Albert Cipriani

This thread has been split off from What's the most convincing argument for God's nonexistence? Jobar, moderator.

T. E. says: Ergo, you don't understand the question. You've taken it as a physical question when it is a metaphysical question. The question is whether consciousness constitutes reality. And the answer is yes.

Put it this way, if the universe existed and not one microbe was alive to experience any part of it, what meaning could �existence� possibly have? A universe that cannot be experienced is a universe that is the exact equivalent of a universe that does not exist. Point is, existence is made operative by experience. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

T. E. Lords

I disagree with you Albert. For starters I don't believe in the metaphysical. I also don't see any proof that the universe has a meaning whether we are here to experience it or not. The universe would still exist whether we did or not. We aren't that important. That is an extremely self important point of view. The fact is reality exists whether we or not we perceive it. My perception of reality might be different from yours but an ultimate reality exists. If we both witness a car crash and have different points of view on it nothing about the actual event changes. Perception dictates personal reality but it holds no bearing on actual reality. Can we know what the true objective reality is? Probably not, but that doesn�t mean it doesn�t exist.

Albert Cipriani

T.E. says: Albert asks:

NonHomogenized

importance is irrelevant. Independent of if it matters to anyone or not, the universe still exists. You're getting the issue confused.

T. E. Lords

Who says it has to exist TO anyone.

I hate to break it to you Albert [delted insult, albeit tongue-in-cheek] but the universe doesn't need you. Everything will continue on with out you once you are dead. And it will continue on with out me as well. You just aren't that important. Sorry.

Lobstrosity

You're right, without humans, the universe would have no "meaning." This is true simply because the whole notion of "meaning" and "purpose" is just a human construct. All you're really saying is that if there were no humans to note the existence of the universe, there would be no humans to note the existence of the universe--it's the logical equivalent of a trivial if A, then A. Even without humans around to observe things, the universe would still continue on, existing in the sense that it would still be doing its thing. Stars would form, planets would arise, stars would die. The physical processes that sculpt the cosmos would go on and the universe wouldn't really give a shit. Sure, humans wouldn't know about any of these things, but who cares? That wouldn't actually change anything. Humans don't give the universe meaning, we make the universe have personal meaning for us. You place a bit too much importance on "experience" simply because of your own biased introspections. You perceive the universe through your experiences and thus your experiences have great value to YOU. Your fallacy is assuming that this subjective personal value must really be a fundamental objective value, that the universe must actually revolve around your experiences. In reality, the opposite is true: your experiences simply revolve around the universe.

SRB

A universe which has no conscious beings in it has the property that conscious beings could have experienced that universe if they had in fact existed. A non-universe does not have that property.

So a universe which has no conscious beings in it and a non-universe have at least one different property and by Leibniz' Law it follows that they are different, not identical.

SRB

Lobstrosity

Ah, but a universe which has no conscious beings in it wouldn't know about Leibniz's Law and thus it wouldn't know it was different! It would think it didn't exist!

DBT

But in a way its not that we are in the universe as something seperate or differant,. but an aspect of the universe that has evolved to look at itself , ha .

MadMez

So haven�t we, then, come full circle on this?
If the universe with humanity is no different to the universe without humanity, then does this not describe a good reason that God cannot exist?
Am I right in thinking that, unless you believe that your God made the universe and added humanity in, but not for any particular reason or goal, than you must believe that humanity is the experience needed to make the universe exist?
And then (from that stand-point) would it not be correct to conclude that should our frail little globe, in the little system in our out-of-the-way spirally galaxy cease to exist, then should not the entire universe pop out of existence, too?
And if this cannot be, which to my mind it cannot, then God is disproved?