The God Hypothesis

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: ItsDarts HUH??? What does Russels tea pot have to do with this? RTP was an atheistic analogy to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies with the skeptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religion.

Unfalsifiable. Correct. Ish claims, however, that a tangible being would have to provide proof for its existence.

Ish is just trying to get you to define how consciousness can exist without meat? The only answer I can think of is a computer that's developed self awareness, but even this would have physical properties that could be detected.

I've already answered this: I've never said that any possible god is intangible. Read my reply to Ish.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric You, CC and Fonceai are part of the volconvo.com "know-nothings". Anything that could threaten your cherished assertion that god is possible is automatically "unknown" no matter how well established by science. PM me if you have an argument that's got something more than "what if?" as evidence.

I have presented far more than a what if, in my Is a God Possible thread.

You, Zhavric, simply lack the capacity to think beyond your dogmatic view.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric To build on this, consciousness / intelligence is evidenced to come from a gradual process with countless subtle steps. It's something that comes very "late" in existence. Not only do we have zero evidence of non-meat consciousness, we have no evidence that consciousness happens at the beginning of things. I think I shall start a thread about Russel's Tea Pot...

You must all understand that Zhavric uses odd definitions, including, apparently, for the word 'evidence',

Many people regard the evidence from near death experiences, such as the commonality of the life review, as evidence for non-meat intelligence.

Zhavric prefers a materialistic explanation for these phenomenon, and thus pretends like they do not exist. What he should say is that there is no evidence that he believes is evidence for non-meat intelligence, rather than making it sound like it does not exist at all.

Quote by: Dictionary.com 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

I claim that the materialist paradigm does not provide a sufficient explanation for NDEs and the life review. Thus, NDEs are a ground for the belief in non-meat intelligence - for me.

Information about this phenomenon is widespread, not non-existent.

[nm420]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Many people regard the evidence from near death experiences, such as the commonality of the life review, as evidence for non-meat intelligence. Zhavric prefers a materialistic explanation for these phenomenon, and thus pretends like they do not exist. What he should say is that there is no evidence that he believes is evidence for non-meat intelligence, rather than making it sound like it does not exist at all. I claim that the materialist paradigm does not provide a sufficient explanation for NDEs and the life review. Thus, NDEs are a ground for the belief in non-meat intelligence - for me. Information about this phenomenon is widespread, not non-existent.

At the current moment in time, perhaps we don't have an adequate explanation for the shared traits of most near-death experiences, but I see no reason to assume why it couldn't be explained from a materialist perspective. The (scientific) study of the mind is still in its infancy, but one thing it has done to date is shred to pieces the notion of dualism. Is it so hard to believe that, when a mind sees that its life-support system is coming to an end, that it should go through the major events in its life, including other people who played major roles in that life. The "light at the end of the tunnel" could very easily be a purely physiological response to the dying of the brain. Keep in mind that a split second in reality can be perceived to drag on for a long time when in this altered state of consciousness.

If anything, when I hear of the common aspects between NDE's, this says to me that there is a scientific explanation hidden underneath our layers of ignorance. There is much research that has been done into the various altered states of consciousness coming about from transcendental meditation or dreaming. While it is clear we know not nearly enough (which is always the case), some of this does lend credence to notion of "mind over matter." Obviously, it's not been accepted that people have telekinetic powers in the scientific community, but the mind definitely does have powers, subconscious ones at that, over various physical states of the body. Who knows what the future may uncover? Even if science should ever find that there is some mind-melding global consciousness or whatnot (I believe it's entirely possible), this still gives no credence to the god hypothesis. Indeed, it would build yet more evidence against it.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Captain Chaos You must all understand that Zhavric uses odd definitions, including, apparently, for the word 'evidence', Many people regard the evidence from near death experiences, such as the commonality of the life review, as evidence for non-meat intelligence.

Pot, meet kettle.

Zhavric prefers a materialistic explanation for these phenomenon, and thus pretends like they do not exist.

Don't be silly. I've never said any such thing. What "Zhavric" does is goes by what we actually have evidence for. Zhavric has the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that an absence of evidence doesn't evidence substance.

I claim that the materialist paradigm does not provide a sufficient explanation for NDEs and the life review. Thus, NDEs are a ground for the belief in non-meat intelligence - for me.

So, let me get this straight. Experiences which we ONLY know about from meat-based intelligence is evidence of non meat-based intelligence? And from this your trying to set a precedent for non-meat intelligence at the beginning of the universe? This desperate attempt at stringing 'what ifs' together is coming from someone who just made an issue out of what constitutes evidence?

Please.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric Pot, meet kettle. Don't be silly. I've never said any such thing. What "Zhavric" does is goes by what we actually have evidence for. Zhavric has the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that an absence of evidence doesn't evidence substance. So, let me get this straight. Experiences which we ONLY know about from meat-based intelligence is evidence of non meat-based intelligence? And from this your trying to set a precedent for non-meat intelligence at the beginning of the universe? This desperate attempt at stringing 'what ifs' together is coming from someone who just made an issue out of what constitutes evidence? Please.

If you cannot keep up, go play elsewhere.

Pay attention to the other skeptics on this site, they will show you how to keep up.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: nm420 Is it so hard to believe that, when a mind sees that its life-support system is coming to an end, that it should go through the major events in its life, including other people who played major roles in that life.

It is hard to believe that a significant portion of people would just happen to have the same hallucination.

Is it so hard to believe that, when a mind sees that its life-support system is coming to an end, that it should go through the major events in its life, including other people who played major roles in that life.

Under any worldview, you can find a way to explain every observable fact. It becomes a question of which worldview provides the most consistent explanation. The materialist explanations I have seen for the life review don't really add up. For example, some claim that chemicals released in the brain at the moment of oxygen starvation would elicit old memories. That sounds great, but the life review is much more than that:

Life review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not start from the assumption that any materialist explanation is necessarily superior to a non-material explanation.

We have plenty of reason within physics to suspect that ours is not the only reality, so an explanation that involves things outside of our reality is not inconsistent with observed facts.

Even if science should ever find that there is some mind-melding global consciousness or whatnot (I believe it's entirely possible), this still gives no credence to the god hypothesis. Indeed, it would build yet more evidence against it.

It would imply consciousness outside of the brain. This would very much play into my infinite emergence argument.

[nilan3000]

Is there some unwritten rule in the forums here that almost every interesting thread must dissolve into a personal fight.....?

Its a 'debate' forum guys not an 'argument' forum. So why dont we have debates instead of arguments....

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: nilan3000 Is there some unwritten rule in the forums here that almost every interesting thread must dissolve into a personal fight.....? Its a 'debate' forum guys not an 'argument' forum. So why dont we have debates instead of arguments....

Zhavric antagonizes those he disagrees with. We antagonize him back. I do not even take him seriously anymore - usually. I think it is more fruitful to taunt him for fun than actually try to reason with him.


Fortunately, we have number of intelligent skeptics on this site who do a good job.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Zhavric To build on this, consciousness / intelligence is evidenced to come from a gradual process with countless subtle steps.

Could you cite a reference, please?

I just finished reading through:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psycholog.../09212000.html

...and...

Max Planck Society - Cognition Research

...and...

http://www.imprint.co.uk/Wilber.htm

...and there is no evidence it was gradual. For all intents and purposes, they have a tough enough time defining consciousness let alone establishing how it comes to be.

[nm420]

Quote by: Captain Chaos It is hard to believe that a significant portion of people would just happen to have the same hallucination.

That is exactly my point. You don't start observing the same thing over and over again and attribute it to purely random chance. It begs for some sort of explanation.

I do not start from the assumption that any materialist explanation is necessarily superior to a non-material explanation.

Ah, I suppose that is where we differ in this respect then. I am somewhat partial to rational explanations based on deduction over any other sort of explanation. I can't be satisfied with speculations that are based on authority or tradition. And what else could mention of a "non-material" thing be based on? If we have no way of observing the "non-material", then how can we make any inferences about it, or use that assumption to give us knowledge of the "material" world?

Suppose, for hypothetical sake, that there really were a "ghost in the machine", a soul if you will, and that is an integral part of the expalantion of these things like NDE's and whatnot. If there is such a "thing", then it is what I would call "material." It may not be observable by our standards in this brief speck of time, but if it truly exists and has some connection with the world we perceive, I would find it extremely hard to swallow that it does not follow orderly rules or laws which would eventually lay down before the power of deductive reasoning. It may take decades, or centuries, or millenia, but if we humans retain our resourcefulness and vitality, I can think of no reason why it would remain clouded by ignorance forever. It is certainly a faith that I hold, but again, I prefer to have faith in reason over anything else (as it seems so reasonable to do so ).

It would imply consciousness outside of the brain. This would very much play into my infinite emergence argument.

Hmm, I'm not aware of this argument. Did I miss it, or is it in another thread?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: NM420 Ah, I suppose that is where we differ in this respect then. I am somewhat partial to rational explanations based on deduction over any other sort of explanation.

Do you assume that materialist explanations are inherently more rational? I believe that material explanations are usually more accurate, but not inherently more rational.

I can't be satisfied with speculations that are based on authority or tradition. And what else could mention of a "non-material" thing be based on?

The direct experience of thousands of people across many different cultures who experience apparent contact with non-material intelligence while ungoing a near death experience.

If we have no way of observing the "non-material", then how can we make any inferences about it, or use that assumption to give us knowledge of the "material" world?

Under M theory, our universe is a projection from an outer reality - the bulk. It is entirely possible that we will find ways to observe the influence of things in this outer reality on our universe. For example, there are some events in quantum mechanics that appear to involving something coming from nothing. I think such events would be better explained by the influence of something outside of our observable universe.

Similarly, spooky action at a distance implies some sort of underlying order or structure.

These are examples of possible observations of the influence of the outer reality.

Another possibility is through finding ways to safely induce near death experiences under laboratory conditions. There are hints of ways to do this now.

Suppose, for hypothetical sake, that there really were a "ghost in the machine", a soul if you will, and that is an integral part of the expalantion of these things like NDE's and whatnot. If there is such a "thing", then it is what I would call "material."

OK. I don't want to get tripped up on definitions. I refer to material as belonging to a universe, rather than to the outer reality.

It may not be observable by our standards in this brief speck of time, but if it truly exists and has some connection with the world we perceive, I would find it extremely hard to swallow that it does not follow orderly rules or laws which would eventually lay down before the power of deductive reasoning.

I agree with this.

It may take decades, or centuries, or millenia, but if we humans retain our resourcefulness and vitality, I can think of no reason why it would remain clouded by ignorance forever. It is certainly a faith that I hold, but again, I prefer to have faith in reason over anything else (as it seems so reasonable to do so ).

I also agree with this.

Hmm, I'm not aware of this argument. Did I miss it, or is it in another thread?

I have posted it all over the place.

In a nutshell: Given forever, if it is possible for a god to evolve/emerge, then it will have done so. This can be shown rather easily mathematically, assuming independent trials.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Could you cite a reference, please? I just finished reading through: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psycholog.../09212000.html ...and... Max Planck Society - Cognition Research ...and... http://www.imprint.co.uk/Wilber.htm

Fonceai, these are red herrings. They're all articles that focus on how existing minds / brains become intelligent / how consciousness works / etc. None of these articles imply that consciousness existed before human beings / life existed.

You, myself and every else are evidence that intelligence comes about gradually. We know this because we know that we came about gradually through evolution / natural selection. If you want evidence, I can provide you with a few dozen articles from talkorigins and similar sites giving instances of observed speciation & the workings of natural selection.

You have no evidence that intelligence exists independently of this process. You're going to need to stop fallaciously shifting the burden of proof.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Captain Chaos If you cannot keep up, go play elsewhere. Pay attention to the other skeptics on this site, they will show you how to keep up.

LOL This is your rebuttal? Please take another crack. This is beneath your caliber of debate.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z You have no evidence that intelligence exists independently of this process. You're going to need to stop fallaciously shifting the burden of proof.

Bull.

I'm not shifting anything. Stop trying to hide behind fallacies of which you are ignorant.

You said it was a gradual thing.

Prove it.

I'm tired you making statements and then being evasive and cowardly when asked to provide references.

I think you're full of it and are making this stuff up. So I'm going to ask for a reference every time you say something you assert to be proven.

Either stop pulling that kind of nonsense, or just post your proof when you make the statement.

Myself, and I know Captain Chaos as well, won't let you get away with trying to bully people with your imagined B.S. any more.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z If you want evidence, I can provide you with a few dozen articles from talkorigins and similar sites giving instances of observed speciation & the workings of natural selection.

You tried this once before.

You told me you could cite "dozens of articles" and when I asked you to cite just one, you didn't.

Now you're doing it again.

Cite me just one of those references, please.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Bull. I'm not shifting anything.

I'm afraid you are. You're demanding that I prove things happen gradually, yet you seem to be under the impression this same burden doesn't exist for you with regards to proving intelligence as POSSIBLE in the beginning of the universe. Clearly, a double standard. Provide evidence similar to what you're demanding from me and stop shifting the burden of proof.

You said it was a gradual thing. Prove it.

Observed Instances of Speciation

What is evolution and how does it work?

Now that we've settled that, kindly provide evidence intelligence at the beginning of the universe is POSSIBLE.

[Fonceai]

The request was for you to provide a reference showing the development of intelligence and/or consciousness was gradual.

The first link was about development of new species.

The second link points to more links.

You didn't provide any references at all.

Before you say they are, go ahead and search for the words "sentience", "intelligence", or "consciousness" in either of those links.

They don't show up.

Quote by: Z I'm afraid you are. You're demanding that I prove things happen gradually, yet you seem to be under the impression this same burden doesn't exist for you with regards to proving intelligence as POSSIBLE in the beginning of the universe. Clearly, a double standard. Provide evidence similar to what you're demanding from me and stop shifting the burden of proof.

It's called "burden of proof."

You said it was gradual. I'm telling you to prove it.

I don't have to prove the opposite.

All you have to do is post one link. Is it all that hard?

Quote by: Z Now that we've settled that, kindly provide evidence intelligence at the beginning of the universe is POSSIBLE.

Wake up!!

I never said it was.

I just wanted you to provide some kind of reference that substantiated your statement.

Nice try, but you need to go back to Google and keep looking for a clear references.

As I wrote before... if there are "dozens" of references, why can't you provide one?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric LOL This is your rebuttal? Please take another crack. This is beneath your caliber of debate.

Actually, Zhavric, I have come to the conclusion that you simply do not offer a level of debate worth bothering with.

ItsDarts, Isherwood, and many other atheists provide intelligent debate. You just repeat the same thing over and over, and ignore the details of what your debating opponent says.

Why waste my time on you, when I can engage with the others who actually probe concepts deeply?

[nm420]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Do you assume that materialist explanations are inherently more rational? I believe that material explanations are usually more accurate, but not inherently more rational.

Yes I do, but I fear that we may be misunderstanding each other's definitions...

OK. I don't want to get tripped up on definitions. I refer to material as belonging to a universe, rather than to the outer reality.

I don't want to get bogged down in the semantics either, but it seems that line must be traversed.

I am certainly not up on any of the new various hypotheses and theories in modern physics. Things start getting waaay too complicated and, for lack of a better word, crazy, once you start going beyond elementary quantum particles and relativity, as if those subjects weren't crazy enough. The point is that we're starting to theorize about things that have been hypothesized to be true, yet these things are only indirectly observable. Certainly, this is necessary to make any progress in the field, yet I don't have as much confidence in the assertions made by experts studying quarks or string theory as I do, say, in molecular biology or neuroscience.

Regardless, all of the various conjectures put out by modern physics I follow what I would call a materialist point of view. Perhaps I'm using the term "material" in an extremely loose and unorthodox way (it is not my intention), but whenever some "thing" is hypothesized as having some explanatory or predictive power in a scientific conjecture, I call this "thing" material. Whether this stuff is said to be "dark matter" or "outer reality" or what-have-you, it is still what I would consider to be part of this "universe", even if it is said to be outside of our universe (I still have no idea what it means to be outside of reality, but whatever). The stuff in question may not take any form we've ever encountered before, but it is still asserted to exist and have an effect on the forms we are familiar with.

All of this is basically to say, if I am understanding your posts correctly, the stuff you call "nonmaterial" I would probably call "material". And so what I would call a "materialist explanation" is pretty much synonymous with deductive reasoning. Again, I'm sorry if my notion of "material" is too large of an umbrella, but that's the way it is.

From this perspective, however, the god hypothesis is a materialist explanation. A "thing" is posited to exist, and this "thing" is supposed to explain quite a bit about the known world. Yet it does not even compare to other theories, for reasons I've alluded to before. At the time when the god(s) was created, it had sufficient explanatory power as a material hypothesis. This is no longer true, and hasn't been for quite some time.

Concerning NDE's and other various phenomena, I don't think any explanation can be considered adequate without at least taking into account the physical state of the brain and the subsequent effect on the mind. It's within the realm of possibility for there to be some spiritual "nonmaterial" (though still what I would call material) world, yet if we are going to posit its existence we must still be able to explain how it affects the workings of the mind/brain complex. As we are still only barely scratching the surface of this mystery, it seems much too early to be muddying it up with yet more things we cannot directly observe. On the other hand, that perspective might be able to unlock many of the doors to this mystery. That is the beauty of science; you can research practically any conjecture you want, and if it does hold some weight it will eventually be recognized (it may take years upon years). Regardless, should it even become commonly accepted that there is some non-meat consciousness out there, this still says nothing of the god hypothesis outlined by Dawkins and asserted by the "Big 3" religions to be undeniably true.

In a nutshell: Given forever, if it is possible for a god to evolve/emerge, then it will have done so. This can be shown rather easily mathematically, assuming independent trials.

Ah, alright. But isn't that assuming an infinite universe? Given only a finite amount of time and space, the emergence of a god is highly dependent on the various assumptions made about this probability space.