Jobar

Albert:
You *do* realize I'm going to accuse you of pantheism, don't you?

One of the possible interpretations of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen, leads one to believe that quantum events do not actually exist until they have been experienced. This argument has been used by many to imply that consciousness is therefore integral with and necessary for existence; and that, far from being exclusively a property of human (or at least living) beings, there may be said to be a 'field' of awareness which permeates the universe, and our individual minds are nodes, concentrations, in that field.

I disagree with your use of the term 'constitutes' above. I may, however, be willing to say that consciousness- awareness- experience- is a necessary and inseparable property of existence.

If (if) this is true, then SRB's objection
would be like saying a universe with no matter or energy is different from a non-universe. There would be no way to describe or measure any difference between a non-universe and an unexperienced universe.

I am not aware () of any way to actually prove there is a Universal Mind, or a field of consciousness; but neither am I aware of any way to disprove it, and there are powerful philosophical/scientific arguments which support it.

Marduk

I’m with Jobar on this one. To me the idea that the universe is on one corner and I’m on another is as silly as the idea that a God who created the universe is not part of it as well, like some super giant looking at his little snow-globe. I think this is why Buddhists say the universe is an illusion. That is, the idea that we are separate from the universe is an illusion.

Albert Cipriani

I ask the question: If a universe exists that is not experienced nor can be experienced, to whom does it exist?

To [insult deleted - Albert, please] whit, Nonhomogenized responds: Who asked anything about importance!? Saying that “importance is irrelevant” is in itself irrelevant. Yet Nonhomogenized has the audacity to conclude: Rarely do I witness someone wielding the red herring fallacy with such reckless abandon. Of course I won’t bite. The proper response to a red herring is no response at all, and that much I can manage. Still, it scares me that people are capable of such breathtaking non-intelligence. – Shaken, Albert the Traditional Catholic

{Albert, I'm not happy with the perjorative implications of your shortening Nonhomogenized's username. Please refrain from using it. ~ Philosoft}

Albert Cipriani

Dear T.E.,
You assert: The word “exist” says it. Existence, divorced from the concept of consciousness, is a meaningless word. It’s like the property “red” devoid of the property of “light.”

You see, most concepts are complex, that is, they involve other concepts for their meaning. The only concept that is absolutely simple, is the concept of “being.” That is why we cannot properly conceive of nor imagine what it means to be.

Importance is not part of the concept of existence. Both President Bush and the slug in my garden are equally existent. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

darkroomjames

Emotional responses seem out of place in this discussion of equations, but frustration aside, if experience cannot happen in a pre-biotic universe, what indeed exists, just as scientists theorize ours once did.

The very nature of a pre-biotic universe is suggestive to both supernaturalists and post-supernaturalists, just as life and death are. We are the personality of a universe we try to objectify from the vantage point of post-modern earth, approx 6 billion souls. :boohoo: Are we all alone then? Some say "Daddy where are you?" and others say "We are star-stuff, looking at itself."(--Sagan)

We are still in shock over what science has found out about our home in the universe, and it makes nonsense of older comforting answers, driving us to anxiety. Is the answer to silence science, then? Shall we "Begin the Inquisition!" (Mel Brooks) or forget sending in the nuns and do the science homework that every frightened believer needs as a brave and true answer? The cowardice of politics is tempting....but shameless and the most abominable answer. Grow up with progress honorably if you can!

Lobstrosity

No Albert, it is not. Existence has nothing to do with consciousness. The rocks outside exist just as do humans. Their constituent atoms will experience forces and change with time. Humans are not the only creatures that can experience things, we are simply the only creatures who can "consciously" reflect on our perceived experiences--think of it as a glorified feedback loop. What implication does this have on the existence of rocks? Absolutely nothing.

If something always had to exist "to" some conscious life form, then things that life form was not aware of would by definition not exist. It would be fair for humans to say that undiscovered planets around distant stars do not exist. Moons in other solar systems do not exist. Why? Because no consciousness has experienced them. They do not exist to us and thus by your claim they do not exist at all. Your only out is to proclaim that they exist because humans have the potential to cognitively experience these things, but such a solution belies the flaw in your reasoning, for in a lifeless universe there would still be the potential for cognitive experience were cognitive creatures to exist. We lend cognition to this universe and we make it exist to us, but that doesn't say anything fundamental about what the universe would be like without us. Hell, one day we might just nuke ourselves out of existence and the universe might be forced to find out (though I don't really expect it to care).

NonHomogenized

I'm sorry, Albert, I apologize for my irrelevant comment. However, you see, I was under the assumption that no one would possibly argue that not only is 'Schroedinger's Cat' the way reality works, but, indeed, it is true to the greatest possible extent; without observers, there is no reality.
This argument has such a glaring flaw, that I presumed that no one would ever make it, and so I thought you were saying that, without witnesses, the universe might as well not exist.
The glaring flaw is the presupposition it requires to not involve a paradox. Either you presume there's an observer outside the universe, in which case you have an unsupported premise (arguing that existence shows there must be such an observer must exist is circular reasoning, of course).
Alternately, if you don't presume said outside observer, an observer has to exist within the universe for the universe to exist. Which came first? The observer cannot have existed without the universe, but the universe doesn't exist without the observer.
However, as it is, you have two unsupported assertions. (1) Without observers, things don't exist. This goes contrary to human experience; without presupposing the existence of an outside observer (which is unsupported assertion (2)), how did the earth exist to form?
(2) That such an outside observer (ie, god) exists. This is far from a given, despite the assertions you've made on the subject.

C'mon, you seem to think you're a rational person. Give some evidence to back up your assertions, or admit that, rather than being rational, you're rationalizing.


hey, post 100! cool!

wordsmyth

You are presuming that there is some objective meaning to existence and conflating the two. However, it is not evident that there is an outside observer with an agenda that gives (our) existence meaning. Meaning comes from within, not from without. The universe is and we are. The End.

Tercel

I'm seeing a lot of assertions made by the materialists here that something can "exist" outside of conscious perception. Apart from these statements of faith do you guys actually have any arguments?

For one, nobody in this thread who rejects Albert's suggestion (that something exists if and only if it is experienced) has even attempted to explain what "existence" actually means. I strongly suspect that is because they can't. Can you prove me wrong? It's a fairly simple looking question: What does it mean for something to "exist"?

...or is that another one of these questions atheists aren't allowed to answer?
(Along with things like "what caused the universe to exist?", "why isn't the universe just a little bit different?", "how is it that physical matter can be accurately described by non-material non-physical equations?", "how is it that non-physical, non-material, logical and mathematical propositions and proofs can be true and true universally?")

Tercel

Add me to the list of people arguing that.

Yes, this is the presumption I make.

It's a worldview not a logical argument: It's allowed to be circular.