paul30

Spinning through the many posts here, I do not think we have cleared it up.

I have always thought the notion of creation was a complete anthropomorphism, and probably has no place in the real world.

The notion of causality is less anthropomorphic, but is still predicated on the notion of time, which is a fiction. Time is not a thing that exists; it is a word that we use as a shorthand to describe perception of change and pattern.

It seems to me, also, that while change does exist, time really does not. The mystics, and I am one of them, would say that all time is the same; time does not move. But even non-mystics have trouble when they get down to describing the one-directionality of time.

In the most current issue of Scientific American the cover article is on multiple parallel universes. The theory is based not on observation but on probability.

So who is to say that one unverse's unfolding is another's regression to a beginning?

Tercel

Omniscient seems to follow inevitably from the idea that God created everything within the reality of his own mind.

Any theory of reality has to explain the three types of existences we see: Matter, Information, Awareness.
If you say that "everything is matter" I think you struggle to explain the latter two.

I would expect nothing, the statement "ungoverned matter" I do not believe corresponds to anything possible anymore than does "square circle". If you had a hypothetical room in which you realised at one moment all laws governing matter what would the room's state be in the next moment? I don't think it would have one as there is nothing to determine it's real next state out of the infinite number of possible next states.

I have no problem with the probabilistic effects part, but these probability distributions are expressible in terms of mathematical formulas which is what I'm talking about.

Tercel

This sums it up entirely. This is completely the difference between the Theistic Rationalist and the Atheistic Empiricist. You "thought about using logic", but you didn't? Why? Because it would destroy your entire system of thought. You prefer to rely on what you can see, hear, touch and measure.
Well guess what, you can't even prove those things exist! For all you know the world could be an illusion, a hallucination.
Instead of using logic before you start out to determine what must be true and what might be true and then examining the world based on that information, you just blindly rush out and effectively say "who cares about logic, if I can measure it then it's real".
(This reminds me once again why I am not an atheist)

Don't you realise that in discarding logic, you lose all claim to have a "more logical" belief than a fundamentalist? Don't you realise that in discarding logic, you lose all claim to have a "more logical" belief than a pink-fluffy-bunny believer?

Oh it's the magical "it doesn't have an answer" again. :banghead:

1. Matter is arbitrary, it could have been different and cannot sensibly "always exist for no reason".
2. I have shown that God couldn't not have existed.
3. I have shown that God isn't arbitrary and couldn't have been different and therefore could sensibly "always exist for no reason". (Even though God exists with a reason)
4. Everything we know about Matter says that the universe began a finite time ago and is subject to decay.
5. We don't even know Matter exists.
6. We do know that awareness exists.
7. We have never ever experienced or observed anything to exist outside of awareness.
8. The existence of a rational reality such as provided by God explains the validity logic, induction, coherency etc. and all sorts of other assumptions we take for granted.
9. Assuming Matter as the ultimate reality would mean that those assumptions were not explained and we'd simply have to assume them true without support.
10. Assuming Matter as the ultimate reality struggles to explain the nature of awareness and the ontological status of information.

The only thing Matter has in favour of it is that we observe matter and we don't observe God. That's a fairly flimsy thing in it's favour when all logical arguments are in favour of God.

Nope. You can't prove matter exists.

Was something not clear?
It's quite simple:
We want a 'first cause' which can't not exist. Agreed?
For something to "can't not exist" it must be the case that it has to exist. Agreed?
If something "has to exist" there must be something about the very idea of its existence which means it "has to exist". With me still?
That is, there must be "something about the very idea of the existence of X which means X "has it exist"". Do you still follow?
Hence, a possible solution to that is:
X = "The very idea of the existence of X" Agreed?
Hence X, where X = "The very idea of the existence of X" must exist. Still with me?
Hence X is an existing entity whos existence entails that it has the idea that it exists. Agreed?
We are fully familiar with such entities - being one ourselves, we call them "Self Awarenesses". Yup?
Hence, a self awareness can't not exist. Yes?

Possibly. Yes, there is an infinitely recurring self-reference, but it really doesn't matter: The system either exists or it doesn't, and by the logic above must exist.
In reality you know that you exist. You know that you know that you exist. You know that you know that you know that you exist... with as many "knows" are you care to think about. Your potentially unlimited self-recursion doesn't stop you existing.

SimplyAtheistic

You're right, we have no evidence that the system ever existed. So from the very beginning we can conclude that it just doesen't exist.
Jake

Tercel

~sigh~ Okay, I get the picture... you don't want to be convinced and nothing I say will convince you... fine.

mike_decock

Omniscience is still not a necessary property for the "First Cause", etc.

Awareness appears to be matter/energy arranged into a state that can perceive information. Information is a different state of matter/energy.

I see math as language. They both function as metaphors for real/theoretical states of matter/energy.

-Mike...

SimplyAtheistic

I can be convinced if a logical arguement is presented that is clearly superior to my current belief. You have presented nothing of the kind, and it seems you are bowing out.
Jake

emotional

You're right. I can't risk my sanity. I must let confident, secure belief in life after death develop without hindrance. I'm leaving the boards for good.

emotional

Tercel... what took you so long to realise that? Frankly, I'm of the opinion all theists on these boards are wasting their time. I'm not a theist yet look how my slightly deviant beliefs (I believe in life after death) are getting a thrashing here.

(don't anyone bother to respond to this post. I won't be coming back to look at this thread, or at any other thread at that)

Amaranth

Tercel wrote:
People believe in all sorts of things, ranging from ESP to alien/government mind control. Without proof, what's the point in listening to it, let alone bringing it up in a debate.

Yeah, except I still haven't provided a theory at all beyond my Hamster theory. And the materialistic hypothesis is superiour, by far, in terms of evidence (listed elsewhere in thread) and parsimony (brave man, bringing that up in this discussion).

So you badly presented your argument.

Fine, you're still not out from the noose. You attempted to use mans lack of ability to create machine conciousness as evidence that conciousness is not material. Non-sequitur.


Also from Tercel:
This is a great way to debate - Nothing exists, because even something empircally proven is not 100%. Wow. Post-modernism is rad.

Amaranth