The Atheist revolution. Perhaps not as logical as first thought?

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

Ah, now I understand. I was saying it was because of the persons input. I probably phrased that wrong.

So unless there is somehow some input into entangled particles giving them their properties (which somehow manages not to disrupt the entire system with observation) then you agree particles != universe conscious.

My point of this thread is to point out the arguments of there being no God (or whatever) when there are so many things to point out.

Such as what? So far we've covered "I don't know", "I don't think it happened this way", and "particles can interact".
What else do we have?

Crucifix

Crucifix wrote:

Wow, fast thread.

I'm waiting for my lab to open, nothing else to do yet


wow, I'm posting from the er... future... past... yes...

Crucifix

Wow, fast thread.
You say maybe this is God, maybe that is God, well maybe my shoes are God. Basically what I mean is; what reason do you have to believe that the energy or numbers you mention are sentient?

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

So unless there is somehow some input into entangled particles giving them their properties (which somehow manages not to disrupt the entire system with observation) then you agree particles != universe conscious.

Such as what? So far we've covered "I don't know", "I don't think it happened this way", and "particles can interact".
What else do we have?

Read my first post again, it displays what I think. Although I could have written more, I didn't.

I'm not going to explain all I think to you again, I've already explained.

So Glad

Crucifix wrote:

Wow, fast thread.
You say maybe this is God, maybe that is God, well maybe my shoes are God. Basically what I mean is; what reason do you have to believe that the energy or numbers you mention are sentient?

Ok, maybe I should get some links to back me up.

Hmm, I'm sure if you Google most of the key words I have said in my posts you'll find good links.

I'm sorry but I've been typing all morning and don't wanna be typing anymore. :P

Ciaran500

TBH your first post isn't very clear and doesn't get to the point. I had to read it twice before replying.

So Glad

Ciaran500 wrote:

TBH your first post isn't very clear and doesn't get to the point. I had to read it twice before replying.

Yeah, when I write in bulk I tend to lose track on go off on tangents. Sorry

Let's see, looking at the first post:

-I think the universe is amazing and don't understand how consciousness was produced from non-consciousness
that falls under "I don't know, therefore god exists"

-Just because people do bad things in the name of a god doesn't mean there is no god
Well true, but that doesn't mean there is one either. Particularly not the all-compassionate being the christians seems to proclaim.

-I think energy is like god so god is energy.
Well that's nice, but a bit meaningless since we already have a definition for energy to work with, we don't need another one.

-I don't think we can understand the workings of a god, so we can't question it. And I don't know how the big bang works, so I don't think it was that.
Well, that's nice too, but your lack of understanding of the big bang doesn't mean god exists. That'll also fall under "I don't know so god exists".

-Particles interact, therefore god exists.
...

-Bad things happen to bad people because they think negatively. It's your fault, and god still exists.
Eh. Sure. Ok, let's see you in a good mood if all your family dies and you're starving on the streets. etc.

I think that about sums it up.
I don't see anything new to consider, there.

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

Let's see, looking at the first post:

-I think the universe is amazing and don't understand how consciousness was produced from non-consciousness
that falls under "I don't know, therefore god exists"

-Just because people do bad things in the name of a god doesn't mean there is no god
Well true, but that doesn't mean there is one either. Particularly not the all-compassionate being the christians seems to proclaim.

-I think energy is like god so god is energy.
Well that's nice, but a bit meaningless since we already have a definition for energy to work with, we don't need another one.

-I don't think we can understand the workings of a god, so we can't question it. And I don't know how the big bang works, so I don't think it was that.
Well, that's nice too, but your lack of understanding of the big bang doesn't mean god exists. That'll also fall under "I don't know so god exists".

-Particles interact, therefore god exists.
...

-Bad things happen to bad people because they think negatively. It's your fault, and god still exists.
Eh. Sure. Ok, let's see you in a good mood if all your family dies and you're starving on the streets. etc.

I think that about sums it up.
I don't see anything new to consider, there.

Your talking my points out of context. For example, I was using the interacting atoms and a point to prove that the universe consciously creates itself. Also, people do bring bad things on themselves, keep being miserable and bad things keep coming although they don't know why, sad but true.

Ciaran500

So Glad wrote:

Your talking my points out of context. For example, I was using the interacting atoms and a point to prove that the universe consciously creates itself. Also, people do bring bad things on themselves, keep being miserable and bad things keep coming although they don't know why, sad but true.

So we're back to inanimate objects being conscious and a theory that people bring bad things on them selves.

So Glad

Ciaran500 wrote:

So we're back to inanimate objects being conscious and a theory that people bring bad things on them selves.

As Newton said: "Like attracts like"

Ciaran500

I think he was being a bit more specific than that.

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

Your talking my points out of context. For example, I was using the interacting atoms and a point to prove that the universe consciously creates itself. Also, people do bring bad things on themselves, keep being miserable and bad things keep coming although they don't know why, sad but true.

It doesn't prove that the universe
-created itself
-is conscious
It proves particles interact, end of story.

I took your points in paragraphs. None of them are reasons for god existing, and an arbitrary personal definition of energy which you've intentionally worded similarly to a personal definition of god also does not prove anything.

People may bring bad things on themselves or not, but it has nothing to do with a god existing or not.

As Newton said: "Like attracts like"

Magnetic poles have little relevance to consciousness.

Beruthiel

Just because we cannot understand all the inner workings of the universe yet, does not mean that we replace our ignorance with a god.
This is like filling in the blanks just so we have an explaination. So Glad, you have choosen to fill in the blanks, we have decided to wait for a logical answer.

So Glad

Ciaran500 wrote:

I think he was being a bit more specific than that.

Yep, he was referring to electrical signals. Positive attracts positive and vice versa. Everything in made of electrical impulses. For example, nothing around you is actually solid. Atoms are 99% nothingness. The only thing the makes it solid is the positive and electrical signals resisting each other. This isn't mumbo jumbo, this is science I learning in secondary school.

Thoughts are electrical pulses. When we think we give out electrical pulses (again, regarded true in conventional science) so the law of attraction applies to that too. How do you think animals communicate and migrate, especially Dolphins?

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

It doesn't prove that the universe
-created itself
-is conscious
It proves particles interact, end of story.

I took your points in paragraphs. None of them are reasons for god existing, and an arbitrary personal definition of energy which you've intentionally worded similarly to a personal definition of god also does not prove anything.

People may bring bad things on themselves or not, but it has nothing to do with a god existing or not.


Magnetic poles have little relevance to consciousness.

I've said my point and you obviously don't want to know, which is fine. Nothing I can say can change your mind, so I'll leave it at that.

Dav.

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

I've said my point and you obviously don't want to know, which is fine. Nothing I can say can change your mind, so I'll leave it at that.

Dav.

If I didn't want to know, I wouldn't be here.
Don't start getting defensive at me just because I don't agree!

But indeed, if that's all you have to say then neither my mind nor anyone else's is going to be changed.

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

If I didn't want to know, I wouldn't be here.
Don't start getting defensive at me just because I don't agree!

But indeed, if that's all you have to say then neither my mind nor anyone else's is going to be changed.

I'm not being defensive. I am being neutral, I'm discussing my point over and over again. You're not buying so I am not trying.

Ciaran500

So Glad wrote:

Yep, he was referring to electrical signals. Positive attracts positive and vice versa. Everything in made of electrical impulses. For example, nothing around you is actually solid. Atoms are 99% nothingness. The only thing the makes it solid is the positive and electrical signals resisting each other. This isn't mumbo jumbo, this is science I learning in secondary school.

I know I've done 6 years of it in school/college

So Glad wrote:

Thoughts are electrical pulses. When we think we give out electrical pulses (again, regarded true in conventional science) so the law of attraction applies to that too.

So bad signals given out by your brain attract bankrupcy/breakups/sickness?

So Glad wrote:

How do you think animals communicate and migrate, especially Dolphins?

By sound.

So Glad

Ciaran500 wrote:

I know I've done 6 years of it in school/college

So bad signals given out by your brain attract bankrupcy/breakups/sickness?

By sound.

Yes, bad thoughts attract bad things.

Yes, animals do converse by sound but also by intuition, or thought.

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

Yes, bad thoughts attract bad things.

Yes, animals do converse by sound but also by intuition, or thought.

Are you saying animals are psychic?

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

Are you saying animals are psychic?

Yes. Like humans.

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

Yes. Like humans.

Based on...?

Ciaran500

So Glad wrote:

Yes, bad thoughts attract bad things.

How can bad electrical signals attract something bad that doesn't give out any electrical signal.

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

Based on...?

Observing animal habits.

About an hour or more before the tsunami in Asia almost every animal ran for the hills, they knew a tsunami was coming. Thats why there are no corpses of animals from the tsunami. Plus there are many storyies of animals detecting natural disasters before they happen.

So Glad

Ciaran500 wrote:

How can bad electrical signals attract something bad that doesn't give out any electrical signal.

Opposite human beings.

http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoview1-16-05.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0110-25.htm

If we go by such links, keener senses do not mean animals are psychic.
And if humans were also psychic, there wouldn't be human corpses at the disasters, now would there?

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoview1-16-05.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0110-25.htm

If we go by such links, keener senses do not mean animals are psychic.
And if humans were also psychic, there wouldn't be human corpses at the disasters, now would there?

Only a small number of humans consider themselves to be truly psychic. And how do you know someone didn't predict it?

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

Only a small number of humans consider themselves to be truly psychic. And how do you know someone didn't predict it?

How do you know someone did? Is there any evidence to suggest it?
Any pre-emptive announcements?

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Nope, I meant both of us don't know. As far as we know, I am wrong and so are the atheists, I'm just trying to prove a point.

What point are you trying to prove? If its that, at heart, agnosticism is the only logical position, then you'll generally find that agnostics will agree with you and those who believe somethign else don't.

On the other hand, you mentioned on the CT forum :

I have spent days arguing to my friends proving God exists

so clearly you're not trying to prove that we don't know. Note - you didn't say that you spent days trying to prove that God exists, or proving that God could or might exist....nope...you apparently believe you were proving that God exists.

How can you prove Gods existence, and still argue that as far as you know, you're wrong.

Although, as I have said, God could be the mathematical constants that form our gravity, symmetry and universal laws.

Once you reduce the definition of God to a vague concept which can be reworded as "whatever it is that brought all this about", then you can easily argue that if the the universe was created as a random event from chaos, then randomness and chaos is God.

In other words, you've defined the existence of the universe as a trait of God, then gone on to conclude this proves God's existence, but precludes knowing anything about what God actually is!

So you can reword the argument as "something caused the universe to exist, even if it was just randomness....and I define that something as God....thus I have proven that God exists".

No-one can argue with that....except to point out that to prove Gods existence, you've had to utterly redefine God and all you can attribute to God is the universe's existence.

If you asked an Atheist scientist "What is energy?" he would reply "It has always been, always will be. Can never be destroyed nor created from nothing. Is everywhere all at once."

With respect...I think you should let the atheists answer for themselves rather then tell them what their answer is.

Personally, although I'm not an atheist, I would say that the following comment from wikipedia is a much more accurate answer:

Energy is so fundamental that it is not easily defined in terms of anything more fundamental. It is possible to define energy precisely, although the details will be of interest only to specialists.

As for the concepts of "never destroyed nor created", it should be pointed out that these concepts only hold within our frame of reference - i.e. our universe. The common mistake of so many who wish to set themselves somehow at odds with the scientific view of the universe is that they fail to recognise the concept of applicability and frames of reference.

Causality (cause-and-effect) is something we believe holds true within our universe. The inability to create/destroy energy is something we believe holds true within our uiniverse. Time is something the definition of which only has relevance within our universe.

So...when we come to the "ultimate" question of how did all this come about, we have to discard every single one of those concepts when it comes to arguing our case. What does that leave us with? Not a hell of a lot really....which is why this particular debate has raged for centuries.

The short answer is that we have no frame of reference within which to answer the question of how the universe came about. Thus, we cannot meaningfully address the question using logic, science, or anythign else because all of these mechanisms have the universe itself as a frame of reference. None of them necessarily apply once you go outside that frame of reference. They may do....or they may not.

So the long and the short is that you can't prove God's existence, no more than you can prove God's non-existence. You can believe in either (or neither), but should never mistake belief and proof. THe only way you can "prove" God's existence is to define that existence into your base assumptions, but hide it so that its not apparent....

- the universe exists
- that existence may have been deliberate or random in origin.
- I define that deliberate or random origin as God or the work of God.
- ergo god exists!!!!

See the problem? If you define God as part of your assumptions, then of course you'll conclude that God exists. But you haven't proven anything, other than that you assume God exists.