Bribase wrote:

Which computer is it that you are talking about? This really is news to me.

Any computer can perform complex and intelligent behavior without actually being self-aware and conscious of its operations.

Another argument from ignorance, Joe. You're simply saying "If you can't measure it there is nothing we can know about it, and I am free to make up stuff about it."

The definition of "material" is that which has mass. The definition of physical is that which has some sort of spatio-temporal dimension. You can't define consciousness in material and physical terms as you would a brain or a pumpkin. That is because it is immaterial in nature.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Bribase wrote:

Which computer is it that you are talking about? This really is news to me.

Any computer can perform complex and intelligent behavior without actually being self-aware and conscious of its operations.

Another argument from ignorance, Joe. You're simply saying "If you can't measure it there is nothing we can know about it, and I am free to make up stuff about it."

The definition of "material" is that which has mass. The definition of physical is that which has some sort of spatio-temporal dimension. You can't define consciousness in material and physical terms as you would a brain or a pumpkin. That is because it is immaterial in nature.

It can't be immaterial in nature if it's the physical brain that does it.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Bribase wrote:

Which computer is it that you are talking about? This really is news to me.

Any computer can perform complex and intelligent behavior without actually being self-aware and conscious of its operations.

Oh, any computer. Thanks for the clarification. FYI here are some pictures of other things that aren't capable of being self aware along with computers:



I still don't see your point. You do understand that "Computers aren't capable of consciousness therefore brains aren't capable of consciousness." Is a total non sequitur, right?

Another argument from ignorance, Joe. You're simply saying "If you can't measure it there is nothing we can know about it, and I am free to make up stuff about it."

The definition of "material" is that which has mass. The definition of physical is that which has some sort of spatio-temporal dimension. You can't define consciousness in material and physical terms as you would a brain or a pumpkin. That is because it is immaterial in nature.

Would you like another list of things that don't have mass or spatial dimension? There are billions of examples. This does not prohibit us from understanding them as concepts and it does not allow you to make up whatever you want about them.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Correction: A non-material mind can't operate in the physical world without a physical brain.

I have just explained to you that God is a pre-existing uncaused first cause. The matter and energy we see in observed universe is a projection of his own being and thoughts.

This is the central problem with theology. No one comes to the conclusion that God has properties "X,Y & Z" through any form of observation. No one has ever observed a 'non material mind', or anything of that sort operating in the physical world. They just blindly assert that their God has these properties because they say so. There is quite simply no reason why anyone should take these claims seriously.

Nobody has observed consciousness as one would a table or a chair. It is a non-material experience that is entirely subjective in nature. The physical brain is the seat of the central nervous system. We can study it in great detail, although we do so through our conscious minds which we cannot materially observe in a similar fashion. The dictionary definition of consciousness is "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings." It is therefore a condition or state of existence rather than a material and physical reality which can be quantified.

LOL wtf? We haven't observed consciousness therefore God? My point stands, theists are just making shit up. They didn't even come to their conclusions through "subjective experience", they literally, just made God's attributes up on the spot to fit somewhere into reality. It's all made up.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Second, even if the universe, however one wishes to define 'universe' for the purpose of discourse, had a 'beginning', that doesn't mean that his particular favourite magic man was responsible. Indeed, given that all the evidence of things 'beginning to exist' involves testable natural processes, it is far more reasonable, in the genuine sense of the word, to postulate that other testable natural processes were at work with respect to the 'beginning' of the universe.

Observation: Anything which begins to exist has a cause.

Observation: The universe began to exist.

Deduction: The origin of the universe has a cause.

So far, so good. But what was the exact cause? What caused this cause? Well, we cannot have an infinite regression of causes unless we postulate a time of infinite duration prior to the birth of our universe. But, indeed, time and space did not even exist before our universe came into being but were themselves created with it. Therefore, whatever caused the universe must have transcended both time and space, and therefore be changeless and immaterial. It must not itself be caused but rather uncaused and beginningless (i.e. eternal). It must have set everything in motion and yet itself be unmoved (Aristotle's argument). Because of the cause of the origin of the universe does not require its own cause since it never began to exist but always existed.

Now this cause is not necessarily a "god" but it is very close to any definition of a divine being. The Kalam argument stipulates that the causal agency must be free to act according to its own will or else the effect of the cause must also be eternal. Thus, we can have a finite universe and an eternal God so long as the latter is a freely acting causal agency.

Could be that the cause of the universe is simply that it did not fail.

Carbon 12 isn't caused to exist and neither is 13C or 14C or for that matter 11C but 12C predominates in this universe because the underlying constants of our universe are such that of the isotopes of carbon, 12C is the most stable. Thus it is what remains when all the other isotopes have decayed.

This approach of considering what remains is what exists could equally apply to the universe itself. Of an uncountable number of random universe attempts this one remains because it did not decay. It is no more caused than 12C is caused compared to 11C.

Oh! Did Atheistoclast get banned for speaking the truth which evilutionists can't handle?

Anyway, is this right?

I believe an MRI can demonstrate the difference between a conscious brain and a vegetable. This would, perhaps crudely, make consciousness demonstrable and measurable, or is there something I am missing here?

Animavore wrote:Oh! Did Atheistoclast get banned for speaking the truth which evilutionists can't handle?

Anyway, is this right?

I think you would have to accept the conclusion that free will is the only possible state of existence in a non-deterministic universe. I am not sure that this is the case.

Time to revisit this.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Blackadder wrote:When the fuck did you observe that?

We have observed the hiss of the Big Bang which set the universe in motion from a single point.

Which still doesn't support assertions about a magic man. Going to address those physicists sometime?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Says who? Says you. A classic case of special pleading, fuckwittery, idiotic wibble, woo and twatbastardly nonsense. Thank you for playing. Please collect your fail certificate on your way out.

Basic logic.

Well since I demonstrated above, that a statement can be complete and utter hogwash in the real world, even if it takes the form of a logically true proposition, I think you need to re-take Basic Logic 101.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Except that if testable natural processes can fulfil the task, as a number of physicists are postulating, then your magic man is again superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. So far, all supernaturalists have is blind assertions to the contrary.

Natural processes necessarily require the existence of matter and energy. Are you asserting that matter and energy, along with time and space, pre-existed the origin of the universe?

It's not my assertion, it's the assertion of numerous leading physicists, who have reasons to suspect that said assertion is a valid assertion to erect. Of course, a little more work needs to be done before we have the robustness of evidential support that said physicists would ideally wish to see in place, but the mere fact that mathematically consistent pre-Big-Bang cosmologies, that are consonant and consilient with observed physics in this universe, are being formulated, tells those of us who pay attention to such matters, that these people might be on to something. Indeed, the fact that those cosmologies are consonant and consilient with observed physics, and don't involve wholesale violations of relevant physical laws, is one of the reasons that they are being pursued. Ideas that result in manifest violations of physical law tend to be tossed into the bin by physicists pretty quickly.

Atheistoclast wrote:Or do you believe

You really haven't paid attention to anything I've said, have you?

Learn this lesson once and for all. I reject belief itself, because, as supernaturalists keep demonstrating, belief consists of nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported blind assertions, and is therefore worthless as a source of real, substantive knowledge. This is because any idiot can make shit up and pretend that reality rearranges itself to conform to his made up shit, something supernaturalists have been doing for 5,000 years. It takes rather more effort to produce evidentially supported postulates. Once again, try spending some time learning from those physicists.

Atheistoclast wrote:that the universe popped out of nothingness contrary to the laws of reason and physics?

I don't subscribe to what is a manifest supernaturalist caricature. Plus, isn't it YOUR belief, that your magic man waved his magic todger and poofed an entire universe into existence from nothing, an idea you've just stated is "contrary to the laws of reason and physics"?

Atheistoclast wrote:If the former, you cannot escape the problem of an infinite chain of causality regressing into the infinite past.

Why should this be a problem? It's only a problem for people with limited imaginations, who therefore have to resort to mythology, because it's easier than doing the hard work of learning real science.

Atheistoclast wrote:Of course, an infinite regression can be conceived as terminating at a point an infinite distance away. So there can still be a first cause that sets in motion this infinite chain of causality.

I suspect a Mr G. Cantor might like a word with you here.

Atheistoclast wrote:But this primal cause

Which is merely asserted to exist ...

Atheistoclast wrote:is itself uncaused and therefore beginningless and eternal.

And once again, blind assertions to the effect that an entity possessing such properties has to be a magic man, are merely that - blind assertions.

Atheistoclast wrote:Such a being

Who says a sentient entity is needed at all? This is another blind supernaturalist assertion.

Atheistoclast wrote:would have to be divine.

Blind assertion once more.

Atheistoclast wrote:I rest my case.

You call "my blind assertions dictate how reality behaves because of other blind assertions" a case?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Except that if testable natural processes can fulfil the task, as a number of physicists are postulating, then your magic man is again superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. So far, all supernaturalists have is blind assertions to the contrary.

Natural processes necessarily require the existence of matter and energy. Are you asserting that matter and energy, along with time and space, pre-existed the origin of the universe? Or do you believe that the universe popped out of nothingness contrary to the laws of reason and physics? If the former, you cannot escape the problem of an infinite chain of causality regressing into the infinite past. Of course, an infinite regression can be conceived as terminating at a point an infinite distance away. So there can still be a first cause that sets in motion this infinite chain of causality. But this primal cause is itself uncaused and therefore beginningless and eternal. Such a being would have to be divine. I rest my case.

How did god, a mind that supposedly exists in the absense of a physical brain(an idea that we have no justification for believing), cause something that doesn't exist(the universe) to begin existing, from litterally nothing?

Causation only works when you have entitites that already exist. God can't causally influence something which isn't there.

And minds can't exist in the absense of physical brains.

Correction: A non-material mind can't operate in the physical world without a physical brain.

And once again, you're presuming your assertions as purported "conclusions" beforehand. We have zero evidence for a "non material mind" of any sort. When your brain chemistry shuts down for the last time at some point in the future, that's it - your mind ceases to be from that point on.

Atheistoclast wrote:I have just explained to you

You haven't "explained" anything, you've merely parroted your usual blind assertions.

Atheistoclast wrote:that God is a pre-existing uncaused first cause.

Correction, this entity is merely asserted to be thus, just as it is merely asserted to exist.

Atheistoclast wrote:The matter and energy we see in observed universe is a projection of his own being and thoughts.

Blind assertion once more. Got anything other than assertions to present here?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Correction: A non-material mind can't operate in the physical world without a physical brain.

I have just explained to you that God is a pre-existing uncaused first cause. The matter and energy we see in observed universe is a projection of his own being and thoughts.

This is the central problem with theology. No one comes to the conclusion that God has properties "X,Y & Z" through any form of observation. No one has ever observed a 'non material mind', or anything of that sort operating in the physical world. They just blindly assert that their God has these properties because they say so. There is quite simply no reason why anyone should take these claims seriously.

Nobody has observed consciousness as one would a table or a chair.

Ahem, some neuroscientists would like a word with you. Such as these people.

Atheistoclast wrote:It is a non-material experience that is entirely subjective in nature.

Yawn. Read the above research I pointed you to.

Atheistoclast wrote:The physical brain is the seat of the central nervous system. We can study it in great detail, although we do so through our conscious minds which we cannot materially observe in a similar fashion.

Those neuroscientists want a word with you again.

Atheistoclast wrote:The dictionary definition of consciousness

Dictionaries are compiled with lay language usage in mind, and are frequently lacking in rigorous scientific definitions. Do learn this elementary lesson sometime.

Atheistoclast wrote:is "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings."

You think an insect isn't awake and aware of its surroundings? I think you'll find that quite a few insects are more awake and aware of their surroundings than a good number of human beings. Who frequently find out that there's a horsefly in the vicinity only after it's bitten a chunk out of their hands.

Atheistoclast wrote:It is therefore a condition or state of existence rather than a material and physical reality which can be quantified.

Those neuroscientists want a word with you again.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Bribase wrote:Unfortunately everything we have learned from neuroanatomy is that when a person loses the use of certain parts of their brain they experience deterioration in their ability to be awake and aware of their surroundings. Their cognitive ability is absolutely dependent on having a functioning brain. There is no precedent for the existence of an immaterial mind beyond another one of your rather stupid arguments from ignorance.

Again, you are confusing necessary with sufficient causality.

No, you're confusing apologetic fabrication with fact.

Atheistoclast wrote:Yes, we need a functioning brain to sense the material world and process the information we receive from our eyes, ears, tongue and nose. But a computer's "brain" can do as much without actually being self-aware of its environment.

Which rather knocks on the head your implied earlier assertion that this requires some special sort of magic input from your magic man, doesn't it?

Atheistoclast wrote:The brain itself does not generate the consciousness we experience.

Poppycock. Damage a brain and you alter consciousness emanating from that brain. Decades of real scientific research have established this. Funny how all the evidence points to consciousness being manipulable by physical or chemical manipulation of the brain.

Atheistoclast wrote:Moreover, even if we do assume that the mind is merely the product of a physical brain, the conscious mind is not itself material.

It's the product of physical states of the neurons upon which it resides, and disappears when those neurons stop working, therefore it is a material phenomenon.

Atheistoclast wrote:You can't measure and quantify the mind as you would the brain.

Cue those neuroscientists again ...

Atheistoclast wrote:Consciousness is a quintessentially subjective experience and state of being rather than an object of physical proportions and spatial dimension.

Once again ... hello, come and meet these neuroscientists ...

Atheistoclast wrote:

Give it up.

Oh, so I should just defer to your own unsupported assertions?

Pot, kettle, black. I'll point you at those neuroscientists again.

Atheistoclast wrote:I think not.

The one true statement you've issued thus far in this thread.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Bribase wrote:Which computer is it that you are talking about? This really is news to me.

Any computer can perform complex and intelligent behavior without actually being self-aware and conscious of its operations.

So you're now saying that a mechanical, mindless entity can perform intelligent processing. Rather screws your earlier apologetics about intelligence being some sort of magic entity requiring a magic man to produce, doesn't it?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Another argument from ignorance, Joe. You're simply saying "If you can't measure it there is nothing we can know about it, and I am free to make up stuff about it."

The definition of "material" is that which has mass.

Photons, anyone? Which are required to be massless in order to be force-carriers for the electromagnetic force, and still possess infinite range. Plus, there's still some dispute over the mass of the neutrino.

Atheistoclast wrote:The definition of physical is that which has some sort of spatio-temporal dimension.

Particles are point entities, and have zero extension in space.

Atheistoclast wrote:You can't define consciousness in material and physical terms as you would a brain or a pumpkin.

Hello ... neuroscientists? Come over here and teach this person something, will you?

Atheistoclast wrote:That is because it is immaterial in nature.

Blind assertion unsupported by evidence. See those neuroscientists? They want a word with you.

Atheistoclast wrote:you cannot escape the problem of an infinite chain of causality regressing into the infinite past.

And you run into the exact same problem with an eternal god. The thoughts of an eternal god would represent an infinite regress.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Except that if testable natural processes can fulfil the task, as a number of physicists are postulating, then your magic man is again superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. So far, all supernaturalists have is blind assertions to the contrary.

Natural processes necessarily require the existence of matter and energy. Are you asserting that matter and energy, along with time and space, pre-existed the origin of the universe? Or do you believe that the universe popped out of nothingness contrary to the laws of reason and physics? If the former, you cannot escape the problem of an infinite chain of causality regressing into the infinite past. Of course, an infinite regression can be conceived as terminating at a point an infinite distance away. So there can still be a first cause that sets in motion this infinite chain of causality. But this primal cause is itself uncaused and therefore beginningless and eternal. Such a being would have to be divine. I rest my case.

How did god, a mind that supposedly exists in the absense of a physical brain(an idea that we have no justification for believing), cause something that doesn't exist(the universe) to begin existing, from litterally nothing?

Causation only works when you have entitites that already exist. God can't causally influence something which isn't there.
And minds can't exist in the absense of physical brains.

Correction: A non-material mind can't operate in the physical world without a physical brain.

Correction: The existence of a non-material mind is nothing more than an assertion.