Questions For Atheists

[The Mad Haranguer]

What is ironic about atheists’ demand for evidence is that there is not one shred of evidence indicating that the material universe is anything but a shadow of the Real. I can show you, atheists, evidence of a reality beyond all determination. Were is your evidence that matter-energy is the bottom line? Why is it human to limit our response to being, to the Great Unknown, by making the outside the only inside? Why is it delusion to make the inside part of the outside?

Accurate beliefs and objective facts are no doubt crucial to survival. Perhaps belief in God aids in survival, a delusion caused by our biology and psychological needs. But if this is so, atheism is an aberration or mutation of some kind. So, how do the mutants know whether it is believers in the Divine or themselves that are deluded? If the question of truth is determined by its survival-value, we’ll just have to wait. But if truth is something other than success, if it is an intrinsic value that cannot be measured by its conduciveness to survival, then the determination of truth takes place above and beyond the physical.

Down through the ages, philosophers, prophets and sages have been telling us that that the real world exists in and of itself and that we are wrong to believe in the ultimate reality of what our senses tell us, that to know the reality of Being it is necessary to perceive it with more than the intellect alone. It must be felt. To know with the intellect alone is to know about things, but not being itself where meaning resides. Are they delusional? Where is your evidence, atheists? If you cannot so much as present evidence that the material universe is the Real, on what basis do you question the philosophers, prophets and sages?

[Ooberman]

Oo,

If you discover something, or learn of someone elses discovery, is that thing new to the universe, or new to you?

Where do you place the dividing line between entities that are "aware" of the world around them, and entities that are "not aware"?

Regards, TAR

I'm not sure, but I think it starts at a point that the entity is aware of itself being aware.

A magnet acts in it's environment and is "aware" (in loose terms) of any iron that may be nearby. However, it doesn't ponder that it is reacting.

I would say it is the ability to think: "I'm me."

I guess I'd start there.

[The Mad Haranguer]

What is ironic about atheists’ demand for evidence is that there is not one shred of evidence indicating that the material universe is anything but a shadow of the Real. I can show you, atheists, evidence of a reality beyond all determination. Were is your evidence that matter-energy is the bottom line? Why is it human to limit our response to being, to the Great Unknown, by making the outside the only inside? Why is it delusion to make the inside part of the outside?

Accurate beliefs and objective facts are no doubt crucial to survival. Perhaps belief in God aids in survival, a delusion caused by our biology and psychological needs. But if this is so, atheism is an aberration or mutation of some kind. So, how do the mutants know whether it is believers in the Divine or themselves that are deluded? If the question of truth is determined by its survival-value, we’ll just have to wait. But if truth is something other than success, if it is an intrinsic value that cannot be measured by its conduciveness to survival, then the determination of truth takes place above and beyond the physical.

Down through the ages, philosophers, prophets and sages have been telling us that that the real world exists in and of itself and that we are wrong to believe in the ultimate reality of what our senses tell us, that to know the reality of Being it is necessary to perceive it with more than the intellect alone. It must be felt. To know with the intellect alone is to know about things, but not being itself where meaning resides. Are they delusional? Where is your evidence, atheists? If you cannot so much as present evidence that the material universe is the Real, on what basis do you question the philosophers, prophets and sages?

I can agree with much of this.

The problem I see is people like to turn science against religion when science is there to aid mankind and it is really a “tool� more than it is a “way of life�. Non-theist end up promoting an agenda that is “greater than themselves� and that is rather indecisive when you think about, seeing how non-theist don’t believe in anything greater than themselves to begin with.

I really regret not having seen this earlier. I'm sorry.

Mind you, I’m not the average theist. I am just as at home with science and my own thoughts as I am with sacred texts. For the lack of a better term, I go with what resonates.

I agree with you that science is merely is merely a pointer to some actual objective realm. Atheists in this forum tend to rely on science in their arguments. In fact, all their arguments are based on the objective realm: it’s not real if it can’t be physically detected or publicly revealed. I don't understand. Anyone with the inner life of worm knows this just isn’t so. I really do not think my analogy of house and emptiness was understood.

We ordinarily identify not with the mind, but the things that fill it — our thoughts, sensations and emotions — while at the same time we call them my thoughts, my sensations and my emotions. Is this not like a door or window saying I am my walls, my ceiling, my floor? Is it not the emptiness that make a house useful? Why, then, do we identify with our thoughts, sensations and emotions? Isn’t that schizophrenic? If the value of “I� is in no-thing, then value is everywhere except in our thoughts, sensations and emotions. But what is the quintessential “I� without the diversity of thoughts, sensations and emotions?

Are not doors and windows separated from each other by walls, ceiling and floor? Are they not also of the same essence, joined together by the same emptiness? Why, then, all the talk as though walls, ceiling and floor were all that mattered, the only reality?

[The Mad Haranguer]

Aki,

Do you think conscious man is the most complex, most intelligent thing the universe has ever come up with, on its own?

Do you think it logical to consider your consciouness a "new" thing that nothing of its sort existed prior your consciousness in the Universe?


Would not the universe had to have had some organising principles in the first place, in order to come up with entities complex enough to develop and exhibit "emergent" properties, not exhibited by any of the matter and energy constituents of said entity?

Is a wild deer, not aware of the world around it?

Is your understanding of particle physics at all analogous to a deer knowing where to find blueberries?

Regards, TAR

Energy at its basic level can be described as a vibration, oscillation or wave. So if everything in the universe is energy, it is logical to deduce that persons are vibrations, oscillations or waves. But if that is the case -- and science in its present state of development confirms it -- consciousness is a universal phenomenon that is also localized in man and wild deer.

[Ooberman]

I agree with you that science is merely is merely a pointer to some actual objective realm. Atheists in this forum tend to rely on science in their arguments.

I think that is a gross over-generalization. SOME Atheists may, but not all. Again, we tried to correct you on this, you are really asking theological question, but you proposed a scientific explanation for it. That is why we mention science - because you are abusing it.

Science is a pointer - to what it discovers. You keep mentioning "some other realm" and you can think science is just slowly working to this other realm - but you have NO warrant to think there is some other realm, objective or otherwise.
If you bring science into your theological debate then you MUST play by the rules (if you are going to act rationally) of science and reason.

Science focuses on the tiny details, while you are trying to extrapolate, by some demonic, Meta-analysis what the meaning is for Life, the Universe and Everything.

Sorry, but you just don't have the credentials.

In fact, all their arguments are based on the objective realm:

Right!! Because we can back up the claim with objective data! You can make up whatever you want, we are not under the same obligation.

it’s not real if it can’t be physically detected or publicly revealed.

No! It is that it may or may not be real (whatever you might dream up) - it's just that you can't know! We are talking about knowledge, while you are talking about dreaming. If you accept that science works better than any other method of acquiring knowledge, then you try to hold to that principle (If you want to know the truth).

Faith in some scenario you invent is not reliable.

I don't understand.

We have been trying to help you understand but you are tone deaf to the truth.

Anyone with the inner life of worm knows this just isn’t so. I really do not think my analogy of house and emptiness was understood.

It may have had a point in your larger scenario of how you think the world works, but we were pointing out that you are premature. We wanted to know by what method you even felt your scenario is valid.

Why should we believe you?

We ordinarily identify not with the mind, but the things that fill it — our thoughts, sensations and emotions — while at the same time we call them my thoughts, my sensations and my emotions. Is this not like a door or window saying I am my walls, my ceiling, my floor? Is it not the emptiness that make a house useful? Why, then, do we identify with our thoughts, sensations and emotions? Isn’t that schizophrenic? If the value of “I� is in no-thing, then value is everywhere except in our thoughts, sensations and emotions. But what is the quintessential “I� without the diversity of thoughts, sensations and emotions?

Are not doors and windows separated from each other by walls, ceiling and floor? Are they not also of the same essence, joined together by the same emptiness? Why, then, all the talk as though walls, ceiling and floor were all that mattered, the only reality?

However, even your example doesn't help you. You are suggesting that the walls are the known data and the space is the unknown/unknowable data.

Even in your example, there is Matter in between the walls: air.

It appears, as if you are simply making poetry about what the Universe might be like - but it is not a knowledge claim, which you accuse atheists of making based on data and science.

[Ooberman]

Aki,

Do you think conscious man is the most complex, most intelligent thing the universe has ever come up with, on its own?

Do you think it logical to consider your consciouness a "new" thing that nothing of its sort existed prior your consciousness in the Universe?


Would not the universe had to have had some organising principles in the first place, in order to come up with entities complex enough to develop and exhibit "emergent" properties, not exhibited by any of the matter and energy constituents of said entity?

Is a wild deer, not aware of the world around it?

Is your understanding of particle physics at all analogous to a deer knowing where to find blueberries?

Regards, TAR

Energy at its basic level can be described as a vibration, oscillation or wave. So if everything in the universe is energy, it is logical to deduce that persons are vibrations, oscillations or waves. But if that is the case -- and science in its present state of development confirms it -- consciousness is a universal phenomenon that is also localized in man and wild deer.

That is a horrible composition fallacy. Look it up.

The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).

The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the "reasoning" would look something like this.

1. Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2. Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

You can't just wave these things away. This is logic - it holds whether you like it or not.

What you have offered is a fallacy. It COULD be right - and that is all you seem to care about - but it is not a valid way, or method, to find the truth.

You still must show your work - not make things up.

[LiamOS]

Do you think conscious man is the most complex, most intelligent thing the universe has ever come up with, on its own?

No.
While it's the most intelligent agent I know of in the universe, I doubt that it is the most intelligent.

Do you think it logical to consider your consciouness a "new" thing that nothing of its sort existed prior your consciousness in the Universe?

Well, consciousness evolved here on Earth. It likely evolved many other places too.
However, if you go back ~13^10 years, there was almost certainly no intelligent of any description.

Would not the universe had to have had some organising principles in the first place, in order to come up with entities complex enough to develop and exhibit "emergent" properties, not exhibited by any of the matter and energy constituents of said entity?

Yes, and it does.
The laws of physics.

I sense however, that you're inferring a consciousness of some kind, in which case, I have to ask; why does the rest of the universe look so redundant?

Is a wild deer, not aware of the world around it?

Aware to some extent, depending on your definition of awareness.

Is your understanding of particle physics at all analogous to a deer knowing where to find blueberries?

That is a very complex, large and long series of interactions with which I do not concern myself.
Perhaps in a few hundred years we'll have quantum Biologists.

What is it, about matter and energy that would cause a hurricane AND a galaxy to have the same pattern of spiral arms?

That's called angular momentum. To understand it, reasonable knowledge of calculus and classical mechanics is helpful.

Atheists in this forum tend to rely on science in their arguments.

Science works.

Anyone with the inner life of worm knows this just isn’t so.

And people 'know' that the government is conspiring against them.
Whatever you 'know' through 'spiritual' means etc. is almost certainly rubbish.

In fact, all their arguments are based on the objective realm: it’s not real if it can’t be physically detected or publicly revealed.

Exactly!
If it can never be detected, ever, then it has no objective worth as it has NO IMPACT on anything. Ever.

I really do not think my analogy of house and emptiness was understood.

Nor do I.

Energy at its basic level can be described as a vibration, oscillation or wave. So if everything in the universe is energy, it is logical to deduce that persons are vibrations, oscillations or waves.

But if that is the case -- and science in its present state of development confirms it -- consciousness is a universal phenomenon that is also localized in man and wild deer.

I'm sorry, science confirms what?
How did you make that huge leap?

For somebody who is "just as at home with science" as "with religious texts", that's a pretty dire error in logic and scientific understanding.
Vibrations are a fundamental feature that you're bringing to a macroscopic scale. The reverse does not necessarily work. Water is liquid at 40° at atmospheric pressure; does this mean that one molecule of water is liquid in the same conditions?

[tar2]

Oo,

If you discover something, or learn of someone elses discovery, is that thing new to the universe, or new to you?

Where do you place the dividing line between entities that are "aware" of the world around them, and entities that are "not aware"?

Regards, TAR

I'm not sure, but I think it starts at a point that the entity is aware of itself being aware.

A magnet acts in it's environment and is "aware" (in loose terms) of any iron that may be nearby. However, it doesn't ponder that it is reacting.

I would say it is the ability to think: "I'm me."

I guess I'd start there.

Oo,

Well thanks for that. It is very similar to my take on things.
And I like the "(in loose terms)" thought, because that is what I was going after.

I am suggesting that our consciousness is "human" consciousness, and certainly more capable of many things, like language and math and thought and the ability to imagine an objective viewpoint (sort of aware of yourself being aware of yourself being aware), than any other organism on Earth. But in my investigations and muses and search for a consistent worldview, I demand of myself that I find a mechanism, a way to get from A to B, a cause and effect, with every entity explainable in terms of its history and constituents, and with every entity existing within the context of something greater. To do this with "consciousness", I find it most reasonable to give other collections of matter, like your magnet, a simple basic, loosely defined "awareness" of the world around it. In this way, I need no magic, no spark, no supernatural intervention to explain my awareness. I am doing the same thing a magnet is doing, I am just doing it a whole lot better, thanks to the emergence of life on this planet, where a complex arrangement of matter and energy found a way to reproduce its pattern, (which by the way is "loosely defined" the same thing that crystal growth does), and the evolution of brains and such. Demote human awareness a bit, and promote snowflake awareness a bit, and we are just one big happy family of matter-energy entities with different arrangements and attributes.

Regards, TAR

[The Mad Haranguer]

Well thanks for that. It is very similar to my take on things.
And I like the "(in loose terms)" thought, because that is what I was going after.

I am suggesting that our consciousness is "human" consciousness, and certainly more capable of many things, like language and math and thought and the ability to imagine an objective viewpoint (sort of aware of yourself being aware of yourself being aware), than any other organism on Earth. But in my investigations and muses and search for a consistent worldview, I demand of myself that I find a mechanism, a way to get from A to B, a cause and effect, with every entity explainable in terms of its history and constituents, and with every entity existing within the context of something greater. To do this with "consciousness", I find it most reasonable to give other collections of matter, like your magnet, a simple basic, loosely defined "awareness" of the world around it. In this way, I need no magic, no spark, no supernatural intervention to explain my awareness. I am doing the same thing a magnet is doing, I am just doing it a whole lot better, thanks to the emergence of life on this planet, where a complex arrangement of matter and energy found a way to reproduce its pattern, (which by the way is "loosely defined" the same thing that crystal growth does), and the evolution of brains and such. Demote human awareness a bit, and promote snowflake awareness a bit, and we are just one big happy family of matter-energy entities with different arrangements and attributes.

You know, this isn't very different from what I've been saying: principles at play that are more than -- or rather inclusive of -- matter-energy.

[Ooberman]

Oo,

If you discover something, or learn of someone elses discovery, is that thing new to the universe, or new to you?

Where do you place the dividing line between entities that are "aware" of the world around them, and entities that are "not aware"?

Regards, TAR

I'm not sure, but I think it starts at a point that the entity is aware of itself being aware.

A magnet acts in it's environment and is "aware" (in loose terms) of any iron that may be nearby. However, it doesn't ponder that it is reacting.

I would say it is the ability to think: "I'm me."

I guess I'd start there.

Oo,

Well thanks for that. It is very similar to my take on things.
And I like the "(in loose terms)" thought, because that is what I was going after.

I am suggesting that our consciousness is "human" consciousness, and certainly more capable of many things, like language and math and thought and the ability to imagine an objective viewpoint (sort of aware of yourself being aware of yourself being aware), than any other organism on Earth. But in my investigations and muses and search for a consistent worldview, I demand of myself that I find a mechanism, a way to get from A to B, a cause and effect, with every entity explainable in terms of its history and constituents, and with every entity existing within the context of something greater. To do this with "consciousness", I find it most reasonable to give other collections of matter, like your magnet, a simple basic, loosely defined "awareness" of the world around it. In this way, I need no magic, no spark, no supernatural intervention to explain my awareness. I am doing the same thing a magnet is doing, I am just doing it a whole lot better, thanks to the emergence of life on this planet, where a complex arrangement of matter and energy found a way to reproduce its pattern, (which by the way is "loosely defined" the same thing that crystal growth does), and the evolution of brains and such. Demote human awareness a bit, and promote snowflake awareness a bit, and we are just one big happy family of matter-energy entities with different arrangements and attributes.

Regards, TAR

Well said. Reps.

[tar2]

Aki,

No.
While it's the most intelligent agent I know of in the universe, I doubt that it is the most intelligent.

Fair enough.

Well, consciousness evolved here on Earth. It likely evolved many other places too.
However, if you go back ~13^10 years, there was almost certainly no intelligent of any description.

Good point. You can’t have carbon based organisms, for instance, before you have carbon.

Yes, and it does.
The laws of physics.

Well OK, but I was insinuating something was lacking in our current descriptions. That there are “laws of physics� still to be discovered and understood. I was suggesting there may be some “organizing principles� at work that we don’t fully understand. Perhaps I am wrong, and we have it covered, and I just have not learned what other people already know, or I don’t understand the math and implications.
But, for instance, the mappings of all the galaxies we know yields strings and voids that to me, have an appearance somewhat similar to a pile of suds in the sink, the galaxies being the soap and the voids being the air. What do we know of the “surface tension� of one of these bubbles? Is the physics in the center of a void any different than where the galaxies are? Do photons travel straight across or curve toward the matter? Is there a “photon pressure� or some other interaction that affects the size and shape of the bubble? Can one group of bubbles of a particular configuration exhibit properties not found in a different configuration?

I sense however, that you're inferring a consciousness of some kind, in which case, I have to ask; why does the rest of the universe look so redundant?

Of some kind, yes, but certainly not the literal God of the bible. More of a figurative, loosely defined magnet sort of consciousness.

That's called angular momentum. To understand it, reasonable knowledge of calculus and classical mechanics is helpful.

Well sure, I studied all the little arrows in the diagrams on the internet I saw when considering the similarities. But it left me with questions, as to what would cause such similar structures to develop in such different media, out of such different components, at such different scales. After all, angular momentum is true everywhere and there are plenty of patterns of stuff that DON’T look like spiral galaxies and hurricanes.

Regards, TAR