniel 8 mentions Belshazzar, and the Aramaic portion has a story about Belshazzar. Daniel 9 mentions Darius the Mede, and there's a story about him too in the Aramaic section. Daniel 8 mentions a previous vision, and the Aramaic section provides in chapter 7. It's the Aramaic section which tells the tales of religious faithfulness through trials and persecution, fitting for the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. By contrast Hebrew Daniel suggests, as I've mentioned, that it will be some 490 years from the command to rebuild Jerusalem before the end of transgression etc (9:24); no earlier than 49 BCE or so, in other words. Hardly a fitting message of comfort under persecution in 167 BCE.

As for the use of the King Neb, from the wiki

Even the name Nebuchadnezzar contains a veiled reference to Antiochus Epiphanes to those acquainted with Hebrew numerology. In Hebrew, as in many other ancient languages, names and words often have numerical value (see Gematria). Nebuchadnezzar's name in cuneiform is Nabû-kudurri-uṣur which should be transliterated into Hebrew as נבוכדנ�צר or Nebuwkadne'tstsar (as it is in Jer. 46:2, 39:11). It is unlikely to be a coincidence that when the numbers represented by "Nebuwkadne'tstsar" are added up, they come exactly the same figure (423) as the numbers of the name "Antiochus Epiphanes".

If you saw a Christian touting that as example of God's prophecy (as they do), surely you'd be curious about how consistently that particular spelling of Nebuchadnezzar is used, and suspicious about how exactly 'Antiochus Epiphanes' was transliterated into Hebrew also? Variations in the spelling of Nebuchadnezzar would render the theory suspect at best, while a single letter's difference in the transliteration of Antiochus Ephiphanes would ruin it entirely. And even if none of that were the case, you'd probably dismiss it as nothing more than coincidence if it were a Christian argument, yes?

As luck would have it, it works better as a Christian argument than for a late date concerning Daniel - and since you have advanced it as being meaningful, hopefully you will accept it as such.

'Nebuchadnezzar' appears three times in Hebrew Daniel, with two different spellings. From a quick study, I can't find those marked red anywhere else in the bible. Unfortunately, that's not the spelling which gives a numerical value of 423; the spelling in Daniel 1:1 is. As you've noted, Daniel 1:1 spells it differently to Jeremiah 46:2 (Nebuchadrezzar) and various other places in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But Jeremiah and Ezekiel are the odd ones out, seemingly the only books of the Tanakh which spell it that way. Elsewhere 2 Kings (eg. 24:1, 25:8) shares the same ending (or beginning, rather) to the word as the two unusual spellings in Daniel. More importantly, Jeremiah has the same spelling as Daniel 1:1 some 6-10 times (eg. 27:6, 29:1) as does 2 Kings 25:22 and undoubtedly other places also. Source for Hebrew spelling.



Since neither Jeremiah nor Kings are considered 2nd century works, it's clear that this argument is invalid regarding a late Daniel - though as noted, Christians no doubt find the numerical comparison most interesting. The exact spelling of 'Nebuchadnezzar' needed to get the magic number 423 can be found here, and as you see it requires the 'N' shaped letter which is present in Daniel 1:1, Jeremiah 27:6 etc, but not the unusual spellings in Daniel. (Yeah, I'm a real expert when it comes to languages )

This conclusion regarding the date of composition was first drawn by the philosopher Porphyry of Tyros, a 3rd century pagan and Neoplatonist, whose fifteen-volume work Against the Christians is only known to us through Jerome's reply. The identification of Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel, however, is a much older[59] interpretation which seems to be reflected, for example, in 1 Maccabees 1:54 (c100 BCE), where an idol of Zeus set up upon the altar of burnt offering under Antiochus is referred to as an "abomination of desolation" (cf. Dan. 9:27, 11:31).[60] This identification is made explicit in Josephus' exposition of Daniel chapter eight (Antiquities 10:11, c94 AD) where he almost certainly cites a common Jewish interpretative tradition by identifying the "little horn" as Antiochus. According to British historian Bryan Rennie, the conclusion that the Book of Daniel was written at the time of the profanation of the Temple by Antiochus IV would explain why the author is not very precise about 6th century events, why he is so precise about the time of Antiochus, and why he was never counted among the prophets.[55] Scholars are virtually unanimous in regarding the Book of Daniel as a message of encouragement to those people(hasidim)[61] suffering for their faith under the oppression of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

I'd suggest that Daniel wasn't counted among the prophets because he wasn't a prophet, in the Jewish sense. While his visions share elements in common with those found in Ezekiel, Zechariah and so on, Daniel is all visions; not once does he say "Thus says the Lord" or the like. Obviously come the 2nd century the accuracy of his prophecies came to be regarded, an historically inaccurate Aramaic portion was added exhorting the faithful to stand firm and so on - but prior to that, there would be little reason for Jews to give any great regard to his visions.

With our benefit of hindsight, it's obviously true that the small horn and the verses leading up to 11:31 fit quite well with Seleucid Greek history generally and Antiochus specifically. My point is that if, as you suggest, the book was written at that time both chapter 9 and 11:36ff make no sense. Chapter 9 gives a time-frame for the abomination of desolation which is hugely inaccurate; some 490 years forwards from the first possible command to rebuild Jerusalem (c539 BCE, when Cyrus allowed the Jews to return home) gives around 50 BCE, give or take. It's inconceivable that a Jew living in Antiochus' day would say "Hey, we've got another 115 years to go, but after that we'll finish the transgression, make an end of sins, make reconciliation for iniquity, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up vision and prophecy, anoint the Most Holy and have margheritas" (9:24). Almost as inconceivable is the complete policy reversal predicted in 11:36ff; that after all the effort spent trying to impose Greek culture and religion on the Jews, suddenly Antiochus would abandon the god his fathers and worship a foreign god.

And then there's the fact that a 2nd century Jew wouldn't know the name Belshazzar, let alone his position as crown prince/co-regent to Nabonidus. This is getting quite long, and I think I've lost my notes on the subject, so I'll wait 'til my next post before looking up all the information again. Or, since I've gone to some lengths looking up the spelling of Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps you would be interested enough to seek out references to Belshazzar yourself? Herodotus, Xenophon, Ctesias... none of these historians who may have been available to a 2nd century Jew mention Belshazzar at all, and nor do any other textual sources. For a long time critical scholars believed the name to be a complete fabrication. The only theory which fits the evidence is that Hebrew Daniel was genuinely written by someone under the rule of 'king' Belshazzar - and the later Aramaic author took that to mean that he was the last king of Babylon (though in truth Nabonidus seems to have returned a year before the Persian conquest).

[bernee51]

You snipped out the bit about self-causation or non-causation. Anything that exists either had a cause, or it didn't have a cause; that's the logical principle of excluded middle. 'Self-causation' at a glance seems a dubious notion at best, but again logically if something has a cause it is either distinct from the thing, or it isn't. I'm not talking about observed physical causality which, as you say, isn't necessarily a universal law. But the only logically possible options are that either the universe stems from some kind of infinite regress, or at some point there would have be something which is self-caused or uncaused. As far as I'm aware, there are no other alternatives.

That is correct...is there any reason why the universe, in some shape or form, has not always and will always exist.

Put it another way....when has it never been 'now'?'?

It isn't until you define consciousness.

Awareness - the difference between someone in a coma and someone awake.

So from where do you measure 'consiousness'? Is a dog conscious? A lizard? An amoeba?

I suggest that consciousness is not an endpoint but a continuum.

Experience and perception are elements of consciousness, yes, and as far as I'm aware there aren't any explanations regarding why our perception of 'wetness' is the way it is. But given consciousness, the physical properties of water, the contact with nerves in our skin and transfer through the nervous system to the appropriate region of our brain can all be mapped by science. Given consciousness, it can generally be explained how we perceive (though probably not why we perceive as we do). It's consciousness itself which is the big issue.

For a very good analysis of the relationship between experience and perception and how it manifests as consciousness I cam recommend "Seeing Red" by Nicholas Humphrey.

He argued..."sensations derive their characteristic phenomenology from the fact that they are — in evolutionary origin — a kind of bodily action, involving reaching back to the stimulus at the body surface with an evaluative response. Conscious feeling, I suggested, is a remarkable kind of "intentional doing". Feelings enter consciousness not as events that happen to us but as activities that we ourselves engender and participate in."

The above is from this essay

Of course, then there is Dennett's marvellous "Consciousness Explained".

[LiamOS]

Just a few little things:

This isn't physics

The nature of causality is certainly a question of physics.

Awareness - the difference between someone in a coma and someone awake.

A rock is not in a coma, therefore a rock is conscious.

Your definition has a long, long way to go.

Experience and perception are elements of consciousness, yes, and as far as I'm aware there aren't any explanations regarding why our perception of 'wetness' is the way it is. But given consciousness, the physical properties of water, the contact with nerves in our skin and transfer through the nervous system to the appropriate region of our brain can all be mapped by science. Given consciousness, it can generally be explained how we perceive (though probably not why we perceive as we do). It's consciousness itself which is the big issue.

I suggest reading some modern papers on the subject. You may find that consciousness is somewhat more basic than you imagine.

They're physical blocks and atoms, arranged into a particular physical form. What those physical forms mean to us has no bearing on the blocks or atoms, and nor did the blocks or atoms produce that meaning.

But they produced something capable of performing tasks in a very complex manner.

[Mithrae]

Awareness - the difference between someone in a coma and someone awake.

A rock is not in a coma, therefore a rock is conscious.

Your definition has a long, long way to go.

I didn't say that consciousness is not being in a coma. I said that consciousness is awareness, the difference between being awake and in a coma. Is a rock aware? Does a rock share the property which distinguishes those awake from those in a coma?

Experience and perception are elements of consciousness, yes, and as far as I'm aware there aren't any explanations regarding why our perception of 'wetness' is the way it is. But given consciousness, the physical properties of water, the contact with nerves in our skin and transfer through the nervous system to the appropriate region of our brain can all be mapped by science. Given consciousness, it can generally be explained how we perceive (though probably not why we perceive as we do). It's consciousness itself which is the big issue.

I suggest reading some modern papers on the subject. You may find that consciousness is somewhat more basic than you imagine.

I may do that sometime. That isn't a counter-argument, of course.

They're physical blocks and atoms, arranged into a particular physical form. What those physical forms mean to us has no bearing on the blocks or atoms, and nor did the blocks or atoms produce that meaning.

But they produced something capable of performing tasks in a very complex manner.

They gained that capacity from something outside themselves - human inventiveness - which, if anything, would make your analogy closer to suggesting that consciousness similarly is a capacity imparted by some outside source.

-----

You snipped out the bit about self-causation or non-causation. Anything that exists either had a cause, or it didn't have a cause; that's the logical principle of excluded middle. 'Self-causation' at a glance seems a dubious notion at best, but again logically if something has a cause it is either distinct from the thing, or it isn't. I'm not talking about observed physical causality which, as you say, isn't necessarily a universal law. But the only logically possible options are that either the universe stems from some kind of infinite regress, or at some point there would have be something which is self-caused or uncaused. As far as I'm aware, there are no other alternatives.

That is correct...is there any reason why the universe, in some shape or form, has not always and will always exist.

Put it another way....when has it never been 'now'?'?

Science will probably never discover what went before the big bang. There's a theory that time itself began with the big bang, so from that perspective the universe has always existed, for a given value of 'always.' I don't know that the theory is particularly compelling though, since if time began with the big bang by implication space did also - but if space were a property of the universe it would make no sense to talk of the universe expanding. Perhaps there's some kind of meta-space against which the expansion of our universe's space-time continuum makes logical sense... but it's all a bit beyond me.

The point is that the universe did indeed have a beginning. One can speculate that there may have been an infinite regress of prior universes in some form or other, or simply an infinite regress in the existence of the singularity from which the big bang began. Of course there's no evidence for that, and on the contrary it's always been our experience and generally our conception that, respectively, the parts and the whole of the universe at some point were not. By contrast, for well over two thousand years the consistent conception of God has been of the eternal creator of the universe. There's nothing intrinsic to our knowledge or conception of the universe which suggests an infinite regress or uncaused beginning; yet 'eternal creator' is intrinsic to our conception of God and obviously to his nature, if such a being exists.

Obviously there can be no conclusive proof on the matter; but between speculation on an infinite regress or uncaused beginning for a universe of which there is nothing intrinsic suggesting such a thing, or the long and widely held conception of God as eternal creator by very nature, the latter seems to take less of a leap in the dark.

It isn't until you define consciousness.

Awareness - the difference between someone in a coma and someone awake.

So from where do you measure 'consiousness'? Is a dog conscious? A lizard? An amoeba?

I suggest that consciousness is not an endpoint but a continuum.

We can have no certainty even that those we live and work with every day possess the quality known to us as consciousness. For all we know, they may merely be automatons going through the motions. But by analogy, since they're the same species and show similar behaviour patterns to us, it seems fairly safe to presume that they do indeed have consciousness.

As you imply, even amoeba are known to react to their environments, but that needn't necessarily imply that they have consciousness. Simple stimulous/response behaviour doesn't imply anything we could regard as awareness. Even more complex organisms like fungi or trees probably don't possess anything we could describe as consciousness. So where indeed might one draw the line? Probably not outside kingdom animalia (which means, interestingly, 'with soul'); possibly not even outside phylum chordata (vertebrates; though my next comments would count against that).

I wouldn't be convinced that 'consciousness' is a continuum though. I'm just theorising here of course, but probably the most basic indicators of awareness are reaction to pain and movement/exploration to acquire more sensory data. While it's true that different species have different means of acquiring sensory data, and different levels in their capacity to evaluate, remember and extrapolate from it, those would seem more like faculties in addition to 'consciousness,' not differing types or levels of consciousness itself.



I'll read that essay you linked later - at a glance, it looks quite interesting. I should note that I get the feeling I may have backed myself into a corner by my use and initial definition of 'consciousness,' so it'll be interesting to see how the discussion proceeds. I may end up having to use some other human mental faculty for my argument instead But with any luck that won't be necessary; even if it were the case that amoeba possessed some form of 'consciousness' beyond automatic stimulus/response behaviour, their absense of a brain or similar physical apparatus would make it even more remarkable and difficult to account for such a non-physical phenomenon.

[bernee51]

You snipped out the bit about self-causation or non-causation. Anything that exists either had a cause, or it didn't have a cause; that's the logical principle of excluded middle. 'Self-causation' at a glance seems a dubious notion at best, but again logically if something has a cause it is either distinct from the thing, or it isn't. I'm not talking about observed physical causality which, as you say, isn't necessarily a universal law. But the only logically possible options are that either the universe stems from some kind of infinite regress, or at some point there would have be something which is self-caused or uncaused. As far as I'm aware, there are no other alternatives.

That is correct...is there any reason why the universe, in some shape or form, has not always and will always exist.

Put it another way....when has it never been 'now'?'?

Science will probably never discover what went before the big bang. There's a theory that time itself began with the big bang, so from that perspective the universe has always existed, for a given value of 'always.' I don't know that the theory is particularly compelling though, since if time began with the big bang by implication space did also - but if space were a property of the universe it would make no sense to talk of the universe expanding. Perhaps there's some kind of meta-space against which the expansion of our universe's space-time continuum makes logical sense... but it's all a bit beyond me.

Time, like god is a concept devised by man to fill gaps. Time is how the distance between instances of 'now' are measured. But how long is a 'now? And when has it never been 'now'?

The point is that the universe did indeed have a beginning.

I would suggest all that can be claimed is the universe as we know it appears to have had a beginning

One can speculate that there may have been an infinite regress of prior universes in some form or other, or simply an infinite regress in the existence of the singularity from which the big bang began. Of course there's no evidence for that, and on the contrary it's always been our experience and generally our conception that, respectively, the parts and the whole of the universe at some point were not.

What would evidence for a pre-big bang 'universe' look like?

By contrast, for well over two thousand years the consistent conception of God has been of the eternal creator of the universe.

Only for your version of god, other versions of god have been a creator for much much longer.

Obviously there can be no conclusive proof on the matter; but between speculation on an infinite regress or uncaused beginning for a universe of which there is nothing intrinsic suggesting such a thing, or the long and widely held conception of God as eternal creator by very nature, the latter seems to take less of a leap in the dark.

So god is essentially an argument from ignorance.

When mankind evolved self reflective consciousness along with it came the ability to ask "Who am I?" This led to a sense of the 'other' it is from this sense that the god concept arose.

Julian Jaynes (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind) proffered that the human brain once assumed a state known as a bicameral mind in which cognitive functions are divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys.

He used governmental bicameralism to metaphorically describe such a state, in which the experiences and memories of the right hemisphere of the brain are transmitted to the left hemisphere via auditory hallucinations. This mental model was replaced by the conscious mode of thought, which Jaynes argues is grounded in the acquisition of metaphorical language.

I suggest that consciousness is not an endpoint but a continuum.

We can have no certainty even that those we live and work with every day possess the quality known to us as consciousness. For all we know, they may merely be automatons going through the motions. But by analogy, since they're the same species and show similar behaviour patterns to us, it seems fairly safe to presume that they do indeed have consciousness.[/quote]

And that that consciousness has evolved. The neural system on which consciousness is based has clearly evolved with the constituent parts clearly identifiable...neural tube, brain stem, reptilian brain, limbic system and so on. These structures can be seen in organisms that currently exist and have varying levels of consiousness.

As you imply, even amoeba are known to react to their environments, but that needn't necessarily imply that they have consciousness. Simple stimulous/response behaviour doesn't imply anything we could regard as awareness.

At the base of a our neural system is the excitable cell. Amoebic reactions may indicate from whence our consciouness arose.

Even more complex organisms like fungi or trees probably don't possess anything we could describe as consciousness. So where indeed might one draw the line? Probably not outside kingdom animalia (which means, interestingly, 'with soul'); possibly not even outside phylum chordata (vertebrates; though my next comments would count against that)

I wouldn't be convinced that 'consciousness' is a continuum though. I'm just theorising here of course, but probably the most basic indicators of awareness are reaction to pain and movement/exploration to acquire more sensory data. While it's true that different species have different means of acquiring sensory data, and different levels in their capacity to evaluate, remember and extrapolate from it, those would seem more like faculties in addition to 'consciousness,' not differing types or levels of consciousness itself.

The history of mankind shows an evolution of levels of consiousness - increasing degrees of self-awareness. Looking at fellow primates we see varying levels of consciousness.

If that is not a continuum what is it?

Evolution does not stop, therefore I suggest it is continuing to evolve - perhaps - given self reflectivity - consciously evolving.

Julian Huxley described it as evolution become aware of itself.

I'll read that essay you linked later - at a glance, it looks quite interesting. I should note that I get the feeling I may have backed myself into a corner by my use and initial definition of 'consciousness,' so it'll be interesting to see how the discussion proceeds.

I assumed you to mean self-reflective consiousness as it manifests in sentient beings.

I may end up having to use some other human mental faculty for my argument instead But with any luck that won't be necessary; even if it were the case that amoeba possessed some form of 'consciousness' beyond automatic stimulus/response behaviour, their absense of a brain or similar physical apparatus would make it even more remarkable and difficult to account for such a non-physical phenomenon.

The evolution of consciousness had to begin somewhere.