As an Atheist what do you teach kids?

OK, Joey, what was the subjective basis of the "inclination" discussed? That's what tells.

And, yes, the invisible viewpoint has paradoxes of self-contradiction. Complexity only comes from the simpler the simpler. This is not a magic show place.

So, God made himself, perhaps? What a tall tale!

Not even something so simple as an electron in all of its many and specific particulars could have been just sitting around forever so very much defined without ever having been defined, much less a God.

But, you see, emotion doesn't care about any of that kind of information

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the first place, I was saying that organized religion is the easiest to debunk because it claims to know some attributes of god. I realize you don't subscribe to these definitions, so I went on to make a more general argument against god. If god exists, but you don't know anything about it, that's deism, and it's more difficult to refute, it is one possible god, but then again, it requires nothing of us- no worship or alteration in our behaviors, and one can derive no moral lessons from it.

If no energy was required in the big bang, then it looks as it should if it created itself by some yet unknown quantum effect or process. It is much more logical for the smallest quantum sized particle of a universe to come about spontaneously than for a fully conscious thinking being. The universe apparently, based on all scientific data, started simple and became complex as it cooled. Complex things don't arise on their own, they are the result of a process of evolution. Spontaneous generation of particles is a known effect in quantum physics, and the early universe was the size of a particle.

Your reasons for believing in god are that consciousness exists, so god must exist, and we are so inconsequential that we cannot know that such a thing is false, is that right? I don't think these are very reasoned positions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So something complex comes from something even more complex......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That chemical processing determines whether you believe in god or not?

So you may be deficient? Or me? Your supposition is ascertaining that people are born religious or athiest? Or that it's influenced? Who cares, what is your point? What are these amounts based on, is it something we control ourselves or create? You seem to know a whole lot of nothing passing it off as something.

What are you talking about? Your theory of nothing makes 0% sense. I would go as far as to say that my concept is more structured. Any investigation towards our frame of reference is futile. You accept this, no? Yet you claim to know something?

Your saying that nothing comes from something but this is not a magic show place. Can you demonstrate how nothing can come from something? Is that not considered magic? Complexity comes from the simplest? No body is arguing the theory of evolution as a consequence to time in this physical reality. Your theory of origin is as baseless as a thiest's claim and you come off like your better than them when you contrast your beliefs or lack thereof? I never have seen you insult anyone my posts are presented to other people. Your simply sidelining with no intended purpose.

I get it upsets you if lets just say that I believe our reality is causeless and god (the essense of consciousness, matter, energy and "nothing"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) is simply the infinite range of possibility. I believe the universe always expands and evolves as well hence god. As a consequence I think our consciousness was evolved from these cosmological frequences (or gods thoughts if you want to personify it if your a thiest) or an effect of that nature and that universes are nothing short of a frame in time that appears longer for us than its actuality. Obviously life and death is nothing when your outside your focal point of perspective and to consider god as an entity that gives a fuck about us as evidence of him existing or not existing is absurd, your assuming there is a real you and me and another entity and that your not just a mechanical conscious being. When you die you'll just become consciousness again without realizing it in a new focal point, in this reality or another. We all can interact in the essense of consciousness that is in a different time or outside of it in dreams, etc. Which takes place in our minds and seems like another reality. This is what I suspect is going on on a cosmological scale and I logically reason (my reasoning which may be flawed) there must be some god (intelligence) in the universe, not to say that

but it isnt really complex, simple and the latter are abritary terms. It's what is.

Let's pretend our minds are more powerful than we give it credit for. Let's say you truly believe in something happening after you die. Let's say we die and the essense of consciousness (thoughts beliefs etc) all get omitted through frequencies or something else. Hence the same 'essense' or fragment or focal point lives on without the same physical format and this is why we are all unique.

Who knows, maybe I'm high :m:I just made both things up really quick I dont ascribe to a belief system I just conclude that god must exist. If there is a more rationale approach I'm not exclusive to this belief and would easily ascribe to more based speculation.

You just said matter made it self from nothing. But can't give the same stretch to god because god is not simple? What do you know? Really.

Look at the analogy. Your reasoning with flawed lines of logic. Compare god to a blood cell if it's like that. You give god too much credit in the sense of claiming to know gods attributes.

Emotion, consciousness, is it really neccessary? What neccessitates such a complex level of understanding? Evolution?
However,
Evolution doesent anwser the question I asked.
Than the athiests argument becomes possibility.
And this I say is my evidence of god.

 

The universe in all it's complex glory arose from nothing OR
The universe in all it's complex glory arose from something even more complex, which arose from nothing.

Occam's razor...

 

We can't concieve either possibility. There equally plausable, complex relative to what? It's an overrationalization.

I'm not claiming god to be a complex being out the gate any rate. It's circular logic. I dont know anything but I feel like if athiests can say nothing created everything I feel like that nothing is god not to hyper-personify the description but I just assume there is intelligence on a cosmological scale that we cannot possibly concieve. I dont believe in trillions of trillions of existances - I believe in one "existance" and infinite experiences. That is what occultz razor should help us understand, if anything, and we still can't say that because these suppositions don't adhere to anything we can demonstrate.

I'm talking about the concept of consciousness in general. Not how it happens, not what is required for consciousness to be or cease. I'm talking about this level of complexity. Why is it needed?

If I connect two plugs or whatever it will create electricity.

This is just like the brain, the plugs they conduct electricity but didnt create the electric power, the energy. This I feel like the energy or fabric of consciousness threaded in our physical bodies is like, powering on, just consciousness. We power off. Than go somewhere else, whatever.

Scientific explanations just can never awnser certain questions the imagination could. Sure you can say it's fake but if we adhere to what we know - reality is really just subjective thought. Now what creates the objective??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Religious people say the universe is too complex to have come about on it's own, therefore a god is needed. This assumes that a god can contain all the complexity that the universe cannot, which is to say the plan and the means to carry out that plan.

I think the fact of evolution proves that this idea is incorrect, a complex agent is not needed to create complexity. Evolution requires no outside agent, it's a property of certain kinds of dynamic systems.

 

Certain questions. You can't say that because science hasn't answered them yet, that it is impossible for science to do so. That would be like saying that all swans are white because you have only seen white swans

 

HI Joey,

True, I never insult people, for that only detracts from one's arguments by showing no other recourse. I was even friendly with Chi. Ideas are fair game, though, for that;s what this forum is for.

One must consider that there is nothing to make the "basics" of. No way around it. Yet, little stuff always forms, as we can see. This basis is a constant and eternal process, this basis itself having had no creation, just as the causeless ground state must be, thus no Creator, either.

Wishes and plans for gods are of emotion and false felt sensations in that regard.

 

Complexity is an arbituary term. Your supposition is based on the speculation that god and the universe can somehow be different. This is what we are essentially arguing.

(I believe an underlying "intelligence" in our frame of reference; I believe we are a mere observation, you disagree)

I believe everything is illusion and there is no me and you but rather I and infinte experience. This universe is one little fragment of nothing like a slide in a movie that doesent end. Time is a consequence of this. Or what we percieve as time (energy interaction)

Think about it: Evolution doesent require a outside agent? Relating to what? Evolution illustrates the how after a certain extent certainly your not implying that evolution explains "the origin"

The only thing I know for sure is that I dont know anything. I'll teach my kid regarding the OP what I know and hopefully in his lifetime, he will know more.

I would never restrict his beliefs to "Believe in god because mohammad says.........." or "Do not believe in god, this is how it happened because Biology says...." unless it made sense. It just doesent. If you can make sense of why we have such a complex level of understanding or address some key fundamentals I'd like narration on to continue onward meaningfully. Than i'll ascribe to your beliefs otherwise I will speculate with what my brain feels like is the most logical reasoning to avoid deducing my belief to an arbituary understanding of reality.

In short I believe in a god because I dont think were all important enough to have such a complex consciousness relating to existance. We are nothing in the universe yet our brains interact with it in such meaningful ways. It leads me to believe we are nothing and god in the same time and its most logical to agree there is only one "experiencer" andinfinite experience.

Its more logical to argue god may have been fluked and is a consequence of random chance or what sciences scope on it is. Why are we so important as conscious beings that we can reproduce? It leads me to believe we all have the essense of god in us, and that is what the fabric of consciousness and awareness is threaded on.

We know how to make water, fire and even consciousness. I just dont see these things having any randomness to it. It just seems to fit so well and horribly in the same instance.

 

There are a lot of planets in the universe and they have existed for a very long time. Something like life happening might be sort of unlikely. Who knows? But with all the planets in the universe existing for very long, some unlikely events are BOUND to happen. Just because some of this life happens to be you, does not make it more or less likely to happen.

 

Who the fuck are you.
Your statements arent conclusive. There suppositions like my conclusions. You think consciousness should exist or is bound to in relation to??

So do you suspect in other worlds there might be a god living that manafactures matter and realities than?? Who knows right? Maybe were all a thought of gods mind manfactured in another world that somehow gave him interaction with matter period. Are you saying this is equally possible than. Why or why not. You make no sense at all in your over rationalization.

 

Could you tone down the profanities please?

What are my suppositions you say? That there are a lot of planets and that they have existed a long time? Or is it that unlikely events happen every once in a while?

 

I asked you a question:

Isn't it equally likely that a god was created that manafactured the rest of reality by interacting with and understanding the nature of reality?? And that were all infinite focal points of a single moment he spent in one pixel of the cosmos? That's what your saying when you say consciousness is a result of "alot of planets, eventually something had to give". Why not planets with big mouths and eyes that were developed. Your essentially saying possibility is endless so only this exists or is it that everything exists? I dont understand.

Consider the unique requirements for consciousness and its very nature. If thats possible why is it soooooo unconvievable to fathom a god being created in a different planet that gave it special abilities to recode the matrix of reality or whatever supposition you want to believe based on your frame of reference? What is your point why do you state conclusively that we have to exist because of the sheer number of planets. That can be said about any idea I can possibly conjure up.

Its a supposition that consciousness it the random result of possibility. Its holds as much weight as a god randomly resulting from possibility and consciousness being a result of what took place.

 

It's really hard to make any coherent response to this. Your own ideas aren't well defined. You are making the argument from incredulity, which means, "I don't understand how this works, so god did it". I think that just removes the explanation to something else that requires an explanation.

While it is the essence of education to find out the extent of what we don't know, it's also wrong to say we don't know anything. It does a great disservice to those who contributed to the present scientific understanding of the world.
One misconception that I hope I can clear up is that evolution is not random. It uses randomness to generate variations that are selected by the environment. It also implies that life grew from less complex to more complex, meaning that the origin of life lies in the relatively simple chemical world.

 

Equally likely to what?
I don't believe i said endless. I said a lot of planets and a lot of time.

I don't say we HAVE to. The fact (I guess) is that we do exist. How likely or unlikely this is, I do not know. If it's just somewhat unlikely, chances are that it (life) happened elsewhere also due to the number of planets in the known universe. I'm not speculating about stuff outside the universe just now.
Also define a God. A being that does not abide by the laws of physics?

 

Step away from the bong...

 

Your ideas are more defined which means what??
In regards to the spirit of this argument, your ideas are the same in the sense that they are suppositions and specious at best. If I dont understand how something works. I'm not going to claim that nothing did it or that we have the capacity to know. It's sheer arrogance your are being blinded by the egocentric nature of us as humans. Hence my belief in god. I refuse to believe in "nothing" or reserve my conclusions when I have enough subjective evidence to logically reason that "something" exists versus "nothing" which seems to me are the only possibilities when investigating origin and that the consequential illusions of reality are not going to obstruct my speculation inffered from ofcourse my common sense and understanding that adheres to things we consider real.


You say evolution is not random and that it explains origin? Do you understand what origin is? Evolution is only useful past a certain extent to help unlift the veil in how we are and not how we came to be. Surely you didnt mean to claim that evolution explains our origin?

 

Look how absurd you sound, bro, really let's put this in perspective.

You are saying that god cant exist on another planet because it doesent adhere to this universes law of physics?? Haha, cmon.

You do know that some exoplanets have been shown not to follow our laws of physics, allready? In various ways? Furthermore what makes you think our distinctions are exclusive to consciousness in a cosmological scale?

Come on. You know how many different possibilites one has to account for when thinking how perfectly synchronized our reality is?? Too many... it wouldent just be "alot of planets". It would be enough of a range for damn near anything to be possible.

 

Well, Joey, the "One Experiencer" would take a heck of an amount more to explain in turn, even infinitely so.

Consciousness is a brain process only, as proved by applying anesthesia to the brain. Also, if all was consciousness, what then would the senses be taking in?