Question For Athiests

[OriginalResonance]

I find comfort in reminiscing the days when I was a sperm in my dad’s balls. Zilch, nihilism, nothing. I was organic then but I had no brain. Which is why I had no consciousness nor memory. This is what life without a functioning brain e.g death is like.

[youness]

[i]The real question is not do atheists feel in confort in their atheism, but do they feel they’re right ?

Atheists believe in God’s non-existence, because of the lack of his existence evidence. They need obvious scientific prooves to believe because they’re idealist, that means they want teach God how to control his world according to their ideal imagination, for example an imagination where God should appear to the universe to prove his existence. Idealism blinds their eyes because they try to forget the lack of his non-existence obviousness, and even if they find something that proves his existence, they need more and more pieces of evidence until an evident truth that could never be found, because if we ever have found it, it wouldn’t be a belief anymore, it would be a knowing. Maybe we’re supposed to believe and not to know, according to Koran for example, God wants us to believe.

To open their eyes, they have to give up their idealism, the real question to wonder is not what do we know, but what don’t we believe less?[/i]

[skeptic_griggsy]

’ Life is its own validation and reward and and ultimate meaning."
Carneades [of Ga.]
To fear death is to fear life.

[youness]

Religions are part of life

[phenomenal_graffiti]

Original Resonance:

I find comfort in reminiscing the days when I was a sperm in my dad’s balls. Zilch, nihilism, nothing. I was organic then but I had no brain. Which is why I had no consciousness nor memory. This is what life without a functioning brain e.g death is like.

[b]There’s something that exists when consciousness does not?

J.[/b]

[apaosha]

Life is precious to me because it is finite.

[Keyser]

The answer to your questions will vary from person to person as demonstrated by this thread. The question you should ask yourself though, is whether being afraid of death is a good reason to believe in a god. Just because you are afraid, that doesn’t affect reality in the slightest. The chances for a god existing is completely separate from any fear you might have. It can be compared to believing there is always going to be a haystack waiting for you if you fall, because you are afraid of falling. It makes no sense at all. It is nothing but a comforting lie.

To answer your questions:

1. It varies. Sometimes I am content knowing that if I do end up simply disappearing, I won’t know. Other times I am terrified, since I want to keep an eye on the world and see how things work out. The thought of knowing that the world will go on without me can be deeply troubling. It would probably be nice to create imaginary gods and haystacks to help me overcome this, but I seem incapable of lying to myself in such a way.

2. I live because I realize this is my chance. It is unlikely that I will have another one, or continue after my life ends, so this is my one and only opportunity to impact the world somehow. It makes sense to me to try experiencing as much as possible, and understanding as much as possible, in the time I do have. It makes sense to make the best of the life I have and enjoy the ride. Death seems eternal, but life is now; i’ll have plenty of opportunities to experience death later.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

keyser:

The question you should ask yourself though, is whether being afraid of death is a good reason to believe in a god. Just because you are afraid, that doesn’t affect reality in the slightest. The chances for a god existing is completely separate from any fear you might have. It can be compared to believing there is always going to be a haystack waiting for you if you fall, because you are afraid of falling. It makes no sense at all. It is nothing but a comforting lie.

[b]Rebuttal:

1.The chance of God existing…or not, is 50/50. That’s it. Any other “odds” for or against are merely psychological, rather than objective or metaphysical. Psychological “odds” do nothing and serve no purpose, but are appendages of that grotesque monster that is the logical fallacy of argument from personal incredulity (look it up).

2. Fear of death is not the raison d’ etre for belief in God. There’s also incredulity (without, I hope, making the argument from personal incredulity) at the proposition that the world is structured the way that it is and operates the way that it does by sheer random chance and coincidence (hedged in as it is by fundamental laws of physics). Then there’s the consciousness thing. The very existence of consciousness and blind adherence to the laughable idea that a completely distinct existence (the physical) can somehow “create” it (and this by blind chance) gives the theist pause in blind acceptance of the atheist idea.

3. You cannot know that the existence of God or the afterlife is a “comforting lie”. There’s no way for you to know that it is false at all. You simply believe it is false. None of us that are still alive have died, so no one still living can know that there is “nothing at all” after death. It’s that simple.[/b]

It would probably be nice to create imaginary gods and haystacks to help me overcome this, but I seem incapable of lying to myself in such a way.

Once again, we can’t know if God is truly imaginary. And, in a similar vein, I can’t “lie to myself” and pretend the world was created by an unconscious mechanism by sheer luck in the turnout of physical law. Heck, I can’t “lie to myself” and pretend that somethiing other than consciousness even exists.

I live because I realize this is my chance. It is unlikely that I will have another one, or continue after my life ends, so this is my one and only opportunity to impact the world somehow. It makes sense to me to try experiencing as much as possible, and understanding as much as possible, in the time I do have. It makes sense to make the best of the life I have and enjoy the ride. Death seems eternal, but life is now; i’ll have plenty of opportunities to experience death later.

[b]Spoken like a true absurd hero.

As Joe Pesci’s character in the film: My Cousin Vinny once said:

“I’m through with this guy.”

J.[/b]

[size=85][TheStumps: This post has received a warning for violation of the Religion Forum rules.][/size]

[Keyser]

@phenomenal_graffiti

@Keyser

The question you should ask yourself though, is whether being afraid of death is a good reason to believe in a god. Just because you are afraid, that doesn’t affect reality in the slightest. The chances for a god existing is completely separate from any fear you might have. It can be compared to believing there is always going to be a haystack waiting for you if you fall, because you are afraid of falling. It makes no sense at all. It is nothing but a comforting lie.

[b]Rebuttal:

1.The chance of God existing…or not, is 50/50. That’s it. Any other “odds” for or against are merely psychological, rather than objective or metaphysical. Psychological “odds” do nothing and serve no purpose, but are appendages of that grotesque monster that is the logical fallacy of argument from personal incredulity (look it up).

2. Fear of death is not the raison d’ etre for belief in God. There’s also incredulity (without, I hope, making the argument from personal incredulity) at the proposition that the world is structured the way that it is and operates the way that it does by sheer random chance and coincidence (hedged in as it is by fundamental laws of physics). Then there’s the consciousness thing. The very existence of consciousness and blind adherence to the laughable idea that a completely distinct existence (the physical) can somehow “create” it (and this by blind chance) gives the theist pause in blind acceptance of the atheist idea.

3. You cannot know that the existence of God or the afterlife is a “comforting lie”. There’s no way for you to know that it is false at all. You simply believe it is false. None of us that are still alive have died, so no one still living can know that there is “nothing at all” after death. It’s that simple.[/b]

The notion of a 50/50 chance is completely absurd. How did you acquire that information? What did you compare it to? Please guide me through the process which led you to a 50/50 chance, rather than, say, a 43/57, 64/36 chance. What information even made you qualified to suggest a probability? As for your conclusions about physics, all you accomplish is revealing your ignorance of the subject. No ‘random chance’ was involved. In fact, there’s hardly a case to be made for ANYTHING being ‘random’. As for your conclusion about consciousness, it is pretty flawed. It appears laughable to you, just like a round earth appeared laughable at some point. Difficult to explain? Yes. Reason to conclude it’s impossible? No.

As for 3, you once again demonstrate your failure to comprehend what I write. If you see it in context, you will notice that it was a response to someone who used fear of death as an argument to believe in god. If someone believes in god because the alternative scares them, it IS a comforting lie whether it is true or not. But you are right, I can’t know if it is true or not, neither have I claimed to do so. It needs to be said however that the chances for the Christian god to be real is equivalent to all-powerful, invisible spaghetti monsters and invisible red dragons in my garage. And nothing suggests that the chance for heaven and hell is any greater than everyone turning into immaterial ghosts, or spending eternity inside worn-out travel radio’s. I have never seen a theist able to really argue coherently against this point.

@phenomenal_graffiti

@Keyser

It would probably be nice to create imaginary gods and haystacks to help me overcome this, but I seem incapable of lying to myself in such a way.

Once again, we can’t know if God is truly imaginary. And, in a similar vein, I can’t “lie to myself” and pretend the world was created by an unconscious mechanism by sheer luck in the turnout of physical law. Heck, I can’t “lie to myself” and pretend that somethiing other than consciousness even exists.

[/quote]
Once again, I have never said that I know God is imaginary. I am saying that if I created gods and haystacks to help me overcome my fears, that would be a lie. The one thing we have in common is that neither of us knows. Any claim to know would be ridiculous. The difference, then, is that I believe in what is possible to observe, while you believe in much of what is possible to observe and fill in the blanks with God.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

Keyser:

The notion of a 50/50 chance is completely absurd. How did you acquire that information? What did you compare it to? Please guide me through the process which led you to a 50/50 chance, rather than, say, a 43/57, 64/36 chance.

God either exists or he doesn’t. 50/50 chance.

As for your conclusions about physics, all you accomplish is revealing your ignorance of the subject. No ‘random chance’ was involved. In fact, there’s hardly a case to be made for ANYTHING being ‘random’.

Unless you’re making an appeal to Pierre Simon Laplace’s determinism (which states that from the Big Bang, there is only one possible way for the universe to unfold—such that even from the moment of the Big Bang your existence and everything you have ever done or will do is the only possible future), according to Stephen Gould all physical processes, especially the causal chain leading to and maintaining the existence of life, is produced through luck of the draw, given the swarms of atoms in the universe and their random interactions:

This point needs some belaboring as a central yet widely misunderstood aspect of the world’s complexity. Webs and chains of historical events are so intricate, so imbued with random and chaotic elements, so unrepeatable in encompassing such a multitude of unique (and uniquely interacting) objects, that standard models of simple prediction and replication do not apply. History can be explained, with satisfying rigor if evidence be adequate, after a sequence of events unfolds, but it cannot be predicted with any precision beforehand. Pierre-Simon Laplace, echoing the growing and confident determinism of the late 18th century, once said that he could specify all future states if he could know the position and motion of all particles in the cosmos at any moment, but the nature of universal complexity shatters this chimerical dream. History includes too much chaos, or extremely sensitive dependence on minute and unmeasurable differences in initial conditions, leading to massively divergent outcomes based on tiny and unknowable disparities in starting points.

(Gould, Stephen J: The Evolution Of Life On Earth, brembs.net/gould.html)

As for your conclusion about consciousness, it is pretty flawed. It appears laughable to you, just like a round earth appeared laughable at some point. Difficult to explain? Yes. Reason to conclude it’s impossible? No.

[b]Probably impossible, yes. You have to look at what we’re dealing with when we say that the existence of consciousness is caused by the physical brain:

1. If consciousness is something that comes into and goes out of existence, while the physical is something that has always existed and will always exist, it’s a safe bet that consciousness (which, stated disambiguously by Chalmers, is subjective experience) are two distinct existences, with one (the physical) capable of existing without the other.

2. Unless one is willing to embrace panpsychism (in which consciousness has always existed throughout eternity within the physical), the only rational conclusion behind the notion that the brain creates consciousness is that the brain must use the magic of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing–or creation without the use of pre-existing material) to create subjective experience. Thus, Adolf Grunbaum’s criticism of God’s creation ex nihilo of Light and the universe in the Book of Genesis* applies equally to the brain.

• Grunbaum,Adolf: Creation As A Pseudo-Explanation In Current Physical Cosmology, infidels.org/library/modern/ … ation.html

3. The notion that a non-conscious universe, by chance (chance derived from—barring Laplace’s determinism–the fact that in the space of event A, event B was equally as likely to happen before the fact) turns out a neural code that represents or corresponds to every subjective experience and individual will have is inherently implausible. Creation ex nihilo of consciousness seems impossible enough—it’s just as impossible, probably, for non-conscious, accidental creation by a non-conscious universe of neural circuits that just happen to conjure into existence (from a previous nonexistence) the subjective experiences we happen to have on a second-to-second basis.[/b]

As for 3, you once again demonstrate your failure to comprehend what I write. If you see it in context, you will notice that it was a response to someone who used fear of death as an argument to believe in god. If someone believes in god because the alternative scares them, it IS a comforting lie whether it is true or not.

I apologize if I inferred you believe that fear of death is the only reason people believe in God. However, in the context of believing in God for fear of death, the belief is comforting. But if God truly exists, where’s the lie? Is one “lying to oneself” by believing x because one fears y–even if x is true?

But you are right, I can’t know if it is true or not, neither have I claimed to do so.

Fair enough. But certain assertions may lead one to believe otherwise.

It needs to be said however that the chances for the Christian god to be real is equivalent to all-powerful, invisible spaghetti monsters and invisible red dragons in my garage. And nothing suggests that the chance for heaven and hell is any greater than everyone turning into immaterial ghosts, or spending eternity inside worn-out travel radio’s. I have never seen a theist able to really argue coherently against this point.

[b]I think I can coherently argue the point. Comparing God to invisible spaghetti monsters and red dragons, invisible or not, is a straw man illegally stacking the weights in favor of unquestionable odds against the existence of God. It’s a put-up job. Rather than compare God to mythological spaghetti monsters and dragons, why not compare God to, say, other people’s consciousness? Does the consciousness of anyone other than yourself truly exist? Most believe that others are conscious, although the first-person, subjective experience of other people are not experienced by oneself (if so, one would be the other person and not oneself).

One can amend the challenge thus: “the chances for the Christian god to be real is equivalent to the chances that the consciousnesses of other people exist.” After all, one typically judges the existence of something according to whether or not something can be sensorially or internally experienced. We cannot experience the experiences of others, thus, like God, the Tooth Fairy, other universes, etc., we cannot be certain that the consciousness of others truly exist. We only believe they do.[/b]

Once again, I have never said that I know God is imaginary. I am saying that if I created gods and haystacks to help me overcome my fears, that would be a lie. The one thing we have in common is that neither of us knows. Any claim to know would be ridiculous. The difference, then, is that I believe in what is possible to observe, while you believe in much of what is possible to observe and fill in the blanks with God.

[b]It would be a crutch, if God truly exists. There is no lie (unless God is evil). My “filling in the blanks with God”, however, is nothing more than a leap of faith. No more a leap of faith than, the leap of faith that produces belief that neurons create consciousness, that there exists a non-conscious external world that existed before and will continue to exist when there is no longer such a thing as consciousness, that there was a Big Bang and biological evolution, or that there is no such thing as random chance.

J. [/b]

[Keyser]

@phenomenal_graffiti

Keyser:

The notion of a 50/50 chance is completely absurd. How did you acquire that information? What did you compare it to? Please guide me through the process which led you to a 50/50 chance, rather than, say, a 43/57, 64/36 chance.

God either exists or he doesn’t. 50/50 chance.

As for your conclusions about physics, all you accomplish is revealing your ignorance of the subject. No ‘random chance’ was involved. In fact, there’s hardly a case to be made for ANYTHING being ‘random’.

Unless you’re making an appeal to Pierre Simon Laplace’s determinism (which states that from the Big Bang, there is only one possible way for the universe to unfold—such that even from the moment of the Big Bang your existence and everything you have ever done or will do is the only possible future), according to Stephen Gould all physical processes, especially the causal chain leading to and maintaining the existence of life, is produced through luck of the draw, given the swarms of atoms in the universe and their random interactions:

This point needs some belaboring as a central yet widely misunderstood aspect of the world’s complexity. Webs and chains of historical events are so intricate, so imbued with random and chaotic elements, so unrepeatable in encompassing such a multitude of unique (and uniquely interacting) objects, that standard models of simple prediction and replication do not apply. History can be explained, with satisfying rigor if evidence be adequate, after a sequence of events unfolds, but it cannot be predicted with any precision beforehand. Pierre-Simon Laplace, echoing the growing and confident determinism of the late 18th century, once said that he could specify all future states if he could know the position and motion of all particles in the cosmos at any moment, but the nature of universal complexity shatters this chimerical dream. History includes too much chaos, or extremely sensitive dependence on minute and unmeasurable differences in initial conditions, leading to massively divergent outcomes based on tiny and unknowable disparities in starting points.

(Gould, Stephen J: The Evolution Of Life On Earth, brembs.net/gould.html)

As for your conclusion about consciousness, it is pretty flawed. It appears laughable to you, just like a round earth appeared laughable at some point. Difficult to explain? Yes. Reason to conclude it’s impossible? No.

[b]Probably impossible, yes. You have to look at what we’re dealing with when we say that the existence of consciousness is caused by the physical brain:

1. If consciousness is something that comes into and goes out of existence, while the physical is something that has always existed and will always exist, it’s a safe bet that consciousness (which, stated disambiguously by Chalmers, is subjective experience) are two distinct existences, with one (the physical) capable of existing without the other.

2. Unless one is willing to embrace panpsychism (in which consciousness has always existed throughout eternity within the physical), the only rational conclusion behind the notion that the brain creates consciousness is that the brain must use the magic of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing–or creation without the use of pre-existing material) to create subjective experience. Thus, Adolf Grunbaum’s criticism of God’s creation ex nihilo of Light and the universe in the Book of Genesis* applies equally to the brain.

• Grunbaum,Adolf: Creation As A Pseudo-Explanation In Current Physical Cosmology, infidels.org/library/modern/ … ation.html

3. The notion that a non-conscious universe, by chance (chance derived from—barring Laplace’s determinism–the fact that in the space of event A, event B was equally as likely to happen before the fact) turns out a neural code that represents or corresponds to every subjective experience and individual will have is inherently implausible. Creation ex nihilo of consciousness seems impossible enough—it’s just as impossible, probably, for non-conscious, accidental creation by a non-conscious universe of neural circuits that just happen to conjure into existence (from a previous nonexistence) the subjective experiences we happen to have on a second-to-second basis.[/b]

As for 3, you once again demonstrate your failure to comprehend what I write. If you see it in context, you will notice that it was a response to someone who used fear of death as an argument to believe in god. If someone believes in god because the alternative scares them, it IS a comforting lie whether it is true or not.

I apologize if I inferred you believe that fear of death is the only reason people believe in God. However, in the context of believing in God for fear of death, the belief is comforting. But if God truly exists, where’s the lie? Is one “lying to oneself” by believing x because one fears y–even if x is true?

But you are right, I can’t know if it is true or not, neither have I claimed to do so.

Fair enough. But certain assertions may lead one to believe otherwise.

It needs to be said however that the chances for the Christian god to be real is equivalent to all-powerful, invisible spaghetti monsters and invisible red dragons in my garage. And nothing suggests that the chance for heaven and hell is any greater than everyone turning into immaterial ghosts, or spending eternity inside worn-out travel radio’s. I have never seen a theist able to really argue coherently against this point.

[b]I think I can coherently argue the point. Comparing God to invisible spaghetti monsters and red dragons, invisible or not, is a straw man illegally stacking the weights in favor of unquestionable odds against the existence of God. It’s a put-up job. Rather than compare God to mythological spaghetti monsters and dragons, why not compare God to, say, other people’s consciousness? Does the consciousness of anyone other than yourself truly exist? Most believe that others are conscious, although the first-person, subjective experience of other people are not experienced by oneself (if so, one would be the other person and not oneself).

One can amend the challenge thus: “the chances for the Christian god to be real is equivalent to the chances that the consciousnesses of other people exist.” After all, one typically judges the existence of something according to whether or not something can be sensorially or internally experienced. We cannot experience the experiences of others, thus, like God, the Tooth Fairy, other universes, etc., we cannot be certain that the consciousness of others truly exist. We only believe they do.[/b]

Once again, I have never said that I know God is imaginary. I am saying that if I created gods and haystacks to help me overcome my fears, that would be a lie. The one thing we have in common is that neither of us knows. Any claim to know would be ridiculous. The difference, then, is that I believe in what is possible to observe, while you believe in much of what is possible to observe and fill in the blanks with God.

[b]It would be a crutch, if God truly exists. There is no lie (unless God is evil). My “filling in the blanks with God”, however, is nothing more than a leap of faith. No more a leap of faith than, the leap of faith that produces belief that neurons create consciousness, that there exists a non-conscious external world that existed before and will continue to exist when there is no longer such a thing as consciousness, that there was a Big Bang and biological evolution, or that there is no such thing as random chance.

J. [/b]

You know, I am not even going to read the bulk of your post because your first claim is so ridiculous. Let’s just take a look at this one more time:

God either exists or he doesn’t. 50/50 chance.

Look at that. Think it over. Ask yourself if the above is true. I’m going to have to assume you never completed basic mathematics courses in probability, because that is easily one of the most ridiculous claims I have seen on this board. It’s quite simply wrong. Suppose I draw a card from your average 52-card stack.

I either get a king of spades or I don’t. 50/50 chance. Wait, no that’s wrong. My chance for a king of spades is 1/52, and my chances for not getting one is 51/52. How about King of Spades or Queen of Diamonds? Surely that’s a 50/50 chance! No, it’s not! Both have a 1/52 chance of being true, which leaves us with 50/52 chance of all kinds of alternative possibilities, such as two of hearts or invisible spaghetti monsters. Merely saying that something is true or false does not guarantee a 50/50 chance. Don’t you see how ridiculous that is? The moon is either made out of cheese or it isn’t, 50/50 chance.

In the case of God though, a more accurate example would be using The Olympics. Next time, I will either win the spear-throwing competition or I won’t. 50/50 chance. Wait, who am I kidding? Do I even need to keep on going? In claiming there is a 50/50 chance for God existing, you have NO legs to stand on. None. Unless you really do believe I have a 50% chance of winning. If so, I am going to go play the lottery, since I will either win or not: 50/50 chance.

[capslockf9]

@Xunzian

@BlurredSavant

@Mythoughts21

Basically just want to know 1. How you cope with death 2. What do you live for?

Wasn’t it Buddha who believed that to spend one’s time concerned about what would happen to them after they died was pointless because there is no way for us to know what’s going to happen to us? I believe it was something like finding out then rather than worrying about it now.

I’m not an atheist, but I still don’t claim to know what’s going to happen to me when I die. I cope with this by concentrating on living, and I live for myself.

Maybe you are thinking of Confucius?

Ji Lu asked about serving the spirits of the dead. The Master said, “While you are not able to serve men, how can you serve their spirits?” Ji Lu added, “I venture to ask about death?” He was answered, “While you do not know life, how can you know about death?” (Legge translation)

Though I could see Buddha saying similar things in some of his more skeptical passages.

Buddha speaks of a self. A self that is a product of experience. This self does not exist any where outside of that experience. This self came out of the world. It is not a predetermined or permanent entity. And it is this imaginary thing, the self that does not want to die. This thing is not a living. This thing we call self is but a product of thought.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

Keyser:

Look at that. Think it over. Ask yourself if the above is true. I’m going to have to assume you never completed basic mathematics courses in probability, because that is easily one of the most ridiculous claims I have seen on this board. It’s quite simply wrong. Suppose I draw a card from your average 52-card stack.

I either get a king of spades or I don’t. 50/50 chance. Wait, no that’s wrong. My chance for a king of spades is 1/52, and my chances for not getting one is 51/52. How about King of Spades or Queen of Diamonds? Surely that’s a 50/50 chance! No, it’s not! Both have a 1/52 chance of being true, which leaves us with 50/52 chance of all kinds of alternative possibilities, such as two of hearts or invisible spaghetti monsters. Merely saying that something is true or false does not guarantee a 50/50 chance. Don’t you see how ridiculous that is? The moon is either made out of cheese or it isn’t, 50/50 chance.

In the case of God though, a more accurate example would be using The Olympics. Next time, I will either win the spear-throwing competition or I won’t. 50/50 chance. Wait, who am I kidding? Do I even need to keep on going? In claiming there is a 50/50 chance for God existing, you have NO legs to stand on. None. Unless you really do believe I have a 50% chance of winning. If so, I am going to go play the lottery, since I will either win or not: 50/50 chance.

@phenomenal_graffiti

Keyser:

The notion of a 50/50 chance is completely absurd. How did you acquire that information? What did you compare it to? Please guide me through the process which led you to a 50/50 chance, rather than, say, a 43/57, 64/36 chance.

God either exists or he doesn’t. 50/50 chance.

As for your conclusions about physics, all you accomplish is revealing your ignorance of the subject. No ‘random chance’ was involved. In fact, there’s hardly a case to be made for ANYTHING being ‘random’.

Unless you’re making an appeal to Pierre Simon Laplace’s determinism (which states that from the Big Bang, there is only one possible way for the universe to unfold—such that even from the moment of the Big Bang your existence and everything you have ever done or will do is the only possible future), according to Stephen Gould all physical processes, especially the causal chain leading to and maintaining the existence of life, is produced through luck of the draw, given the swarms of atoms in the universe and their random interactions:

This point needs some belaboring as a central yet widely misunderstood aspect of the world’s complexity. Webs and chains of historical events are so intricate, so imbued with random and chaotic elements, so unrepeatable in encompassing such a multitude of unique (and uniquely interacting) objects, that standard models of simple prediction and replication do not apply. History can be explained, with satisfying rigor if evidence be adequate, after a sequence of events unfolds, but it cannot be predicted with any precision beforehand. Pierre-Simon Laplace, echoing the growing and confident determinism of the late 18th century, once said that he could specify all future states if he could know the position and motion of all particles in the cosmos at any moment, but the nature of universal complexity shatters this chimerical dream. History includes too much chaos, or extremely sensitive dependence on minute and unmeasurable differences in initial conditions, leading to massively divergent outcomes based on tiny and unknowable disparities in starting points.

(Gould, Stephen J: The Evolution Of Life On Earth, brembs.net/gould.html)

As for your conclusion about consciousness, it is pretty flawed. It appears laughable to you, just like a round earth appeared laughable at some point. Difficult to explain? Yes. Reason to conclude it’s impossible? No.

[b]Probably impossible, yes. You have to look at what we’re dealing with when we say that the existence of consciousness is caused by the physical brain:

1. If consciousness is something that comes into and goes out of existence, while the physical is something that has always existed and will always exist, it’s a safe bet that consciousness (which, stated disambiguously by Chalmers, is subjective experience) are two distinct existences, with one (the physical) capable of existing without the other.

2. Unless one is willing to embrace panpsychism (in which consciousness has always existed throughout eternity within the physical), the only rational conclusion behind the notion that the brain creates consciousness is that the brain must use the magic of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing–or creation without the use of pre-existing material) to create subjective experience. Thus, Adolf Grunbaum’s criticism of God’s creation ex nihilo of Light and the universe in the Book of Genesis* applies equally to the brain.

• Grunbaum,Adolf: Creation As A Pseudo-Explanation In Current Physical Cosmology, infidels.org/library/modern/ … ation.html

3. The notion that a non-conscious universe, by chance (chance derived from—barring Laplace’s determinism–the fact that in the space of event A, event B was equally as likely to happen before the fact) turns out a neural code that represents or corresponds to every subjective experience and individual will have is inherently implausible. Creation ex nihilo of consciousness seems impossible enough—it’s just as impossible, probably, for non-conscious, accidental creation by a non-conscious universe of neural circuits that just happen to conjure into existence (from a previous nonexistence) the subjective experiences we happen to have on a second-to-second basis.[/b]

As for 3, you once again demonstrate your failure to comprehend what I write. If you see it in context, you will notice that it was a response to someone who used fear of death as an argument to believe in god. If someone believes in god because the alternative scares them, it IS a comforting lie whether it is true or not.

I apologize if I inferred you believe that fear of death is the only reason people believe in God. However, in the context of believing in God for fear of death, the belief is comforting. But if God truly exists, where’s the lie? Is one “lying to oneself” by believing x because one fears y–even if x is true?

But you are right, I can’t know if it is true or not, neither have I claimed to do so.

Fair enough. But certain assertions may lead one to believe otherwise.

It needs to be said however that the chances for the Christian god to be real is equivalent to all-powerful, invisible spaghetti monsters and invisible red dragons in my garage. And nothing suggests that the chance for heaven and hell is any greater than everyone turning into immaterial ghosts, or spending eternity inside worn-out travel radio’s. I have never seen a theist able to really argue coherently against this point.

[b]I think I can coherently argue the point. Comparing God to invisible spaghetti monsters and red dragons, invisible or not, is a straw man illegally stacking the weights in favor of unquestionable odds against the existence of God. It’s a put-up job. Rather than compare God to mythological spaghetti monsters and dragons, why not compare God to, say, other people’s consciousness? Does the consciousness of anyone other than yourself truly exist? Most believe that others are conscious, although the first-person, subjective experience of other people are not experienced by oneself (if so, one would be the other person and not oneself).

One can amend the challenge thus: “the chances for the Christian god to be real is equivalent to the chances that the consciousnesses of other people exist.” After all, one typically judges the existence of something according to whether or not something can be sensorially or internally experienced. We cannot experience the experiences of others, thus, like God, the Tooth Fairy, other universes, etc., we cannot be certain that the consciousness of others truly exist. We only believe they do.[/b]

Once again, I have never said that I know God is imaginary. I am saying that if I created gods and haystacks to help me overcome my fears, that would be a lie. The one thing we have in common is that neither of us knows. Any claim to know would be ridiculous. The difference, then, is that I believe in what is possible to observe, while you believe in much of what is possible to observe and fill in the blanks with God.

[b]It would be a crutch, if God truly exists. There is no lie (unless God is evil). My “filling in the blanks with God”, however, is nothing more than a leap of faith. No more a leap of faith than, the leap of faith that produces belief that neurons create consciousness, that there exists a non-conscious external world that existed before and will continue to exist when there is no longer such a thing as consciousness, that there was a Big Bang and biological evolution, or that there is no such thing as random chance.

J. [/b]

You know, I am not even going to read the bulk of your post because your first claim is so ridiculous. Let’s just take a look at this one more time:

God either exists or he doesn’t. 50/50 chance.

Look at that. Think it over. Ask yourself if the above is true. I’m going to have to assume you never completed basic mathematics courses in probability, because that is easily one of the most ridiculous claims I have seen on this board. It’s quite simply wrong. Suppose I draw a card from your average 52-card stack.

I either get a king of spades or I don’t. 50/50 chance. Wait, no that’s wrong. My chance for a king of spades is 1/52, and my chances for not getting one is 51/52. How about King of Spades or Queen of Diamonds? Surely that’s a 50/50 chance! No, it’s not! Both have a 1/52 chance of being true, which leaves us with 50/52 chance of all kinds of alternative possibilities, such as two of hearts or invisible spaghetti monsters. Merely saying that something is true or false does not guarantee a 50/50 chance. Don’t you see how ridiculous that is? The moon is either made out of cheese or it isn’t, 50/50 chance.

In the case of God though, a more accurate example would be using The Olympics. Next time, I will either win the spear-throwing competition or I won’t. 50/50 chance. Wait, who am I kidding? Do I even need to keep on going? In claiming there is a 50/50 chance for God existing, you have NO legs to stand on. None. Unless you really do believe I have a 50% chance of winning. If so, I am going to go play the lottery, since I will either win or not: 50/50 chance.

[b]All your examples of probability, of situations whose odds are obviously something other than 50/50, are strawmen. Surely there is a 1/52 chance of one card in a deck being chosen over any other card, this and other mathematical probabilites that are more than 50/50 are possibilities derived from sensorially perceived numeric situations (such as sensory perception of 52 cards, and sensory perception of the odds of choosing, say, the Queen of Hearts over the Queen of Spaces is 1/52). But sensorially perceived mathematical situations fail when it comes to the question of existence or nonexistence. The question of whether or not something exists…or not…is nothing more, nor can be anything more, than a 50/50 proposition. Something either exists…or it does not. There are no 1/52, 2/75, etc. odds when it comes to the “probability” of existence.

Your rebuke fails.

J.[/b]

[Jayson]

@phenomenal_graffiti

God either exists or he doesn’t. 50/50 chance.

Actually,not simply for the purposes of being overly critical, but that’s not inherently what two options mean in regards to probability.

Take a coin.
We say that in the realm of probability, there is a 50% chance of either possibility occurring.
So it makes sense that IS and IS NOT are equally 50%.

But then again, if I show you a cup of coffee on the counter and present to you the question of whether there is coffee in the cup or not, then the chances are not actually 50%.
It would seem so, however, if I look at the issue; the probabilities shift based on information (unlike the coin).
What is the cup on? What kind of building and/or room is the cup in? Is the cup with anyone? Can I see steam coming off of the top of the cup? Can I touch the cup? Did anyone just come by with a carafe near the cup? Are there any lights on?

Depending on the answers to these questions, the probabilities switch and alter around for the answer.

But, a more empirical representation of how two options does not equate to an immediate 50% chance, I provide the concept of the weighted coin.

Now, the value of a probability is a number between 0 and 1 inclusively. An event that cannot occur has a probability of happening equal to 0 and the probability of an event that is certain to occur has a probability equal to 1.
Yet their is a 0.5 probability that either may occur.
On the other hand, there is a .74 probability that one may occur more than the other.
And in that, there is a 50% increase in probability of one occurring more than the other and each occurring equally.

So, a two option weighted coin could have .87 probability of side A landing face-up.
On the other hand, if it is weighted the other way, then the opposite side B could land face-up at an .87 chance.

Yet again, another variable with the same weighted coin; if I throw the coin like a skipping rock on the pavement with the heavier side down, the probabilities shift radically from if I flip the coin into the air and let it land.

Scientists at NASA don’t say they have a 50% chance of either landing on the moon or not landing on the moon.
They figure out the trajectory probabilities to determine the setup needed to acquire the highest range of probabilities for landing on the moon.
But firstly, they have to realize that there are a very wide range of probabilities that exist for either landing on the moon, or not landing on the moon.
They have to realize there is a trajectory that places them on a 00.000% chance and ranges from this to include each 00.001% chance step of the way up to 100.000%
00.000% chance is not landing on the moon.
100.000% chance is landing on the moon.

There are 99.999 different chances between the two desired possibilities.
With each different chance, there is a different probability for each of the two desired outcomes.

At the 15.999% chance, there is a 15.999% chance of not landing on the moon, and an 84.001% chance of landing on the moon.

In all of this, whether you agree with the concepts of probability or not.
Realize simply there is no such thing as “kind of” landing on the moon stated anywhere in the above.
But if you do think there is such a thing, then you’ve just said that there are more probability categories than landing on the moon and not landing on the moon.
And if you are saying that there are more categories, then you are saying there are more probabilities.
Now we have a “kind of” to describe in probability.

But even if there is no, “kind of”, we still have more than 50% because not once was such stated above, but in all of it we lacked any understanding of what the variables are in getting to the moon.
We don’t know what our mode of transportation is in this exercise; it was never stated.
We don’t know what that transportation is made out; how much force is needed to move it off of the Earth; what way Earth will be facing in relation to where the Moon is in it’s orbit to the Sun and Earth; what speed the transport will be traveling; what fuel’s will be employed; to name some basics.

We don’t know our component variables in regards to God.
We don’t know if there is God or if there are gods.
There might be a divinity, but we may find out the Taoists were the closest to the probability, or perhaps it’s the Hindus.

When every divine concept available has a 50% chance of being right and wrong, to include the probability of there not being any divinity, then the probabilities are no longer 50%, for if I have 10 cases of 50% and only one possibility may be correct, then I have a bare minimum of blindly accepting at least a condition where there is a 5% chance that any given single possible “true” of a divine concept will occur by comparison to a 95% chance that all other options will occur.
Again, however, this is a blind probability without any further information do discern the probabilities of each coin; each capable of being weighted.

I am blind in a circle of coins all being flipped at once and only one may remain face-up as which ever is face-up forces all others to be face-down.
I cannot see the weights of the coins; I cannot see if their is equal fair chance of weight in value on all coins.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

TheStumps"

We don’t know our component variables in regards to God.
We don’t know if there is God or if there are gods.
There might be a divinity, but we may find out the Taoists were the closest to the probability, or perhaps it’s the Hindus.

When every divine concept available has a 50% chance of being right and wrong, to include the probability of there not being any divinity, then the probabilities are no longer 50%, for if I have 10 cases of 50% and only one possibility may be correct, then I have a bare minimum of blindly accepting at least a condition where there is a 5% chance that any given single possible “true” of a divine concept will occur by comparison to a 95% chance that all other options will occur.

While the above is correct (when other divinities are thrown in), the relevant issue in the previous posts is—assuming (for the sake of argument) the Christian God is the only divinity that exists, the probability of his existing versus the probability of his not existing, given…

"Again, however, this is a blind probability without any further information do discern the probabilities of each coin; each capable of being weighted.

I am blind in a circle of coins all being flipped at once and only one may remain face-up as which ever is face-up forces all others to be face-down.
I cannot see the weights of the coins; I cannot see if their is equal fair chance of weight in value on all coins."

–TheStumps

[b]The probabilities are automatically 50/50. There are no component variables to judge in the very fact of nonexistence, whereas existence qua existence achieves automatic, ipso facto unity: there is a 100.000% chance of something existing because it happens to exist. However, the variables deviate from 50/50 if one begins to consider the empirical means of coming to know of the existence of something.

Just a thought from someone who knows nothing of math,

J.[/b]

[Jayson]

In the concept of a light switch, there is a 50/50 chance, but when it comes to divine concepts, the stability of probability including existence of any given proposal is compared against all competing forms…unlike the light switch.
Therefore, you continue to be in error on this I’m afraid.

The probabilities are simply not 50%.
I myself am not a 50% chance of existence.

Even without including other divinities, the Christian God is not at a 50% chance of existing.
Instead, there is simply an unknown probability of God existing.
As said, we are blind and have no knowledge of how the coin is weighted.
To assert 50% chance is to assert that the coin is evenly weighted; however, there is no supporting evidence that the coin is or is not evenly weighted.

[Keyser]

@phenomenal_graffiti

While the above is correct (when other divinities are thrown in), the relevant issue in the previous posts is—assuming (for the sake of argument) the Christian God is the only divinity that exists, the probability of his existing versus the probability of his not existing, given…

[b]The probabilities are automatically 50/50. There are no component variables to judge in the very fact of nonexistence, whereas existence qua existence achieves automatic, ipso facto unity: there is a 100.000% chance of something existing because it happens to exist. However, the variables deviate from 50/50 if one begins to consider the empirical means of coming to know of the existence of something.

Just a thought from someone who knows nothing of math,

J.[/b]

When you admit that you know nothing about math you shouldn’t be throwing probabilities around. First of all, assuming that the Christian God is the only possible divinity for the ‘sake of argument’ is absurd. There’s an infinite number of possible alternatives to how the universe was created and is being ‘run’, ranging from spaghetti monsters to scientology to christianity and even one where I am God, and so the chance of the Christian faith being true is infinitely small, just like every other solution we might propose. Atheism however doesn’t confine itself to any specific belief, and so rather than confining itself to one infinitely small chance of being true, it covers all the outcomes that doesn’t involve divinity, rather than just one outcome. This of course, is how we must react if we want to try to apply probability to something we have no knowledge about. In reality we have no idea whatsoever how each option is weighted, and there’s a very good reason for this: It’s not a matter you -can- assign a probability to with any accuracy, because regardless of what the answer is, -that’s- the answer, with zero probability of anything else being true.

Second, the chance of God existing would not necesarrily be 50% even if it was only the two options. Saying that there’s a 50/50 chance of something being true/false because we have no information is ridiculous. Such a claim suggests that neither option exists outside our own minds, and that reality will somehow abide by the human concept of mathematics. Mererly saying that one thing is as likely as another because we know nothing about either outcome does not make for a 50/50 probability anywhere other than our own minds. Not that this even matters in this case, since the Christian God is just 1 out of an infinite number of possibilities.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

To TheStumps:

In the concept of a light switch, there is a 50/50 chance, but when it comes to divine concepts, the stability of probability including existence of any given proposal is compared against all competing forms…unlike the light switch.
Therefore, you continue to be in error on this I’m afraid.

Well, Stumps…I suppose you’re right. Given there are conceivable gods other than the Christian God, you’d pretty much have to weigh their qualities and “impacts” on the “real world” alongside those of the CG in order to come up with a conceptual probability for or against each individual god in relation to all others. Thus my 50/50 assertion is killed in the face of the problem of theological competition. And then there’s the kicker:

Even without including other divinities, the Christian God is not at a 50% chance of existing.
Instead, there is simply an unknown probability of God existing.

As said, we are blind and have no knowledge of how the coin is weighted.

To assert 50% chance is to assert that the coin is evenly weighted; however, there is no supporting evidence that the coin is or is not evenly weighted

[b]Point taken. Color me corrected. I suppose the 50/50 assertion comes from my belief and prejudice in the existence of the CG. But…you’re right. We are blind, and this blindness allows no empirical insight into probability one way or the other.

In the end, I think I’m better off leaving math out of the equation altogether and simply state this:

“Either God exists or he doesn’t”

Thanks,

J.[/b]

[phenomenal_graffiti]

To keyser:

When you admit that you know nothing about math you shouldn’t be throwing probabilities around.

To this I concede. Point taken. See above post.

First of all, assuming that the Christian God is the only possible divinity for the ‘sake of argument’ is absurd.

Well, I never assumed the Christian God is the only possible divinity for the sake of argument, I proposed we assume the Christian God is the only divinity that exists for the sake of argument. To wit:

“assuming (for the sake of argument) the Christian God is the only divinity that exists…”

There’s an infinite number of possible alternatives to how the universe was created and is being ‘run’, ranging from spaghetti monsters to scientology to christianity and even one where I am God, and so the chance of the Christian faith being true is infinitely small, just like every other solution we might propose.

While this is true, objective reality is what it is regardless of all possibilities (possibilites going against what’s actually going on “out there”) and beliefs. Many beliefs “jibe” or coincide with objective reality—many do not. This will become important in what follows…

Atheism however doesn’t confine itself to any specific belief, and so rather than confining itself to one infinitely small chance of being true, it covers all the outcomes that doesn’t involve divinity, rather than just one outcome. This of course, is how we must react if we want to try to apply probability to something we have no knowledge about. In reality we have no idea whatsoever how each option is weighted, and there’s a very good reason for this: It’s not a matter you -can- assign a probability to with any accuracy, because regardless of what the answer is, -that’s- the answer, with zero probability of anything else being true.

Atheism confines itself to a specific belief: that there are no gods. And do you imply that belief in a god is a belief that confines itself to one infinitely small chance of being true? How can we weigh it to know that the chances for it are “infinitely small”? Following TheStumps above, all probabilities, in which we have no knowledge of how the option is weighed, are ultimately unknown probabilities. We have no way of knowing that x has a small chance of being true while y has an infinitely greater chance. For example, is there an infinitely small chance that there is no such thing as the physical while there is an infinitely large chance that the physical exists? If so, what empirical criteria exists that favors possibility for the existence of the physical and disfavors the possibility that the universe is composed merely of consciousness?

Second, the chance of God existing would not necesarrily be 50% even if it was only the two options. Saying that there’s a 50/50 chance of something being true/false because we have no information is ridiculous.

[b]But then again, God either exists or he doesn’t. The physical either exists or it doesn’t. Other universes may exist or they do not. The consciousnesses of other people may exist or they may not. Etc. etc. In each case we have no information (or seem to have no information) in regard to whether or not God, the physical, other universes, or the consciousness of other people exist. But one may believe that x exists even if one has no information that it exist (or not). The belief itself, then, is the “weighed option” leading to at least a propositional rather than empirical chance that the existence or non-existence of God, the physical, other universes, or other-consciousness are all 50/50.

Or one can state it thus:

1. I believe that the physical exists.

2. I have no information that the physical exists, given that the physical is that which is not consciousness, and all that is empirically known with certainty to exist is my own private, personal, subjective experience. I do not experience other people’s consciousnesses as they (may) have them, and I cannot experience the physical, as it is that which (supposedly) continues to exist when all consciousness, everywhere, one day ceases to exist.

3. The physical may exist…or it may not.

4. Objectively, the chance that the physical exists is unknown. The probability that the physical exists is also unknown. I have no information about the physical thus there is no option to weigh for or against the existence of the physical.

5. But nevertheless, I believe the physical exists.

6. Thus there is a psychological (“in my mind”) probability and chance that the physical exists, rather than a known objective chance that the physical exists. This psychological chance exists (albeit within my mind) by the very fact that, for some reason, I continue to believe the physical exists.

7. Thus there is a 50/50 propositional (rather than known objective) chance that the physical exists. [/b]

Such a claim suggests that neither option exists outside our own minds, and that reality will somehow abide by the human concept of mathematics. Mererly saying that one thing is as likely as another because we know nothing about either outcome does not make for a 50/50 probability anywhere other than our own minds. Not that this even matters in this case, since the Christian God is just 1 out of an infinite number of possibilities.

[b]Exacto-mundo. This is propositional (rather than empirical or objective) chance and probability. We cannot know that reality will, or does, abide by our human concept of mathematics…but even if the thing we believe in is just 1 out of an infinite number of possibilities, unless there is information that x cannot possibly exist , there is a chance that x can exist “anyway”, despite the infinite number of other possibilities going in the opposite direction. There is a 50/50 chance (within the mind if not outside the mind) that x beats out all the other infinite number of alternate possibilities and actually exists, even if x exists outside our minds.

And so it goes…

J.[/b]

[Uccisore]

@Keyser

When you admit that you know nothing about math you shouldn’t be throwing probabilities around. First of all, assuming that the Christian God is the only possible divinity for the ‘sake of argument’ is absurd. There’s an infinite number of possible alternatives to how the universe was created and is being ‘run’, ranging from spaghetti monsters to scientology to christianity and even one where I am God, and so the chance of the Christian faith being true is infinitely small, just like every other solution we might propose.

Um, you just made the exact same mistake Graffiti did.  Graffiti only took 2 possibilities into account, and dumbly assumed the odds of one of them being true was 1:2.  You just took an infinite number of possibilities into account, and dumbly assumed the odds of one of them being true was 1:infinity. 
Graffiti's error (and yours) wasn't that he was counting too few possibilities, it's that he was assuming an even distribution of the odds across the possibilities he counted. A flipped coin could land on heads, tails, or on it's edge.  That doesn't mean the odds of it landing on 'heads' is 1:3, now does it? 
 Now, I'm not going to twist your arm and force you to admit in front of everybody that you don't know anything about mathematics.  But I would encourage you to be a little more charitable to your fellow armchair philosopher.