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).

[LiamOS]

[...] Does a rock share the property which distinguishes those awake from those in a coma?

I don't know, because you haven't told me how to determine that yet.

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

I didn't intend it to be, as your point wasn't really an argument to begin with. It was bare assertion and nothing more.

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.

This is only true if human intellect is unnatural.

It is still an example of emergence in an entirely different manner to the usual, and is more than enough to doubt your hypothesis.

[Mithrae]

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'?

Time is measured by the sequence of events, in our understanding. Your wording suggests that time is simply a human way to measure the sequence of 'nows' - essentially that before humanity could conceive of such, time did not exist. I and most others would disagree, but it may merely be a problem with wording.

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

I don't know much about the science, so I can't defend it. I barely understand red shift, let alone how accurate our observations are and how reliably we can extrapolate backwards to an initial starting point and time for the universe. I gather there's a broad scientific consensus on it however, which is probably as good as we'll get for now.

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?

I suspect that it's beyond the reach of science. The strength of science is that it limits itself to that which can be verified - the downside is that some folk take that as being all that's worth knowing.

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.

I said in the OP that I'm an atheist, so this isn't a 'mine is bigger than yours' issue. It might help if you explained what you mean, and why it's relevant.

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.

An argument from ignorance is "we don't know this-and-that, so we should believe such-and-such." My comments above amount to "we don't know this-and-that, but such-and-such is the simpler and longer-standing concept." While not completely accurate, the comparison with Occam's razor is worth mentioning.

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.

Wikipedia introduces Julian Jaynes as follows:

• Julian Jaynes (February 27, 1920 – November 21, 1997) was an American psychologist, best known for his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (1976), in which he argued that ancient peoples were not conscious (i.e. could not introspect). Instead, Jaynes claimed that ancient people acted by means of automatic, nonconscious habit. When habit did not suffice and stress rose at the moment of a decision, behavior was directed by auditory verbal hallucinations, which were heard as the voice of a chieftain or god and immediately obeyed. Jaynes argued that the change from this mode of thinking (which he called the bicameral mind) to consciousness (construed as self-identification of interior mental states) occurred over a period of centuries about three thousand years ago and was based on the development of special types of linguistic cognition and the emergence of writing as an alternative means of social control. [Emphasis mine]

This sounds consistent with what you've said, but if it's not accurate please let me know. If it is accurate, I don't think such psycho-analysis of ancient peoples can hold much merit; yet such a pattern of habit and paradigmatic responsiveness are hardly absent from the modern world.

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.

In that light, neither amoeba nor dogs nor chimpanzees are conscious. I recall when I was but 16 or 17 discussing with a friend that I could hardly consider myself to have been 'sentient' when I was 6 or 7. It also makes more sense of your reference to Julian Jaynes. I considered sentience in answering Aki's question what I meant by 'consciousness', but its a fairly vague concept so I passed it by.



Other points in your post seem to be involved with distinctions between consciousness (awareness) in my definition and development towards self-reflective consciousness (sentience) in your sense. With that distinction cleared up I'm not sure they need to be answered, but if I've missed anything you think should be answered, just say the word

-----

[...] Does a rock share the property which distinguishes those awake from those in a coma?

I don't know, because you haven't told me how to determine that yet.

Removing and ignoring the substance of my post (again) doesn't do much for you. If you can't see what differentiates someone in a coma from someone who is awake, that's not my problem.

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.

This is only true if human intellect is unnatural.

It is still an example of emergence in an entirely different manner to the usual, and is more than enough to doubt your hypothesis.

Human intellect is outside of lego and the atoms which make up metal and plastic, so my comments hold regardless.

However since you mention it, what do you mean by 'unnatural'? You might do well to explain 'emergence' too, since as far as I can see in this context it amounts to nothing more than "the use to which humans can put the things they build".

[LiamOS]

Removing and ignoring the substance of my post (again) doesn't do much for you.

That which I ignore is either what I agree with or what is covered in my response anyway. I'm sorry if it appears like I'm selectively responding.

If you can't see what differentiates someone in a coma from someone who is awake, that's not my problem.

It is your problem. Allow me to illustrate that.

Which of the following are conscious:
Human.
Chimpanzee.
Weasel.
Elephant.
Dolphin.
Rock.
Slug.
Ant.
Bee.

Now, by what criteria did you judge the above? This is what I've been trying to get at, because until you can define this you're just arbitrarily attaching a meaningless label.

Human intellect is outside of lego and the atoms which make up metal and plastic, so my comments hold regardless.

This is known as a Bare Assertion Fallacy.
Notice that you have not shown that human intellect is not a mechanical/natural process, yet have asserted it is.

You're more than welcome to believe that this is the case, but on this forum you're expected to provide evidence for any positive assertions you make.
Until that is done, your assumption is unwarranted and cannot be considered a viable assumption in debate.

However since you mention it, what do you mean by 'unnatural'?

By 'unnatural' I mean that human intelligence is not the result of natural processes.
If intelligence stems from nature, then it is nature in its entirety that built that car and the atom bomb.

You might do well to explain 'emergence' too, since as far as I can see in this context it amounts to nothing more than "the use to which humans can put the things they build".

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.

[bernee51]

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'?

Time is measured by the sequence of events, in our understanding. Your wording suggests that time is simply a human way to measure the sequence of 'nows' - essentially that before humanity could conceive of such, time did not exist. I and most others would disagree, but it may merely be a problem with wording.

This is getting off topic but I suggest you google "Does time exist".
I see the universe as emergent and all that we can really know is 'now'. All else we 'know' our memories, anticipation of the future (based on memories) give us the 'idea' of time. Our very sense of self is built around the concept – Humphrey describes a “think moment of time� around which our identity is fashioned.

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?

I suspect that it's beyond the reach of science. The strength of science is that it limits itself to that which can be verified - the downside is that some folk take that as being all that's worth knowing.

Or fill the gap with god.

I said in the OP that I'm an atheist, so this isn't a 'mine is bigger than yours' issue. It might help if you explained what you mean, and why it's relevant.

Sorry about that – you were playing he devil’s advocate so well i forgot that you were a non believer.

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.

An argument from ignorance is "we don't know this-and-that, so we should believe such-and-such." My comments above amount to "we don't know this-and-that, but such-and-such is the simpler and longer-standing concept." While not completely accurate, the comparison with Occam's razor is worth mentioning.

Adding a creator god to the mix compounds the issue. An extant emergent universe is the simplest ‘unbaggaged’ option.

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.

In that light, neither amoeba nor dogs nor chimpanzees are conscious. I recall when I was but 16 or 17 discussing with a friend that I could hardly consider myself to have been 'sentient' when I was 6 or 7. It also makes more sense of your reference to Julian Jaynes. I considered sentience in answering Aki's question what I meant by 'consciousness', but its a fairly vague concept so I passed it by.

You appear to be referring to levels of consciousnes rather than consciousnes per se

There are well defined and well researched levels of consciousness – Piagets’s stages come to mind. The age 6 or 7 is the concrete operational stage – where a sense of cause and effect are realised – there is an understanding of experience but not abstractions.

Theories such as spiral dynamics hold that in early stages of development, humans, and therefore society, has progressed through these stages.

[Mithrae]

[Consciousness defined as..] 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?

I don't know, because you haven't told me how to determine that yet.

Removing and ignoring the substance of my post (again) doesn't do much for you.

That which I ignore is either what I agree with or what is covered in my response anyway. I'm sorry if it appears like I'm selectively responding.

No worries - and my apologies for mistaking your meaning

If you can't see what differentiates someone in a coma from someone who is awake, that's not my problem.

It is your problem. Allow me to illustrate that.

Which of the following are conscious:
Human. . . .
Rock. . . .
Slug. . . . etc.

Now, by what criteria did you judge the above? This is what I've been trying to get at, because until you can define this you're just arbitrarily attaching a meaningless label.

I'm not sure it's what you're looking for, but Bernee asked a similar question earlier:

• • Bernee wrote: 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.
  Mithrae wrote: 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.

That would mean that all on your list except the rock possess the quality of consciousness/awareness.

Human intellect is outside of lego and the atoms which make up metal and plastic, so my comments hold regardless.

This is known as a Bare Assertion Fallacy.
Notice that you have not shown that human intellect is not a mechanical/natural process, yet have asserted it is.

You're more than welcome to believe that this is the case, but on this forum you're expected to provide evidence for any positive assertions you make.
Until that is done, your assumption is unwarranted and cannot be considered a viable assumption in debate.

My assertion above is simply that human intellect is not in or part of the metal/plastic molecules in a car, which I'm sure you don't deny. It's merely a tangent from the analogy; you mentioned the car to suggest that the brain might also function as a whole beyond the mere sum of its parts. I merely point out that since that complex function is facilitated only by an outside factor (the intelligence which designed and build the car), the analogy probably isn't the best.

However since you mention it, what do you mean by 'unnatural'?

By 'unnatural' I mean that human intelligence is not the result of natural processes.
If intelligence stems from nature, then it is nature in its entirety that built that car and the atom bomb.

That would be begging the question though; you can't argue for wholly natural origins to consciousness by an analogy which includes reference to consciousness/intelligence. Regardless, it's still missing the point of my original response: 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.

The issue isn't complexity. Our bodies are infinitely more complex than any man-made device, but I wasn't arguing from that angle. Cars and bodies are the sum of many different physical parts, acting as physical things do to produce complex, but physical functions. Consciousness isn't just a complex function (indeed as above, I'm not arguing that consciousness itself needs to be particularly complex at all) - it's a non-physical phenomenon. Arguing that the interaction of physical molecules over millions of years (evolution of life and brains) eventually produced a non-physical phenomenon as a result is akin to arguing that those molecules themselves were the product simply of the interaction of the dimensions of space and time. They're fundamentally different types of things.

You might do well to explain 'emergence' too, since as far as I can see in this context it amounts to nothing more than "the use to which humans can put the things they build".

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.

Thankyou. Correct me if I'm wrong, but along the lines of "when wholes become greater than the sum of their parts"?

By the looks, it's hardly an established scientific or philosophic concept, though it could certainly prove useful when it comes to describing our perceptions. I don't know enough to discuss it particularly intelligently, but what does seem apparent to me is that your example of a car is not a case of 'emergence' at all. A car is the sum of its parts. Again as I said in my first response, "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."

-----

Time is measured by the sequence of events, in our understanding. Your wording suggests that time is simply a human way to measure the sequence of 'nows' - essentially that before humanity could conceive of such, time did not exist. I and most others would disagree, but it may merely be a problem with wording.

This is getting off topic but I suggest you google "Does time exist".
I see the universe as emergent and all that we can really know is 'now'. All else we 'know' our memories, anticipation of the future (based on memories) give us the 'idea' of time. Our very sense of self is built around the concept – Humphrey describes a “think moment of time� around which our identity is fashioned.

Identity is an interesting discussion, but agreed that it's off-topic. Things happen and then other things happen - we call that sequence 'time,' and it exists in the same way that space exists. Differentiating between 'now' and 'then' or differentiating between 'here' and 'there' are similar functions, and whether or not space and time are things in the way that planets or bananas are things is moot for the purposes of this discussion, as far as I can see.

An argument from ignorance is "we don't know this-and-that, so we should believe such-and-such." My comments above amount to "we don't know this-and-that, but such-and-such is the simpler and longer-standing concept." While not completely accurate, the comparison with Occam's razor is worth mentioning.

Adding a creator god to the mix compounds the issue. An extant emergent universe is the simplest ‘unbaggaged’ option.

But it's not merely extant, it's a universe which had a beginning. Any speculation about before or at the instant of the big bang, or how it happened, compounds the issue. I agree, as above, that an honest assessment has to begin with "we don't know" - but I maintain that the longer-standing concept of a creator introduces fewer speculative elements.

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

In that light, neither amoeba nor dogs nor chimpanzees are conscious. I recall when I was but 16 or 17 discussing with a friend that I could hardly consider myself to have been 'sentient' when I was 6 or 7. It also makes more sense of your reference to Julian Jaynes. I considered sentience in answering Aki's question what I meant by 'consciousness', but its a fairly vague concept so I passed it by.

You appear to be referring to levels of consciousnes rather than consciousnes per se

There are well defined and well researched levels of consciousness – Piagets’s stages come to mind. The age 6 or 7 is the concrete operational stage – where a sense of cause and effect are realised – there is an understanding of experience but not abstractions.

Theories such as spiral dynamics hold that in early stages of development, humans, and therefore society, has progressed through these stages.

Like I say, this seems to be a definition thing; changing my definition of 'consciousness' now wouldn't help the discussion, imho. Your topics above would best be described as sentience and/or intelligence (or paradigms, for the spiral theory, which I'm sorry to say I can't see the relevance of), given my definition of 'consciousness' as simple awareness.

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

I suspect that it's beyond the reach of science. The strength of science is that it limits itself to that which can be verified - the downside is that some folk take that as being all that's worth knowing.

Or fill the gap with god.

Indeed, but I wouldn't say that's necessarily a bad thing. If I were indeed a theist, you and Aki would have given me some new information and some interesting things to think about. That's a virtue of the wealthier parts of our modern world - the relatively easy access to virtually all accumulated human knowledge. In that light, an intelligent and inquisitive person will probably find few enough gaps in our understanding of what is known that god-of-the-gaps will likely be more philosophical than superstitious. But those gaps are important and diverse enough that the single, long-held concept of God is probably simpler and less speculative than any other answers which might be advanced.

The problem (and the reason I started this thread) is that some atheists have been known to tout "there is no evidence" as if it were a victory chant.
- Firstly, it's not the case that there's no evidence for God or the supernatural; it's just that some folk aren't compelled by what is known to believe in something not proven. This was the focus of my fifth argument, regarding Daniel's prophecy. Evidence might be weak or relatively strong, but it's hardly non-existent
- Secondly, 'there's no evidence' is a heuristic method which can cut both ways. When used by theists its often labelled an argument from ignorance, but often its the case that as far as theories go, 'God' is arguably as good or better than the alternatives in many cases. There wasn't any discussion regarding evolution, but that was the focus of my 3rd and 4th arguments
- And finally there's the fact that evidence and science can only ever take us so far regardless. It's true of the problem of epistemology especially, but even when it comes to consciousness or thought we find ourselves immersed in and basing all our 'knowledge' on things depending almost entirely on assumptions and analogy. Just as atheists are right to ask what is meant by 'God' and how it's known to exist, any debating theist worth their salt should get into the habit of asking what is meant by 'evidence' and how it is known.

[LiamOS]

[...] probably the most basic indicators of awareness are reaction to pain and movement/exploration to acquire more sensory data. [...] That would mean that all on your list except the rock possess the quality of consciousness/awareness.

How do you determine that the reactions are done to acquire more data?
Also, how do you determine what pain is?

My assertion above is simply that human intellect is not in or part of the metal/plastic molecules in a car, which I'm sure you don't deny. It's merely a tangent from the analogy; you mentioned the car to suggest that the brain might also function as a whole beyond the mere sum of its parts. I merely point out that since that complex function is facilitated only by an outside factor (the intelligence which designed and build the car), the analogy probably isn't the best.

Subsequently, I argued that if intelligence is in itself natural your objection somewhat inane.
Your objection would hold if it does not seem possible for intelligence to occur in nature, but I think evolutionary biology demonstrates rather nicely that it has.

That would be begging the question though; you can't argue for wholly natural origins to consciousness by an analogy which includes reference to consciousness/intelligence. Regardless, it's still missing the point of my original response: 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.

The issue isn't complexity. Our bodies are infinitely more complex than any man-made device, but I wasn't arguing from that angle. Cars and bodies are the sum of many different physical parts, acting as physical things do to produce complex, but physical functions. Consciousness isn't just a complex function (indeed as above, I'm not arguing that consciousness itself needs to be particularly complex at all) - it's a non-physical phenomenon. Arguing that the interaction of physical molecules over millions of years (evolution of life and brains) eventually produced a non-physical phenomenon as a result is akin to arguing that those molecules themselves were the product simply of the interaction of the dimensions of space and time. They're fundamentally different types of things.

Why is consciousness non-physical?

Thus far you've not even appropriately defined of quantified what consciousness is, yet you continue to make such assertions about it. How do you know so much about consciousness?

Thankyou. Correct me if I'm wrong, but along the lines of "when wholes become greater than the sum of their parts"?

What do you mean by greater?

By the looks, it's hardly an established scientific or philosophic concept, though it could certainly prove useful when it comes to describing our perceptions.

It's pretty established... The concept is fundamental to Chaos Theory and in turn fundamental to Quantum Field Theory.

I don't know enough to discuss it particularly intelligently, but what does seem apparent to me is that your example of a car is not a case of 'emergence' at all. A car is the sum of its parts. Again as I said in my first response, "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."

Very well. Would it be more appropriate to use fractals as an analogy?

[Mithrae]

[...] probably the most basic indicators of awareness are reaction to pain and movement/exploration to acquire more sensory data. [...] That would mean that all on your list except the rock possess the quality of consciousness/awareness.

How do you determine that the reactions are done to acquire more data?
Also, how do you determine what pain is?

I take it you don't have any pets? Sometimes animals move to escape danger, to acquire food or simply to go somewhere else. But when they react to unexpected noise or look and sniff around new objects/places/people, that's an example of acquiring more sensory data.

Pain is a discomforting sensation usually caused by tissue damage. If you still don't understand, you can easily make some first-hand observations by slamming the back of your hand on the corner of your desk, putting your hand on a hot plate or cutting your finger with a knife. It can't be proven that beings other than oneself experience pain; but since we often demonstrate pain by pulling away from the source of pain, yelling out etc., by analogy we can recognise pain in other humans, as well as (at least) mammals, birds and reptiles, by those or similar behavioural reactions to tissue damage.

It's merely a tangent from the analogy; you mentioned the car to suggest that the brain might also function as a whole beyond the mere sum of its parts. I merely point out that since that complex function is facilitated only by an outside factor (the intelligence which designed and build the car), the analogy probably isn't the best.

Subsequently, I argued that if intelligence is in itself natural your objection somewhat inane.
Your objection would hold if it does not seem possible for intelligence to occur in nature, but I think evolutionary biology demonstrates rather nicely that it has.

That would be begging the question though; you can't argue for wholly natural origins to consciousness by an analogy which includes reference to consciousness/intelligence.

Already explained.

The issue isn't complexity. Our bodies are infinitely more complex than any man-made device, but I wasn't arguing from that angle. Cars and bodies are the sum of many different physical parts, acting as physical things do to produce complex, but physical functions. Consciousness isn't just a complex function (indeed as above, I'm not arguing that consciousness itself needs to be particularly complex at all) - it's a non-physical phenomenon. Arguing that the interaction of physical molecules over millions of years (evolution of life and brains) eventually produced a non-physical phenomenon as a result is akin to arguing that those molecules themselves were the product simply of the interaction of the dimensions of space and time. They're fundamentally different types of things.

Why is consciousness non-physical?

Thus far you've not even appropriately defined of quantified what consciousness is, yet you continue to make such assertions about it. How do you know so much about consciousness?

I'm actually surprised at how well my initial quick definition of consciousness holds up both to common usage and to our known data. What I haven't done yet is reached the end of your serial questioning about how to recognise consciousness in other beings. You began with the absurd "A rock is not in a coma, therefore a rock is conscious," and while your reading skills have improved since then, there seems to be something missing in communication. To read your posts, one would be forced to assume that you have never in your life noticed periods of sleep in which something was absent which is present while awake. So either you completely lack any capacity for self-analysis and reflection, or you're being fatuous in ignoring what I have now posted twice, that "We can have no certainty even that those we live and work with every day possess the quality known to us as consciousness.... By analogy..."

Every physical aspect of the world can, in theory at least, be observed either directly or indirectly by any number of people. By contrast we can't observe any other person's consciousness either directly or indirectly, and can't even know except by analogy and taking their word for it that they experience the same phenomenon we do. But to avoid confusion, how would you define physical?

By the looks, it's hardly an established scientific or philosophic concept, though it could certainly prove useful when it comes to describing our perceptions.

It's pretty established... The concept is fundamental to Chaos Theory and in turn fundamental to Quantum Field Theory.

I should have worded that better. From what I read and understood, that concept has obviously been around a long time (not termed 'emergence' til relatively recently of course) and can, as I said, be a useful way of describing our perceptions. But the usefulness of the concept is not the same as establishing in the natural (non-human) world the emergence of qualitatively new wholes from the sum of their parts. Using snowflakes as an example, what we perceive are symmetrical, unique and quite interesting patterns formed by the water molecules; but the concept of 'patterns' and whatever interest we derive from them are not properties of the snowflake as a whole any more than they are of the water molecules. The snowflake as a whole is no more than the sum of its parts, bonded together in whatever manner their chemical, physical and circumstantial constraints dictate.

For any relevance to our discussion, you would need to be talking about 'strong emergence,' in which the properties of the whole are irreducible to it's consituent properties. Quoting from the Wiki:

• "Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997)

I don't know enough to discuss it particularly intelligently, but what does seem apparent to me is that your example of a car is not a case of 'emergence' at all. A car is the sum of its parts. Again as I said in my first response, "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."

Very well. Would it be more appropriate to use fractals as an analogy?

Probably not - again at a glance, I don't see anything there suggesting a whole which is, in itself, qualitatively different from the sum of its parts. Pending a coherent definition of 'physical' which can include consciousness, that's the goal we should be aiming for. Either way, it's certainly a fun discussion and I'm learning plenty

[LiamOS]

I take it you don't have any pets? Sometimes animals move to escape danger, to acquire food or simply to go somewhere else. But when they react to unexpected noise or look and sniff around new objects/places/people, that's an example of acquiring more sensory data.

This is obvious in things like dogs and cats, but what of a jellyfish?

Pain is a discomforting sensation usually caused by tissue damage. If you still don't understand, you can easily make some first-hand observations by slamming the back of your hand on the corner of your desk, putting your hand on a hot plate or cutting your finger with a knife. It can't be proven that beings other than oneself experience pain; but since we often demonstrate pain by pulling away from the source of pain, yelling out etc., by analogy we can recognise pain in other humans, as well as (at least) mammals, birds and reptiles, by those or similar behavioural reactions to tissue damage.

Does reaction to stimulus at a fundamental level demonstrate consciousness?

Already explained.

Not really. Your point that intelligence created them is inane unless intelligence didn't arise naturally.

I'm actually surprised at how well my initial quick definition of consciousness holds up both to common usage and to our known data. What I haven't done yet is reached the end of your serial questioning about how to recognise consciousness in other beings. You began with the absurd "A rock is not in a coma, therefore a rock is conscious," and while your reading skills have improved since then, there seems to be something missing in communication.

That absurdity was on purpose.
I still don't fully comprehend what's entailed in your definition, as most of it seems implicit and subjective.

To read your posts, one would be forced to assume that you have never in your life noticed periods of sleep in which something was absent which is present while awake. So either you completely lack any capacity for self-analysis and reflection, or you're being fatuous in ignoring what I have now posted twice, that "We can have no certainty even that those we live and work with every day possess the quality known to us as consciousness.... By analogy..."

I simply question what the nature of these experiences is more than most. That I don't accept exactly what I feel or would think at first is arguably a good thing.

I still don't actually know what consciousness is, and I don't even know to to go about defining it. If you wish to define it as reaction, then when an electron reacts to interaction with a photon, is it demonstrating consciousness?

Basically, there must be a clear set of criteria to determine what consciousness is and they must not be implicit, subjective or vague. Without these, any definition is essentially meaningless.

Every physical aspect of the world can, in theory at least, be observed either directly or indirectly by any number of people. By contrast we can't observe any other person's consciousness either directly or indirectly, and can't even know except by analogy and taking their word for it that they experience the same phenomenon we do. But to avoid confusion, how would you define physical?

Here you've just made an assumption about consciousness. You have assumed that we cannot observe it.
Why have you made this assumption?

Also, in the most basic sense I would define physical as E/c².
I also note this from later on in your post: "Pending a coherent definition of 'physical' which can include consciousness..."
You haven't even been able to define consciousness to an appropriate degree that it could considered an aspect of the universe like heat and density.

I should have worded that better. From what I read and understood, that concept has obviously been around a long time (not termed 'emergence' til relatively recently of course) and can, as I said, be a useful way of describing our perceptions. But the usefulness of the concept is not the same as establishing in the natural (non-human) world the emergence of qualitatively new wholes from the sum of their parts. Using snowflakes as an example, what we perceive are symmetrical, unique and quite interesting patterns formed by the water molecules; but the concept of 'patterns' and whatever interest we derive from them are not properties of the snowflake as a whole any more than they are of the water molecules. The snowflake as a whole is no more than the sum of its parts, bonded together in whatever manner their chemical, physical and circumstantial constraints dictate.

For any relevance to our discussion, you would need to be talking about 'strong emergence,' in which the properties of the whole are irreducible to it's consituent properties. Quoting from the Wiki:

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997)

Such as a mousetrap?

I would just add that these properties of which you speak seem somewhat disconnected from the universe as a whole.

Probably not - again at a glance, I don't see anything there suggesting a whole which is, in itself, qualitatively different from the sum of its parts. Pending a coherent definition of 'physical' which can include consciousness, that's the goal we should be aiming for. Either way, it's certainly a fun discussion and I'm learning plenty

Would you care to give what you consider a good example and then show why the property which the object has is fundamental?

[Mithrae]

This is obvious in things like dogs and cats, but what of a jellyfish?

It's not obvious in cats and dogs, it requires observation and analogy. Your position is now inconsistent (accepting as 'obvious' what clearly is not) as well as fatuous (continued ignoring of my prior comments).

Not really. Your point that intelligence created them is inane unless intelligence didn't arise naturally.

Failure to understand basic logic principles - the conclusion (analogies of conciousness) can't be contained in the premises (things made by conscious beings).

That absurdity was on purpose.
I still don't fully comprehend what's entailed in your definition, as most of it seems implicit and subjective.

Failure to understand the further implications of your questioning: Everything is ultimately subjective.



Some of your further points are interesting, but in all honesty I don't see any point in continuing the discussion. Your position, while not internally consistent (see above) does indeed seem to prohibit any understanding of consciousness or god; along with purpose, love and satisfaction. I doubt those are the views you actually hold, so I won't say that I pity you. So congratulations on your victory It's ironic that consciousness is the only thing (besides perhaps the fundamental laws of logic) which is truly certain for an individual - but your questions about 'rocks,' 'slugs,' and talk of 'cars,' 'emergence' and so on have won the day for you through sheer attrition. I cannot argue against you

[LiamOS]

It's not obvious in cats and dogs, it requires observation and analogy.

It's obvious to anybody who grew up with such animals that they are conscious in a manner similar to humans.

And what of the Jellyfish, anyway?

Your position is now inconsistent (accepting as 'obvious' what clearly is not) as well as fatuous (continued ignoring of my prior comments).

Only in your eyes. I can't see why it's not clearly obvious, but my point is that it gets very vague. What you don't seem to get is that I just won't accept any definition that isn't concise to the utmost degree because to do otherwise is useless in terms of philosophy.

Failure to understand basic logic principles - the conclusion (correlates of consciousness) can't be contained in the premises (things made by conscious beings).

I understand that what I'm saying is circular, but it's only becoming circular due to the necessity of considering consciousness as an intermediate step thanks to the analogy.

Failure to understand the further implications of your questioning: Everything is ultimately subjective.

I mean subjective to an unacceptable degree. If either of us should have to resort to solipsism then discussion becomes meaningless.

Some of your further points are interesting, but in all honesty I don't see any point in continuing the discussion.

That's your choice, I guess.

Your position, while not internally consistent (see above) does indeed seem to prohibit any understanding of consciousness or god

My position is internally consistent. I am merely granting you some of your appeals to experience to see where this leads.
Also, it is your position which hinders any possible understanding of consciousness as you've made many baseless assumptions about it.

As for the latter part, understanding God is not possible until you define God. Care to try?

along with purpose, love and satisfaction.

Define those.

Before I go any further, I just want to make it clear that I feel the same emotions and feelings as you do. Perhaps you're older and have had more experience with them, but so what? How do you determine what consciousness is merely by having that trait? Thus far you've given no definition of consciousness(Let alone love, satisfaction or 'purpose') which is even semi-coherent and does not disintegrate into ambiguity eventually, while maintaining that you have and that it's obvious anyway.

I doubt those are the views you actually hold, so I won't say that I pity you

I hold the view that for a concept to be meaningful it must have a consistent and coherent definition. Examples would include temperature, density, distance, etc.

If you pity me, so be it, but pity me not for trying to understand the nature of understanding.

So congratulations on your victory :shocked:

You have a very strange sense of humour.



In the off chance you've actually read this, I'd just like to pose one final question in the hope that you might actually understand where I'm coming from.
Can you give me a set of properties or criteria which must be met for something to be conscious?
This set of properties must be applicable to any item or set of items in the universe and must render either consciousness or lack thereof to have any use.


And have a good day, I guess.