@NexisFilms Apparently you haven't seen "The Four Horsemen." It is a two-hour panel with Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennet. It is free to watch on google video.
@TheArchermonkey (mostly, but not only part - 4)...If there would be anything interacting with the brain, it would be measurable (by definition) or/and it would contradict ground rules of physics (yes, that doesn't mean it is false). And therefore it is absurd (=highly unlikely/small probability). Based on our current scientific knowledge any assumption, that mind and consciousness are not the product of the structure and matter is wishfull, tendencious.
@TheArchermonkey (mostly, but not only - part 3)...the (entire) system to gain a specific state (wavefunction collapse). The state of the system changes, it doesn't matter, that it is probabilistic, it was before and after real, just the understanding of "what was before" showed the limits of the classical physics language. And I don't know any QM effect, which has influence on the brain (or mind). Can you tell me (I'm not a neurobiologist)?
@TheArchermonkey (mostly, but not only - part 2)...that this software is unique, maybe just a small customization, but still unique. To be proven wrong (as analogy), the software had to be stored elsewhere, which is not the case he based the examples (his experiments) in the video on. Actually, I think you are misinterpreting the Copenhagen interpretation :). Reality means existence (by definition, just different words). The result of QM (Copenhagen interpretation) is that measurement forces...
@TheArchermonkey (mostly, but not only - part 1) can you tell me the experimental results which suggests the non-material/natural perspective? I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you. His analogy is quite good. Why? Software needs hardware. Functions (not only variables) "consume" memory too. If a part of the hardware is destroyed, where the software is stored, that means the software is lost too (or a part). Don't forget, that christian (not necessarily yours) point of view is,...
@ArcanaKnight You try and berate me simply because I used the "hypothesis" aren't you the petty cunt. thats what your arguing about moron figure it out, stupid? Your replies deserve only repeats
Ill quote mine you now "That doesn't change the fact that its not detectable now. Just because its possible that we might someday find evidence which may support the existence of something doesn't mean that it is reasonable" When Charles Darwin first proposed his "hypothesis" on the theory of evolution there was little supporting evidence. As time went on the evidence shows that Charles is right and evolution can now be considered a fact. I doubt you understand the scientific method at all.
@stalkingcat123 "When Charles Darwin first proposed his "hypothesis" on the theory of evolution there was little supporting evidence." There's a BIG difference between the initial evidence supporting evolution and the "evidence" you claim supports your "hypothesis" about consciousness; that you don't see the difference is just sad. Also, your "hypothesis" is more akin to ID than ET; your claims are functionally no different than the naturalistic one, you've just added BS to it.
@ArcanaKnight I explained my limited knowlege on this proposed hypothesis to answer your loaded question then told you to find out more by yourself. Then you attacked me like a troll.
@stalkingcat123 "Then you attacked me like a troll." No, you've been posting this untestable BS like a troll, tried to support it with even more BS, and then started trying to back away by saying "I was just asking questions" when I called you on it. Why else would you keep defending this "hypothesis" you brought up when you don't even believe its right?
@ArcanaKnight I say again I heard this on a documentary which you seem to think is bullshit for some reason? I gave you the limited info I remember, to simply answer your stupid question not defend the hypothesis. Instead of adding relevant information in a constructive manner, you try and berate me? Fact is you are more concerned with propagating some silly opinion then actually having a hypothetical discussion. Do you understand the context of our discussion now? Nope? Okay.
@stalkingcat123 "I gave you the limited info I remember" So you're actually surprised that I don't take your half-remembered factoids seriously?
"...then actually having a hypothetical discussion" I've just been pointing out the problems with your hypothetical situation, you just got incredibly defensive because of it, ignored the questions I asked, and then resorted to your childish insults.
@ArcanaKnight You do understand this whole debate on afterlife is hypothetical right? It's not real. Please tell me you don't believe everything you hear and/or read? Do you get the context of our discussion yet? No? Didn't think so. I await your pointless and to be frank useless reply, that will infact make my nose bleed at how pointless it is. Just like each of your previous replies. Its so funny your arguing about somthing else and Im trying to explain to you,thats not thepoint
@ArcanaKnight You do understand this whole debate on afterlife is hypothetical right? It's not real. Please tell me you don't believe everything you hear and/or read? Do you get the context of our discussion yet? No? Didn't think so. I await your pointless and to be frank useless reply, that will infact make my nose bleed at how pointless it is. Just like each of your previous replies. Its so funny your arguing about somthing else and Im trying to explain to you,thats not the point
FUCK YEAH! every one please have a seat!! We got ourselves a YouTube argument! Popcorn is in the cupboard to the left! Watch as these two people go head to head in a battle that leads no where!
I don't see why this is a good point. Software can be freely transmitted from one hardware to another. So, if we accept the proposition that the mind operates like software on the hardware of the brain, then we must also accept that its function isn't uniquely related to specific hardware, but simply *any* hardware that can run it. That is, your brain could be mashed to shit, but transmitting the software to some other hardware would allow you to use it all over again.
But we know that that isn't true. Not only can data be backed up, data is recoverable. Particularly, the more swiftly it's recovered after physical damage, the more data can be recovered more perfectly. We also know that if our computers are destroyed, Windows 7, Microsoft Office, (insert software here) doesn't cease to exist. But, my only point is that if we accept proposition x, then we must accept all propositions (possibilities) necessarily entailed by proposition x.
@dmiller185 Actually, it is true. Data is backed up by interaction with other hardware. All of the recovery processes require interaction with other hardware which is where the analogy fails. Translating the above analogy to X named software does not work either as the said software is a template and not unique data represented by individual systems. Another reason why this analogy is insufficient is because data is to hardware what ideas are to the body .. cont.
The mind represents consciousness, self awareness and cognitive ability which isn't quite transferable. Data on the other hard, like ideas, can be shared between sentient beings. If one being is destroyed/dies, the idea still exists if it were shared before destruction (interaction with other hardware) but the mind does not exist. So Harris' point still stands.
@orion00 If mind represents consciousness, self awareness and cognitive ability and you say "but the mind does not exist." then that must mean consciousness, self awareness and cognitive ability do not exist. It would be more appropriate to compare "mind" to "creativity." We can map the brain firing signals but that doesn't show us how the brain relates/reacts to physical environment. Most complex organ we have is the brain. Pyneal Gland and DMT interesting research being done.
@stalkingcat123 Unintentional quote mine :P? I said that once the being is destroyed, the ideas (by this I mean ideas him/her has shared) can exist but the being's mind does not. The qualifier here is the person's death.
What if the "spirit" is like a signal from another universe or dimension and operates like a tv, you break the tv you still have the signal. You damage the brain the signal just doesn't come through but its there. I have no way of testing this hypothesis...yet.
@stalkingcat123 "you break the tv you still have the signal" Yes, but if you "break" the brain, you don't just get a dampened or fuzzy signal, you can get drastic, fundamental changes in a person's personality.
@ArcanaKnight A part of a signal not coming through can explain the fundamental change. If you destroy your memory the part of the signal for memory doesn't come through. Or like a puppet cut a sting the arm is still there but the one arm can't operate or "recieve the signal."
@stalkingcat123 According to that rationale, how exactly is this "signal not coming through" belief of yours functionally any different than consciousness just being a result of biology?
@ArcanaKnight When a group of molecules comes together to form "life" conciousness "bubbles?" up from this exrta dimension. Because its from an extra dimension it is very difficult to percieve or detect. As I said I have no way of testing this. So my current understanding is the same as yours that conciousness is just the back and forth of signals in the brain. That said there is still alot we dont know about the pyneal gland and the brain.
@stalkingcat123 That is utter nonsense. Now, not only are you making wild, completely unsupported claims about consciousness, but you're also trying to use the supposed existence of some other dimension (of which there is also absolutely no evidence) to try and help explain it.
@ArcanaKnight Wow, you are really uninformed. If you are interested in learning more about what I am talking about google it, instead of getting on some imaginary high horse. I never said this was my personal belief, so I don't have to defend it. I remind you I stated my understanding of consciousness is the same as yours. The hypothesis is very lengthy and there isn't enough character space for it in a youtube comment box. *sigh* It involves Multiverse theory, look it up.
@stalkingcat123 "I never said this was my personal belief, so I don't have to defend it" Just because its not original to you doesn't mean that you don't have to defend the claims you're making. Also, m-theory is still entirely hypothetical (possibly completely untestable), so it still doesn't really change anything.
@ArcanaKnight Thats untrue, I heard somthing about an experiment schedualed for 2013 that will prove of disprove the theory. Its only a theory mostly due to the double slit experiment, otherwise M-theory would be M-hypothesis. You are incorrect about it being untestable. Science can only go as far as our technology. In fifty years who knows what particles will be able to detect. I never claimed it to be true so again I do not have to defend it, reading comprehension use it!
@stalkingcat123 "I heard somthing about an experiment schedualed..." Right, because half-remembered facts are so reliable.
"You are incorrect about it being untestable." So how exactly would one test it then? Also, notice how I said "possibly" untestable? Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to attack others for their reading comprehension.
" I never claimed it to be true..." If you're not trying to make the claim, then why even bring it up in the first place?
CONT "In fifty years who knows what particles will be able to detect." That doesn't change the fact that its not detectable now. Just because its possible that we might someday find evidence which may support the existence of something doesn't mean that it is reasonable to claim that it exists today.
@ArcanaKnight *sigh* Reading comprehension I guess you have to be born with it.The first three words of my original post? I simply posed a question you dont have all the information on. You're putting words in mouth, and you certainly are not making me look stupid. I told you time and time again in my first post even "I have no way of testing this hypothesis" Its not my personal belief.
Like I said if you're interested in this hypothesis go and learn about it. I'm not your teacher.
@stalkingcat123 "The first three words of my original post?" You didn't actually say that it wasn't your personal belief until much later in the discussion. It also doesn't change the fact that your little "what if" scenario you proposed is an still unsupported flight of fancy; its currently an untestable hypothesis at best.
@ArcanaKnight Are you stupid? were dropped on your head. Is your method of refuting people to repeat what they say in different words? every single reply is you telling somthing I have already said. First comment re read it second comment re read it and so on. Read carefully. If you dont have any relevant or useful info, fuck off please. Your opinion means nothing to me.
@ArcanaKnight Well, I reply because your funny. You have a poor grasp of science, poor reading comprehension, and poor debating skills. I posed a question, if it interested you its up to you to do your own research and examine the evidence on a per case basis. I think its hilarious now you try to psycho analyze me? It seems you care more about your opinion then actually looking for and examining evidence. Just as bad as creotards, and you claim to be pro-science?. Tsk tsk.
@stalkingcat123 "if it interested you its up to you to do your own research" Its not my job to do both sides of the argument. If you'll recall, you were the one proposing the scenario, and then proceeded to try backing it up with ridiculous arguments and even more untestable claims.
"...then actually looking for and examining evidence" Except that, by your own admission, there's no evidence to examine. If there were, then it wouldn't be untestable.
@ArcanaKnight Lol, like trying to talk to a wall. For the 4th time I posed a question, if you have any revelant information please share, otherwise I dont know why you're talking to me lol. I never said "there is no evidence" There is that reading comprehension thing again.
I'll help you out here. "Hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." You get the point, mister wasting our time :)
@stalkingcat123 "I posed a question" Yes, then you spent the next couple posts trying to defend that scenario, and have since tried to elevate it to a hypothesis.
By your own definition, your "question" doesn't qualify as a hypothesis because its not based on "limited evidence", its apparently based on no evidence whatsoever. Also, for it to be a valid hypothesis it needs to be testable, which it isn't. Your little "hypothesis" fails in pretty much every way possible.
@ArcanaKnight And again no comprehension what so ever, or you deliberatly take everything out of context. It is a hypothesis the limited evidence comes from several fields including but not limited to physics, biology, and chemistry. Look up M-theory. Its not like you provided any counter evidence just attacks and quote mining out of context. If you have relevent information please share otherwise, everyting you have said has no relevance.because its out of context.
@stalkingcat123 "Look up M-theory." M-theory doesn't actually support your claims, your claims are just reliant on m-theory being true to work. And again, there's functionally no difference between your "hypothesis" and consciousness being just a result of physiology.
"Its not like you provided any counter evidence" You never provided any evidence that needed to be countered, you just kept making bald assertions. You're falsely assuming that you're right until proven wrong.
@ArcanaKnight again I never said they were right. Imagine you some crap about christianity, this " crap hypothesis" I know from watching some documentary with Michio Kaku.
@ArcanaKnight I will also explain again, clearly. My understanding of consciousness is the same as yours. Do you understand? Was this clear enough for you? Want me to try in Spanish?Fuck
We can predict that by damaging specific parts of a signal receiver/processor such as radio, it will lose specific functions. The damage has no affect on the signal.
@chatman772 "so you're claiming you don't exist which really means you've just said nothing."
From that comment, I understand why don't see the illogic of your question, which I was referring to: you're forcing others to anthropomorphize when there is no justification for doing so. Define the "who" or provide just cause for using "who," your question is so vague as to be meaningless. You need to ask better questions.
I believe that the universe and cosmos exists deep within the confines of Oprah Winfrey's rectum. How do you know that it doesn't? We may be microscopic matter living within the rectal orifice of another organism much larger than the cosmos we assume exists. The possibility exists??!?
If computer hardware is damaged, then software ceases to function properly, whether that damage is in information input (say a keyboard or a mouse), information output (like a monitor or speakers), information processing, memory, etc. But as long as the files themselves aren't corrupted (say the program is run from a DVD or flash drive or website), then there is no reason that the damage to the hardware should have any effect upon the software, only on the software's function on that hardware.
If a point is made using the software analogy, the point should stick to the analogy as far as it is well analogous. If consciousness is be analogous to software and the brain to hardware it is not absurd to accept that if the software is taken from the damaged system that it will still work with it's original parameters. It is in fact a logical conclusion. Damage to the hardware of the computer running the software does not damage the software itself.
@TheArchermonkey but, knowing what we do about the evolution of brains and minds, what makes you think this is an appropriate analogy in the first place. ..or that we can separate software from hardware.
@adstanra I'm using Harris' analogy. It's certainly not my favourite one, but the point which he tries to use to demonstrate the absurdity of the position is not, in fact, absurd, examining the internal logic of his analogy.
@TheArchermonkey i am not sure exactly what SH position is on dualism....but he has argued that the brain/mind is interconnected......he points out how damage to the brain directly affects the brain. What makes you think that mind is a separate entity from brain ? what makes you think mind cannot be explained through natural means.
@adstanra At no point have I ever suggested that the mind cannot be explained through natural means. But materialist and natural are not synonyms. I am not Christian, nor am I arguing a for Christian perspective. My disagreement with Harris' point is that he makes it with an analogy, but then departs from the analogy in order to make an opposing position seem absurd. I don't necessarily think his conclusion is wrong, but his point is flawed and certainly not 'game, set and match'.
@TheArchermonkey well, I will admit i will have to review what he said. In what way do you think material and natural are not the same? ....I might agree that energy is not material....but this is just a definitional thing. What is your point contra SH exactly?
@adstanra The brain is material, but the mind is not. Assuming a dualist perspective, both are existent, and both are natural, even though only one is material. A materialist sees the mind as an illusion arising from the functioning of the brain, and therefore only the brain is existent and natural.
As to my central point, take a look at my first posts you replied to. (The ones beginning with "If computer hardware is damaged..." and "If a point is made...".) It's in those.
@TheArchermonkey do you think for eg, there is an archetype, Dog. In what way is the mind not simply the functioning of the brain? how do I separate the thing from its function.....why would I try? is glomerular filtration a thing that exists apart from the kidney?
@adstanra Archetypes and the existence thereof have nothing to do with mind/body dualism. As for how the mind may be more than the functioning of the brain, there are many ways, but the one which I find most convincing is in the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (the Copenhagen interpretation) which mandates that reality does not become really real until it is observed.
@adstanra I find the premise that there is something about the particular configuration of cells and atoms and particles that make up the brain which somehow manages to collapse a single version of reality from infinite potential to be frankly ludicrous. To me it seems implausible that there is not something interacting beyond the configuration of particles and electrical impulses in the brain. In this way the thing seems to me to be significantly cruder than its' function.
@TheArchermonkey besides, SH is trying to point out the intimate connection between what we call mind and the brain......do you think , it is warranted, given today's state of knowledge, that mind can exist apart from the brain......or even more imaginative...apart from space and time...as theists suggest...if so, what evidence do you have of this?
@adstanra See my comments on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In keeping with that, I find that it is likely (though not yet proven - this is an important distinction) that the mind is in some way beyond the material. If that is the case, then it is also likely beyond space and time, as space and time have no meaning in the absence of (or super-abundance of) matter and energy.
@TheArchermonkey " If that is the case, then it is also likely beyond space and time, as space and time have no meaning in the absence of (or super-abundance of) matter and energy.".....
what ? are you speaking Depeek here?.....are you suggesting that quantum physics suggests that my mind is beyond space and time....that is a hell of an" interpretation' of quantum physics ....how do you explain the alterations in mind fuctioning with brain damage?
But that doesn't make the software of a computer some kind of magical entity, it can still be damaged and destroyed, this analogy fails to support mind body dualism. If you destroy a computer, rip it apart down to every component, burn it, etc. EVERYTHING will be gone. Same with the human brain and mind.
@Staunts That may be so, or it may not, but the analogy does not support this. Neither does the science. Materialism is, quite literally, an article of faith. I'm not saying that it is a religious position, but neither is it a scientific one: there is not a single experiment that demonstrates materialism as accurate over dualism. There is the belief that materialism has taken us this far and will answer every question which has not yet been solved. But that's 19th century thinking.
Not so much materialism, but how about naturalism? Even most theists will agree that god has an immutable 'nature,' which is not a conscious thing. Just as the components of our brain are not conscious, but put together facilitate the phenomenon of consciousness.
@Staunts The stance that the mind is epiphenomenal of the brain IS a materialist perspective as it indicates, without evidence, that the non-material is an illusion arising from the interactions of the material. There is no scientific evidence for this, nor against it, though there are facts and experimental results which are suggestive of either conclusion.
@Staunts The 20th century brought us quantum mechanics, and chaos theory and a whole host of challenges to the fundamental assumptions of the materialist perspective. Local reality has been disproven (Google search this to understand) and with it the mechanistic perspective which made materialism so appealing to the likes of Newton and Galileo. I am not saying that dualism has been proven, either, but materialism has certainly not, and Sam Harris' comments here do not prove it, either.
Materialism could be challenged but it still wouldn't follow that this non materialistic world favors us, such that we are privileged to have eternal consciousness or that such a thing could even exist. Everything we know about mind and brain tells us that consciousness is contingent on a material medium. Even a god's mind would require some means of function which it could not be responsible for the existence of, thus unconscious nature could be the only true constant.
@Staunts You are making points that have nothing at all to do with my criticism of Harris' argument in the video. Further, if there is some form of deity it does not follow that it should be of the same order or restrictions as us. Though the pantheist perspective you suggest does hold some appeal for me, admittedly, it is only suggested by scientific observation, just as an atheistic, or panentheist perspective can also be suggested by scientific observation.
@Staunts I should point out that I have no agenda here to conclude that God exists, or that there are choirs of angels awaiting us on our deaths. A materialist perspective would exclude those things, but taking a dualist perspective does not mean that I am trying to include them. I am merely aware of the line between proven scientific fact, and assumption, and I don't like to see it blurred by sophistry. Particularly when that blurring relies on an internally inconsistent argument.
@64wonderboy Well, there is always the indisputable fossil record. But what is your theory? That a man with supernatural abilities created us 7,000 years ago? Only to make rules to love him with everything in our being and if you don't you will burn in the underworld for all time and eternity? please....
With that said Sam is clearly right to critique the naive dualism that minds and brains are completely independent of each other, they clearly are not.But even Sam admits that "the truth is that we simply do not know what happens after death" (End of Faith page 208) Again I'm not advocating cartesian dualism for a second but there is a lot more to consider here. Philosophically speaking I consider myself a neutral monist.
@Prometheus1df The dualist argument is not that minds and brains are completely independent, but rather that they are separable, like a computer is with its' software. One will not function in any meaningful way (in a material context) without the other, but that does not make them identical.
Don't lash out at me now,I'm not religious although I do consider myself spiritual which as far as I'm concerned is something completely different.But the real question is whether consciousness is being produced or recieved by the brain. "the idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present" - Sam Harris, End of Faith Page 208 "Consciousness may be a far more rudimentary phenomenon than are living creatures and their brains" Page 209
I have never heard any one refute the possibility of an after-life so simply and articulately. It cannot be said any better than Sam Harris just said it.
@herpderpmonkey Evolution is science, so how can science create humankind when humankind created science. That's called a call contradicting statement. You can't create something that you claimed created you. It's like a mother giving birth to her parents.
@chatman772 ... not sure if you're being serious here. Science didn't create anything. Science isn't a force, it's a methodology for learning and understanding things. It's a process by which we learn the truth about things, without our natural bias clouding our conclusions. Humankind set up this process to understand what got us here, how our world works, and have the best possible guesses as to where we're going.
@chatman772 That's completely fallacious. 1+1 was always 2 regardless of when humans came to existence. There was still gravity, there was still thermodynamics. Science is just a tool for humans to understand phenomena (like how we created the cartesian number system). It's completely arbitrary; it's not some force that CAUSES evolution. Evolution is just a natural mechanism on lift on Earth.
You're pretty unlearned... Go take some science classes and learn something.
@chatman772 And also, you need to SERIOUSLY work on your forensic skills. Your analogy is completely wrong (do you really not see that??); you have no understanding of how evolution works and you should stop and actually TRY to look at things openly from other perspectives instead of your ideological view.
Chemistry is a science, so how can science create humans when molecules and chemical reactions makes up our composition and runs our bodies? See the flaw in that analogy?
Superficially this makes sense, but if the physical apparatus of the brain is simply the tool a non-physical essence uses to focus into a 4D physical world, it no longer does. If that's the case the non-physical essence would not be able to perceive correctly once the apparatus was damaged, but still be undamaged itself. It would also be able to leave, faculties intact, once it passed into a non-physical dimension in which physical tools like brains, arms, and legs are no longer possible/useful.
@attitudinous Sam Harris said there are reasons to believe that the proposition isn't true. He didn't say it wasn't true, and he didn't say he believed it to be true; he said there are good reasons. That leaves it open for a future someone to come along to refute him with new evidence. Is it possible he is wrong? Yes. But in order to refute him, you must present counter-evidence.
My mother had an aneurysm (probably from smoking 2 packs a day but that's just speculative) and then had a stroke on the operating table affecting the left side of the mid-brain. What Harris says is true.. The Personality/soul/mentality/morals etc... are all gone. It's not like "the soul is intact and the words just don't come out". You still grieve the loss of the person you know, whether the body lives on or not.
There is nothing inherently fallible about science. science is not inherently a practice or study, it is a philosophical process: percieve, infer, analyse, test, and conclude.
the science practiced today and taught does not include re-evaluating perceptions and inferences, but presumes that which is concrete, and then goes on with the last 3 steps in the process.
One is not open to something greater if he presumes a concrete reality. sorry. obvious.
@Sudhish86 You have misrepresented what science is. Science requires objectivity and the perpetual suspension of all preconceived notions of truth and fact. Above all, science demands humility. Scientifically derived theories are not absolute truths. Believers in absolutes have trouble with that, as you apparently do.
@jjb1310. It is not rejecting preconcieved notions, it is testing them out to see if they still work in accordance with each other in accordance to what new phenomena you've observed. the idea of rejecting preconcieved notions began as a fad during the enlightenment era. I call it a fad because all notions are what serve as our premises. This is obvious with consideration, is it not? concrete evidence isn't what rationalizes notions or not; the observations and inferences do...
I guess there are some people that simply cannot comprehend what its like to have a mind emancipated from the constraints of theism. Having a conversation with the likes of 12Ominous, it's clear that that lack of comprehension makes it impossible to engage them in an intellectually honest debate. As long as they insist that disbelief in a god is just the flipside of belief in a god, then we will never find common ground for a serious debate. Theists want it both ways, and that's repugnant.
@jjb1310 .......o how I wish I had a mind that as free and brilliant as yours. To form a conclusion that something doesn't exist because it doesn't bring you trinkets, that could very well be multiple Universe's away in which the laws of physics as we know them do not apply, keep in mind one universe spans at least diameter of 150,000,000,000 light years, is a belief. How many times have stopped your car to say hi to an at hill at the side of the road that you barely noticed?
@12Ominous Maybe you should wish that you weren't encumbered with a god complex. Arrogance is believing you have an answer with no evidence to support it. Science requires humility. Science is about discovery. Faith is about finding comfort in ignorance.
@jjb1310 Just because I am not A doesn't mean I am B. I am not a theist, I am also not an atheist, they are both arrogant positions in their own ways. Thinking you have the mental capacity to understand and comprehend everything and furthermore thinking you can become all-knowing, the antonym of ignorance, is arrogant. Empirical evidence isn't the only valid form of evidence, that's scientific dogma, I would trust more a human's intuition than someone's lack of evidence.
@jjb1310 Just because evidence isn't available to you to prove the other 80% of the world around your little ant hill at the side of the road, doesn't mean that other 80% of the world doesn't exist.
@12Ominous You are being defiantly obtuse. You are also intellectually dishonest. An atheist (a term that serves to distinguish oneself from a theist...I prefer to call myself a skeptic) doesn't believe in unprovable absolute truths about the universe. You are claiming there might be one...or many. That is faith. That is what a deist or a theist believes. You must "pick a side". Intuition is scientifically provable. You are engaging in "magical thinking"; junk science.
@jjb1310 They are both positions of moderate belief. Faith is a strong, confident belief in something. My belief is a merely a moderate hypothesis about the universe, based on pattern recognition and logic, not empirical evidence, but also not faith (I am a deist/agnostic). I believe for the most part I don't know, but my logic and intuition tells me that it is possible that something created the Universe for some sort of reason.
@12Ominous There's nothing "moderate" about formulating a hypothesis without empirical evidence while simultaneously criticizing the scientific method as "arrogant'. That is radical. That is the core argument of "intelligent design". That is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.
@jjb1310 A hypothesis is nothing more than an untested observation. The scientific method is a human concoction, like all things created by humans, it has flaws, it demands there be solid empirical evidence for everything, the very notion is arrogant, the very notion that the human eye can perceive, feel, comprehend everything, that all things are within reach of humans is the embodiment of arrogance. Attach whatever pejorative you wish.
@jjb1310 *The human eye can perceive, we can can feel/comprehend everything. The human method is not infallible, nor are humans, it is arrogant to maintain this, is it not?
@12Ominous I'm sorry, but there is nothing "arrogant" about science and the scientific method. In fact, it is the exact opposite. But it is unequivocally arrogant to make that claim when there is no evidence to support it. Your argument about human fallibility is a non sequitur. It is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
@jjb1310 No, but there is arrogance in concluding that because you can't prove something, or because evidence doesn't exist in your own little world that it there for must not exist. I was never making a scientific argument for the plausibility of a creator of whatever sort, science is limited and not able to determine this, it is limited by technology, our intellectual capacity and our relatively short life spans. Philosophy can lead us to approximate truths by means of logic and reason.
@12Ominous So, in essence, you believe the scientific method is not valid unless it uses empirical evidence to disprove a belief in something that does not depend on that empirical evidence. Can you not see the fallacy of that argument?
@jjb1310 It is not so much a fallacious argument, so much as my argument presents a paradox. Science depends on empirical evidence under the arrogant notion that if something existed, evidence would exist within our plain of existence, be within our grasp, be visible to us, and measurable by our technology. What we're looking for however may not be. I am not stating the scientific method itself is invalid, so much as I am stating we are not currently capable of applying it on this level.
@12Ominous So the paradox is philosophical. But if the scientific method is solely concerned with debunking or supporting a predetermined absolute philosophical truth (as you apparently believe it should), then it's no longer valid. Insistence that science must be used to solve this philosophical paradox is no less wrongheaded than claiming that science presumes to know everything there is to know.
@jjb1310 The paradox concerns Science not philosophy. Science is not capable of assessing the truths which it seeks to rectify. It's trying to film molecules with a handheld camcorder and concluding everything isn't composed of atoms because your the handheld camcorder didn't capture them. Ok, lets wrap this up, I can't even recall my original argument now.
@jjb1310 Yes. Science may become more capable in the future, but science can only reach as far as our capabilities will allow it. Philosophy allows us to at least some degree make sense of everything on a hypothetical, intangible level. I'm not sure I even have a dissenting contention from you. Our only difference is you lack belief in any theistic God, I lack belief in the same thing but I haven't rule out the possibility of a catalytic entity or a mover based on my lack of faith is Science
@12Ominous Interesting exchange, folks. Seems we are still mired in the swamp, where we "see" what we want, or have been trained to see. Occasionally, though, we are "forced" to "see", by unforeseen expedients, which, again, leave us mired in the swamp, because, for example, who really listens to the person who smells like an old urinal and wanders around in deep conversation with....whatever or whomever?
Is a real connection with the divine that difficult to express?
@xlsyor That is why we have, in my opinion, poetry and art. Religion is certainly poetry, but falls flat attempting to be rational and compete with rational systems of thought, like science, which is its own "religion".
.there is no way to obtain evidence of a cosmic force that may be a Universe away. So your belief that there is no God can be incorrect."
What a bogus argument. An atheist is not looking for evidence of a God. An atheist simply says there is no evidence of a God. There is no compelling need among atheists to find evidence to prove (or disprove) a belief in a God. But that doesn't mean there is no compelling human need among atheists to understand life and the universe.
Atheists and skeptics rely on logic and reason and they don't believe in something without evidence, which is exactly what faith is all about. There is no evidence that any God has ever existed outside the wishful thinking of those that believe it to be true.
@oooBOOSHooo Well the definition of faith is just a strong belief, trust or confidence in something. The metaphor doesn't apply because we all form beliefs about the Universe. If you strongly believe/trust that there is nothing else other than humans and everything is just random, I'm sorry to say, but that is faith.
@oooBOOSHooo Unless you have evidence of course. You can only understand this if you void established Religions. We are 2 caveman on an island somewhere. The only difference between us is you look at the sky and conclude there must be nothing else because you can't see it. I think there must be something else. If you were take this approach 2000 years ago, you would conclude there is nothing beyond the sky, space would be the equivalent of a god.
@12Ominous way to twist things, just because i don't see a god doesn't mean i don't see stars ect. i know i don't know everything and i can know this and still not believe in god. we both look up and dont really know. but only one of us is making assumption.
@oooBOOSHooo You see lights in the sky, you wouldn't necessary conclude that those are individual planets, in fact people formed a number of incorrect beliefs about them, and to think all along there were light years of space and billions of galaxies, no one guessed. I haven't twisted things, I've just simplified them in order to avoid cliche's, stigmatized words like "faith", and semantics. There's a different between saying you don't know and believing there is nothing else.
@12Ominous sry i don't think your example is good when it comes to religous faith. is there anything past god? how do you know? faith is beyond just strong belife its knowing without questioning the reason i'm an atheist is exactly because of me questioning my faith. good on you though, i've reach my max allowable responses for youtube. i really can't think of a bigger waste of time debating on youtube. peace out.
@oooBOOSHooo If you don't know you're an agnostic. An atheist is someone who almost certainly believes there is no God or no moderating influence in or outside of the Universe because there is no empirical evidence of it. Of course the problem is like Space was even 500 years, there is no way to obtain evidence of a cosmic force that may be a Universe away. So your belief that there is no God can be incorrect. Your erroneous assumption is if a God existed there would be evidence, no way.
@12Ominous Sorry man, the glaxy is pretty damn close to 1,000 light years across, that is 500 light years radius. you are also dismissing the fact that all information within 14.2 billion light years is actually reaching us and is obvservable at this moment in time. some of it may not be up to date, but you say god has always been, so this should not matter...
@Ben4Play It's at least 150 billion actually (I looked it up). You have a little too much faith in science. Out of the billions upon billions of planets that exist in the Universe, science maybe knows 200 of them. Science knows relatively nothing still. That's presumptuous, God could very well be in another Universe where the laws of physics as we know them do not apply. Your ability to understand such a being if it did exist would be equal to an ants ability to understand you.
"Atheist faith"? A perfectly formed oxymoron, if there ever was one. And speaking of morons, onefodderunit, your inability to comprehend the depth of your ignorance is evidenced by your attempt to insult those far more learned and intelligent about science than you.
@jjb1310 Atheism is a faith. Faith is defined as a strong and confident belief in something without evidence. There is no evidence that a god does not exist, but you have formed a belief that one does not. Unless your belief that one does not is not strong, you have faith.
@12Ominous Please, stop with this ridiculous nonsense. An atheist does not believe something without evidence. Atheism is not a religious belief. The burden of proof that there is a god rests with those that have invested their faith in one. Atheists aren't interested in proving that a god exists because it's a colossal waste of time. And until the faithful provide evidence that a god exists, we go about living our daily lives without the need to prove (or disprove) it.
@jjb1310 It doesn't have to be religious in order to be defined as faith, a confident belief in something is its definition, it doesn't say religion. Well in that case 300 years ago you wouldn't have believed in space because there was no evidence of it, or that the earth was round. No one can prove or disprove something that may be a Universe away. Of course, but you are still forming a belief about the Universe, unless your atheism is just a reaction to Religious establishments.
@12Ominous You're being obtuse. Faith REQUIRES NO EVIDENCE. I can safely predict that lightening will strike when the atmospheric conditions are right for it, because there is a historical pattern of measurable, physiological evidence that makes that belief plausible. That's a far cry from having faith that Zeus throws lightening bolts down from the clouds. My trust in evidence is not a faith in evidence. Evidence can change. To repeat, faith requires no evidence.
@jjb1310 I never said it did. You haven't addressed what I said at all. I never said it was a faith in evidence. My statement was that it's arrogant to think you can obtain evidence from something that might be in a Universe of its own and furthermore believing that something doesn't exist because it doesn't present itself to you is even more arrogant. How many ant hills would follow that same logic through to that same conclusion because no one gets out of there car to bring them trinkets.
atheism is not a faith, it is the lack of faith. it is impossible for someone to do something "in the name of atheism", easy for someone to do something in the name of religion however
Complete and utter pwnage.
ultim4t32 17 hours ago
Hitch & Harris in one video ?!
Intellectual Overkill !!...
Thank You ..
NexisFilms 2 days ago 2
@NexisFilms Apparently you haven't seen "The Four Horsemen." It is a two-hour panel with Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennet. It is free to watch on google video.
rockstar9739 1 day ago
@rockstar9739
Thank You for the information my friend ...
NexisFilms 23 hours ago
way too much bitching here... painful to try and get something constructive out of the comments
ismaelvis 2 days ago
He is so hot.
KillaTequilla83 4 days ago 2
@TheArchermonkey (mostly, but not only part - 4)...If there would be anything interacting with the brain, it would be measurable (by definition) or/and it would contradict ground rules of physics (yes, that doesn't mean it is false). And therefore it is absurd (=highly unlikely/small probability). Based on our current scientific knowledge any assumption, that mind and consciousness are not the product of the structure and matter is wishfull, tendencious.
olosvk 6 days ago
@TheArchermonkey (mostly, but not only - part 3)...the (entire) system to gain a specific state (wavefunction collapse). The state of the system changes, it doesn't matter, that it is probabilistic, it was before and after real, just the understanding of "what was before" showed the limits of the classical physics language. And I don't know any QM effect, which has influence on the brain (or mind). Can you tell me (I'm not a neurobiologist)?
olosvk 6 days ago
@TheArchermonkey (mostly, but not only - part 2)...that this software is unique, maybe just a small customization, but still unique. To be proven wrong (as analogy), the software had to be stored elsewhere, which is not the case he based the examples (his experiments) in the video on. Actually, I think you are misinterpreting the Copenhagen interpretation :). Reality means existence (by definition, just different words). The result of QM (Copenhagen interpretation) is that measurement forces...
olosvk 6 days ago
@TheArchermonkey (mostly, but not only - part 1) can you tell me the experimental results which suggests the non-material/natural perspective? I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you. His analogy is quite good. Why? Software needs hardware. Functions (not only variables) "consume" memory too. If a part of the hardware is destroyed, where the software is stored, that means the software is lost too (or a part). Don't forget, that christian (not necessarily yours) point of view is,...
olosvk 6 days ago
@ArcanaKnight You try and berate me simply because I used the "hypothesis" aren't you the petty cunt. thats what your arguing about moron figure it out, stupid? Your replies deserve only repeats
stalkingcat123 6 days ago
Ill quote mine you now "That doesn't change the fact that its not detectable now. Just because its possible that we might someday find evidence which may support the existence of something doesn't mean that it is reasonable" When Charles Darwin first proposed his "hypothesis" on the theory of evolution there was little supporting evidence. As time went on the evidence shows that Charles is right and evolution can now be considered a fact. I doubt you understand the scientific method at all.
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 "When Charles Darwin first proposed his "hypothesis" on the theory of evolution there was little supporting evidence." There's a BIG difference between the initial evidence supporting evolution and the "evidence" you claim supports your "hypothesis" about consciousness; that you don't see the difference is just sad. Also, your "hypothesis" is more akin to ID than ET; your claims are functionally no different than the naturalistic one, you've just added BS to it.
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight I explained my limited knowlege on this proposed hypothesis to answer your loaded question then told you to find out more by yourself. Then you attacked me like a troll.
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 "Then you attacked me like a troll." No, you've been posting this untestable BS like a troll, tried to support it with even more BS, and then started trying to back away by saying "I was just asking questions" when I called you on it. Why else would you keep defending this "hypothesis" you brought up when you don't even believe its right?
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight I say again I heard this on a documentary which you seem to think is bullshit for some reason? I gave you the limited info I remember, to simply answer your stupid question not defend the hypothesis. Instead of adding relevant information in a constructive manner, you try and berate me? Fact is you are more concerned with propagating some silly opinion then actually having a hypothetical discussion. Do you understand the context of our discussion now? Nope? Okay.
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 "I gave you the limited info I remember" So you're actually surprised that I don't take your half-remembered factoids seriously?
"...then actually having a hypothetical discussion" I've just been pointing out the problems with your hypothetical situation, you just got incredibly defensive because of it, ignored the questions I asked, and then resorted to your childish insults.
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight because you cant comprehend written words
stalkingcat123 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArcanaKnight You do understand this whole debate on afterlife is hypothetical right? It's not real. Please tell me you don't believe everything you hear and/or read? Do you get the context of our discussion yet? No? Didn't think so. I await your pointless and to be frank useless reply, that will infact make my nose bleed at how pointless it is. Just like each of your previous replies. Its so funny your arguing about somthing else and Im trying to explain to you,thats not thepoint
stalkingcat123 6 days ago
@ArcanaKnight You do understand this whole debate on afterlife is hypothetical right? It's not real. Please tell me you don't believe everything you hear and/or read? Do you get the context of our discussion yet? No? Didn't think so. I await your pointless and to be frank useless reply, that will infact make my nose bleed at how pointless it is. Just like each of your previous replies. Its so funny your arguing about somthing else and Im trying to explain to you,thats not the point
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FUCK YEAH! every one please have a seat!! We got ourselves a YouTube argument! Popcorn is in the cupboard to the left! Watch as these two people go head to head in a battle that leads no where!
Spic173 1 week ago
Comment removed
Spic173 1 week ago
Comment removed
Stonedtosheep 1 week ago
Comment removed
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
I don't see why this is a good point. Software can be freely transmitted from one hardware to another. So, if we accept the proposition that the mind operates like software on the hardware of the brain, then we must also accept that its function isn't uniquely related to specific hardware, but simply *any* hardware that can run it. That is, your brain could be mashed to shit, but transmitting the software to some other hardware would allow you to use it all over again.
dmiller185 1 week ago
@dmiller185 Except that when hardware is destroyed before said transfer occurs, the software is lost.
orion00 1 week ago
@orion00
But we know that that isn't true. Not only can data be backed up, data is recoverable. Particularly, the more swiftly it's recovered after physical damage, the more data can be recovered more perfectly. We also know that if our computers are destroyed, Windows 7, Microsoft Office, (insert software here) doesn't cease to exist. But, my only point is that if we accept proposition x, then we must accept all propositions (possibilities) necessarily entailed by proposition x.
dmiller185 1 week ago
@dmiller185 Actually, it is true. Data is backed up by interaction with other hardware. All of the recovery processes require interaction with other hardware which is where the analogy fails. Translating the above analogy to X named software does not work either as the said software is a template and not unique data represented by individual systems. Another reason why this analogy is insufficient is because data is to hardware what ideas are to the body .. cont.
orion00 1 week ago
@orion00 ...cont
The mind represents consciousness, self awareness and cognitive ability which isn't quite transferable. Data on the other hard, like ideas, can be shared between sentient beings. If one being is destroyed/dies, the idea still exists if it were shared before destruction (interaction with other hardware) but the mind does not exist. So Harris' point still stands.
orion00 1 week ago
@orion00 If mind represents consciousness, self awareness and cognitive ability and you say "but the mind does not exist." then that must mean consciousness, self awareness and cognitive ability do not exist. It would be more appropriate to compare "mind" to "creativity." We can map the brain firing signals but that doesn't show us how the brain relates/reacts to physical environment. Most complex organ we have is the brain. Pyneal Gland and DMT interesting research being done.
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 Unintentional quote mine :P? I said that once the being is destroyed, the ideas (by this I mean ideas him/her has shared) can exist but the being's mind does not. The qualifier here is the person's death.
orion00 1 week ago
@megasage007 @majorl311 <-- both these theists need to watch this video, but they won't, as their god belief might dissolve right before our eyes.
RealityDistirbutor 1 week ago
What if the "spirit" is like a signal from another universe or dimension and operates like a tv, you break the tv you still have the signal. You damage the brain the signal just doesn't come through but its there. I have no way of testing this hypothesis...yet.
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 "you break the tv you still have the signal" Yes, but if you "break" the brain, you don't just get a dampened or fuzzy signal, you can get drastic, fundamental changes in a person's personality.
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight A part of a signal not coming through can explain the fundamental change. If you destroy your memory the part of the signal for memory doesn't come through. Or like a puppet cut a sting the arm is still there but the one arm can't operate or "recieve the signal."
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 According to that rationale, how exactly is this "signal not coming through" belief of yours functionally any different than consciousness just being a result of biology?
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight When a group of molecules comes together to form "life" conciousness "bubbles?" up from this exrta dimension. Because its from an extra dimension it is very difficult to percieve or detect. As I said I have no way of testing this. So my current understanding is the same as yours that conciousness is just the back and forth of signals in the brain. That said there is still alot we dont know about the pyneal gland and the brain.
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 That is utter nonsense. Now, not only are you making wild, completely unsupported claims about consciousness, but you're also trying to use the supposed existence of some other dimension (of which there is also absolutely no evidence) to try and help explain it.
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight Wow, you are really uninformed. If you are interested in learning more about what I am talking about google it, instead of getting on some imaginary high horse. I never said this was my personal belief, so I don't have to defend it. I remind you I stated my understanding of consciousness is the same as yours. The hypothesis is very lengthy and there isn't enough character space for it in a youtube comment box. *sigh* It involves Multiverse theory, look it up.
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 "I never said this was my personal belief, so I don't have to defend it" Just because its not original to you doesn't mean that you don't have to defend the claims you're making. Also, m-theory is still entirely hypothetical (possibly completely untestable), so it still doesn't really change anything.
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight Thats untrue, I heard somthing about an experiment schedualed for 2013 that will prove of disprove the theory. Its only a theory mostly due to the double slit experiment, otherwise M-theory would be M-hypothesis. You are incorrect about it being untestable. Science can only go as far as our technology. In fifty years who knows what particles will be able to detect. I never claimed it to be true so again I do not have to defend it, reading comprehension use it!
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 "I heard somthing about an experiment schedualed..." Right, because half-remembered facts are so reliable.
"You are incorrect about it being untestable." So how exactly would one test it then? Also, notice how I said "possibly" untestable? Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to attack others for their reading comprehension.
" I never claimed it to be true..." If you're not trying to make the claim, then why even bring it up in the first place?
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CONT "In fifty years who knows what particles will be able to detect." That doesn't change the fact that its not detectable now. Just because its possible that we might someday find evidence which may support the existence of something doesn't mean that it is reasonable to claim that it exists today.
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight *sigh* Reading comprehension I guess you have to be born with it.The first three words of my original post? I simply posed a question you dont have all the information on. You're putting words in mouth, and you certainly are not making me look stupid. I told you time and time again in my first post even "I have no way of testing this hypothesis" Its not my personal belief.
Like I said if you're interested in this hypothesis go and learn about it. I'm not your teacher.
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 "The first three words of my original post?" You didn't actually say that it wasn't your personal belief until much later in the discussion. It also doesn't change the fact that your little "what if" scenario you proposed is an still unsupported flight of fancy; its currently an untestable hypothesis at best.
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight Are you stupid? were dropped on your head. Is your method of refuting people to repeat what they say in different words? every single reply is you telling somthing I have already said. First comment re read it second comment re read it and so on. Read carefully. If you dont have any relevant or useful info, fuck off please. Your opinion means nothing to me.
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 watch?v=OrcWntw9juM. Is this what you are talking about more or less?
Stonedtosheep 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 "Your opinion means nothing to me." If that were really true, then you wouldn't keep replying.
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight Well, I reply because your funny. You have a poor grasp of science, poor reading comprehension, and poor debating skills. I posed a question, if it interested you its up to you to do your own research and examine the evidence on a per case basis. I think its hilarious now you try to psycho analyze me? It seems you care more about your opinion then actually looking for and examining evidence. Just as bad as creotards, and you claim to be pro-science?. Tsk tsk.
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 "if it interested you its up to you to do your own research" Its not my job to do both sides of the argument. If you'll recall, you were the one proposing the scenario, and then proceeded to try backing it up with ridiculous arguments and even more untestable claims.
"...then actually looking for and examining evidence" Except that, by your own admission, there's no evidence to examine. If there were, then it wouldn't be untestable.
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight Lol, like trying to talk to a wall. For the 4th time I posed a question, if you have any revelant information please share, otherwise I dont know why you're talking to me lol. I never said "there is no evidence" There is that reading comprehension thing again.
I'll help you out here. "Hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." You get the point, mister wasting our time :)
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 "I posed a question" Yes, then you spent the next couple posts trying to defend that scenario, and have since tried to elevate it to a hypothesis.
By your own definition, your "question" doesn't qualify as a hypothesis because its not based on "limited evidence", its apparently based on no evidence whatsoever. Also, for it to be a valid hypothesis it needs to be testable, which it isn't. Your little "hypothesis" fails in pretty much every way possible.
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight And again no comprehension what so ever, or you deliberatly take everything out of context. It is a hypothesis the limited evidence comes from several fields including but not limited to physics, biology, and chemistry. Look up M-theory. Its not like you provided any counter evidence just attacks and quote mining out of context. If you have relevent information please share otherwise, everyting you have said has no relevance.because its out of context.
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@stalkingcat123 "Look up M-theory." M-theory doesn't actually support your claims, your claims are just reliant on m-theory being true to work. And again, there's functionally no difference between your "hypothesis" and consciousness being just a result of physiology.
"Its not like you provided any counter evidence" You never provided any evidence that needed to be countered, you just kept making bald assertions. You're falsely assuming that you're right until proven wrong.
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight again I never said they were right. Imagine you some crap about christianity, this " crap hypothesis" I know from watching some documentary with Michio Kaku.
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
@ArcanaKnight I will also explain again, clearly. My understanding of consciousness is the same as yours. Do you understand? Was this clear enough for you? Want me to try in Spanish?Fuck
stalkingcat123 1 week ago
We can predict that by damaging specific parts of a signal receiver/processor such as radio, it will lose specific functions. The damage has no affect on the signal.
lughcious 1 week ago
Comment removed
chatman772 1 week ago
@chatman772 "so you're claiming you don't exist which really means you've just said nothing."
From that comment, I understand why don't see the illogic of your question, which I was referring to: you're forcing others to anthropomorphize when there is no justification for doing so. Define the "who" or provide just cause for using "who," your question is so vague as to be meaningless. You need to ask better questions.
Ematched 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I believe that the universe and cosmos exists deep within the confines of Oprah Winfrey's rectum. How do you know that it doesn't? We may be microscopic matter living within the rectal orifice of another organism much larger than the cosmos we assume exists. The possibility exists??!?
lifeschild1 1 week ago
If computer hardware is damaged, then software ceases to function properly, whether that damage is in information input (say a keyboard or a mouse), information output (like a monitor or speakers), information processing, memory, etc. But as long as the files themselves aren't corrupted (say the program is run from a DVD or flash drive or website), then there is no reason that the damage to the hardware should have any effect upon the software, only on the software's function on that hardware.
TheArchermonkey 2 weeks ago
If a point is made using the software analogy, the point should stick to the analogy as far as it is well analogous. If consciousness is be analogous to software and the brain to hardware it is not absurd to accept that if the software is taken from the damaged system that it will still work with it's original parameters. It is in fact a logical conclusion. Damage to the hardware of the computer running the software does not damage the software itself.
TheArchermonkey 2 weeks ago
@TheArchermonkey but, knowing what we do about the evolution of brains and minds, what makes you think this is an appropriate analogy in the first place. ..or that we can separate software from hardware.
adstanra 2 weeks ago
@adstanra I'm using Harris' analogy. It's certainly not my favourite one, but the point which he tries to use to demonstrate the absurdity of the position is not, in fact, absurd, examining the internal logic of his analogy.
TheArchermonkey 2 weeks ago
@TheArchermonkey i am not sure exactly what SH position is on dualism....but he has argued that the brain/mind is interconnected......he points out how damage to the brain directly affects the brain. What makes you think that mind is a separate entity from brain ? what makes you think mind cannot be explained through natural means.
adstanra 2 weeks ago
@adstanra At no point have I ever suggested that the mind cannot be explained through natural means. But materialist and natural are not synonyms. I am not Christian, nor am I arguing a for Christian perspective. My disagreement with Harris' point is that he makes it with an analogy, but then departs from the analogy in order to make an opposing position seem absurd. I don't necessarily think his conclusion is wrong, but his point is flawed and certainly not 'game, set and match'.
TheArchermonkey 2 weeks ago
@TheArchermonkey well, I will admit i will have to review what he said. In what way do you think material and natural are not the same? ....I might agree that energy is not material....but this is just a definitional thing. What is your point contra SH exactly?
adstanra 2 weeks ago
@adstanra The brain is material, but the mind is not. Assuming a dualist perspective, both are existent, and both are natural, even though only one is material. A materialist sees the mind as an illusion arising from the functioning of the brain, and therefore only the brain is existent and natural.
As to my central point, take a look at my first posts you replied to. (The ones beginning with "If computer hardware is damaged..." and "If a point is made...".) It's in those.
TheArchermonkey 2 weeks ago
@TheArchermonkey do you think for eg, there is an archetype, Dog. In what way is the mind not simply the functioning of the brain? how do I separate the thing from its function.....why would I try? is glomerular filtration a thing that exists apart from the kidney?
adstanra 2 weeks ago
@adstanra Archetypes and the existence thereof have nothing to do with mind/body dualism. As for how the mind may be more than the functioning of the brain, there are many ways, but the one which I find most convincing is in the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (the Copenhagen interpretation) which mandates that reality does not become really real until it is observed.
TheArchermonkey 2 weeks ago
@adstanra I find the premise that there is something about the particular configuration of cells and atoms and particles that make up the brain which somehow manages to collapse a single version of reality from infinite potential to be frankly ludicrous. To me it seems implausible that there is not something interacting beyond the configuration of particles and electrical impulses in the brain. In this way the thing seems to me to be significantly cruder than its' function.
TheArchermonkey 2 weeks ago
@TheArchermonkey besides, SH is trying to point out the intimate connection between what we call mind and the brain......do you think , it is warranted, given today's state of knowledge, that mind can exist apart from the brain......or even more imaginative...apart from space and time...as theists suggest...if so, what evidence do you have of this?
adstanra 2 weeks ago
@adstanra See my comments on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In keeping with that, I find that it is likely (though not yet proven - this is an important distinction) that the mind is in some way beyond the material. If that is the case, then it is also likely beyond space and time, as space and time have no meaning in the absence of (or super-abundance of) matter and energy.
TheArchermonkey 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheArchermonkey " If that is the case, then it is also likely beyond space and time, as space and time have no meaning in the absence of (or super-abundance of) matter and energy.".....
what ? are you speaking Depeek here?.....are you suggesting that quantum physics suggests that my mind is beyond space and time....that is a hell of an" interpretation' of quantum physics ....how do you explain the alterations in mind fuctioning with brain damage?
adstanra 2 weeks ago
But that doesn't make the software of a computer some kind of magical entity, it can still be damaged and destroyed, this analogy fails to support mind body dualism. If you destroy a computer, rip it apart down to every component, burn it, etc. EVERYTHING will be gone. Same with the human brain and mind.
Staunts 2 weeks ago
@Staunts That may be so, or it may not, but the analogy does not support this. Neither does the science. Materialism is, quite literally, an article of faith. I'm not saying that it is a religious position, but neither is it a scientific one: there is not a single experiment that demonstrates materialism as accurate over dualism. There is the belief that materialism has taken us this far and will answer every question which has not yet been solved. But that's 19th century thinking.
TheArchermonkey 2 weeks ago
Not so much materialism, but how about naturalism? Even most theists will agree that god has an immutable 'nature,' which is not a conscious thing. Just as the components of our brain are not conscious, but put together facilitate the phenomenon of consciousness.
Staunts 2 weeks ago
@Staunts The stance that the mind is epiphenomenal of the brain IS a materialist perspective as it indicates, without evidence, that the non-material is an illusion arising from the interactions of the material. There is no scientific evidence for this, nor against it, though there are facts and experimental results which are suggestive of either conclusion.
TheArchermonkey 2 weeks ago
@Staunts The 20th century brought us quantum mechanics, and chaos theory and a whole host of challenges to the fundamental assumptions of the materialist perspective. Local reality has been disproven (Google search this to understand) and with it the mechanistic perspective which made materialism so appealing to the likes of Newton and Galileo. I am not saying that dualism has been proven, either, but materialism has certainly not, and Sam Harris' comments here do not prove it, either.
TheArchermonkey 2 weeks ago
Materialism could be challenged but it still wouldn't follow that this non materialistic world favors us, such that we are privileged to have eternal consciousness or that such a thing could even exist. Everything we know about mind and brain tells us that consciousness is contingent on a material medium. Even a god's mind would require some means of function which it could not be responsible for the existence of, thus unconscious nature could be the only true constant.
Staunts 2 weeks ago
@Staunts You are making points that have nothing at all to do with my criticism of Harris' argument in the video. Further, if there is some form of deity it does not follow that it should be of the same order or restrictions as us. Though the pantheist perspective you suggest does hold some appeal for me, admittedly, it is only suggested by scientific observation, just as an atheistic, or panentheist perspective can also be suggested by scientific observation.
TheArchermonkey 2 weeks ago
@Staunts I should point out that I have no agenda here to conclude that God exists, or that there are choirs of angels awaiting us on our deaths. A materialist perspective would exclude those things, but taking a dualist perspective does not mean that I am trying to include them. I am merely aware of the line between proven scientific fact, and assumption, and I don't like to see it blurred by sophistry. Particularly when that blurring relies on an internally inconsistent argument.
TheArchermonkey 2 weeks ago
@chatman772 Evolution, duh
64wonderboy 2 weeks ago
@64wonderboy prove it!
chatman772 1 week ago
Comment removed
chatman772 1 week ago
@64wonderboy Well, there is always the indisputable fossil record. But what is your theory? That a man with supernatural abilities created us 7,000 years ago? Only to make rules to love him with everything in our being and if you don't you will burn in the underworld for all time and eternity? please....
64wonderboy 1 week ago
@chatman772 gee-sus
MrCruZ1992 2 weeks ago
@MrCruZ1992 do you mean Jesus?
chatman772 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 2 weeks ago
With that said Sam is clearly right to critique the naive dualism that minds and brains are completely independent of each other, they clearly are not.But even Sam admits that "the truth is that we simply do not know what happens after death" (End of Faith page 208) Again I'm not advocating cartesian dualism for a second but there is a lot more to consider here. Philosophically speaking I consider myself a neutral monist.
Prometheus1df 2 weeks ago
@Prometheus1df The dualist argument is not that minds and brains are completely independent, but rather that they are separable, like a computer is with its' software. One will not function in any meaningful way (in a material context) without the other, but that does not make them identical.
TheArchermonkey 2 weeks ago
Don't lash out at me now,I'm not religious although I do consider myself spiritual which as far as I'm concerned is something completely different.But the real question is whether consciousness is being produced or recieved by the brain. "the idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present" - Sam Harris, End of Faith Page 208 "Consciousness may be a far more rudimentary phenomenon than are living creatures and their brains" Page 209
Prometheus1df 2 weeks ago
I have never heard any one refute the possibility of an after-life so simply and articulately. It cannot be said any better than Sam Harris just said it.
LOL4Polio 2 weeks ago
God I love logic!
35Rumblefish 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Join in on Debates at:
religiousdebates.co.uk
YouTutorials0 3 weeks ago
<3 21st century. Advent of science is doing wonders to humanity!
herpderpmonkey 3 weeks ago 7
@herpderpmonkey Science has always done wonders to humanity - that's what science does.
QuotidianOli 3 weeks ago
@QuotidianOli "Science is the best thing that humankind ever came up with, and if it isn't, science will fix it." -Bill Nye (the Science Guy!) :D
herpderpmonkey 2 weeks ago 19
@herpderpmonkey Awesome.
QuotidianOli 2 weeks ago
@herpderpmonkey But who came up with humankind?
chatman772 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@herpderpmonkey But who came up with humankind?
chatman772 2 weeks ago
@herpderpmonkey Evolution is science, so how can science create humankind when humankind created science. That's called a call contradicting statement. You can't create something that you claimed created you. It's like a mother giving birth to her parents.
chatman772 1 week ago
@chatman772 ... not sure if you're being serious here. Science didn't create anything. Science isn't a force, it's a methodology for learning and understanding things. It's a process by which we learn the truth about things, without our natural bias clouding our conclusions. Humankind set up this process to understand what got us here, how our world works, and have the best possible guesses as to where we're going.
mikepictor 1 week ago
Comment removed
chatman772 1 week ago
@chatman772 That's completely fallacious. 1+1 was always 2 regardless of when humans came to existence. There was still gravity, there was still thermodynamics. Science is just a tool for humans to understand phenomena (like how we created the cartesian number system). It's completely arbitrary; it's not some force that CAUSES evolution. Evolution is just a natural mechanism on lift on Earth.
You're pretty unlearned... Go take some science classes and learn something.
herpderpmonkey 1 week ago
@chatman772 And also, you need to SERIOUSLY work on your forensic skills. Your analogy is completely wrong (do you really not see that??); you have no understanding of how evolution works and you should stop and actually TRY to look at things openly from other perspectives instead of your ideological view.
Chemistry is a science, so how can science create humans when molecules and chemical reactions makes up our composition and runs our bodies? See the flaw in that analogy?
herpderpmonkey 1 week ago
Brilliant argument against the afterlife consciousness.
Xerkun 3 weeks ago
Superficially this makes sense, but if the physical apparatus of the brain is simply the tool a non-physical essence uses to focus into a 4D physical world, it no longer does. If that's the case the non-physical essence would not be able to perceive correctly once the apparatus was damaged, but still be undamaged itself. It would also be able to leave, faculties intact, once it passed into a non-physical dimension in which physical tools like brains, arms, and legs are no longer possible/useful.
attitudinous 3 weeks ago
@attitudinous yet another untestable, and thus useless, hypothesis, of numerous others. That's why Harris' argument does make sense.
bozotheda 3 weeks ago
@attitudinous Sam Harris said there are reasons to believe that the proposition isn't true. He didn't say it wasn't true, and he didn't say he believed it to be true; he said there are good reasons. That leaves it open for a future someone to come along to refute him with new evidence. Is it possible he is wrong? Yes. But in order to refute him, you must present counter-evidence.
FreemanGordan 3 weeks ago
My mother had an aneurysm (probably from smoking 2 packs a day but that's just speculative) and then had a stroke on the operating table affecting the left side of the mid-brain. What Harris says is true.. The Personality/soul/mentality/morals etc... are all gone. It's not like "the soul is intact and the words just don't come out". You still grieve the loss of the person you know, whether the body lives on or not.
420MusicFiend 3 weeks ago
There is nothing inherently fallible about science. science is not inherently a practice or study, it is a philosophical process: percieve, infer, analyse, test, and conclude.
the science practiced today and taught does not include re-evaluating perceptions and inferences, but presumes that which is concrete, and then goes on with the last 3 steps in the process.
One is not open to something greater if he presumes a concrete reality. sorry. obvious.
Sudhish86 3 weeks ago
@Sudhish86 You have misrepresented what science is. Science requires objectivity and the perpetual suspension of all preconceived notions of truth and fact. Above all, science demands humility. Scientifically derived theories are not absolute truths. Believers in absolutes have trouble with that, as you apparently do.
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310. It is not rejecting preconcieved notions, it is testing them out to see if they still work in accordance with each other in accordance to what new phenomena you've observed. the idea of rejecting preconcieved notions began as a fad during the enlightenment era. I call it a fad because all notions are what serve as our premises. This is obvious with consideration, is it not? concrete evidence isn't what rationalizes notions or not; the observations and inferences do...
Sudhish86 3 weeks ago
Imagine being in a bar with sam harris, hitchens, and darkins- priceless.
TheMightyTed 3 weeks ago
I guess there are some people that simply cannot comprehend what its like to have a mind emancipated from the constraints of theism. Having a conversation with the likes of 12Ominous, it's clear that that lack of comprehension makes it impossible to engage them in an intellectually honest debate. As long as they insist that disbelief in a god is just the flipside of belief in a god, then we will never find common ground for a serious debate. Theists want it both ways, and that's repugnant.
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 .......o how I wish I had a mind that as free and brilliant as yours. To form a conclusion that something doesn't exist because it doesn't bring you trinkets, that could very well be multiple Universe's away in which the laws of physics as we know them do not apply, keep in mind one universe spans at least diameter of 150,000,000,000 light years, is a belief. How many times have stopped your car to say hi to an at hill at the side of the road that you barely noticed?
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@12Ominous Maybe you should wish that you weren't encumbered with a god complex. Arrogance is believing you have an answer with no evidence to support it. Science requires humility. Science is about discovery. Faith is about finding comfort in ignorance.
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 Just because I am not A doesn't mean I am B. I am not a theist, I am also not an atheist, they are both arrogant positions in their own ways. Thinking you have the mental capacity to understand and comprehend everything and furthermore thinking you can become all-knowing, the antonym of ignorance, is arrogant. Empirical evidence isn't the only valid form of evidence, that's scientific dogma, I would trust more a human's intuition than someone's lack of evidence.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 Just because evidence isn't available to you to prove the other 80% of the world around your little ant hill at the side of the road, doesn't mean that other 80% of the world doesn't exist.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@12Ominous You are being defiantly obtuse. You are also intellectually dishonest. An atheist (a term that serves to distinguish oneself from a theist...I prefer to call myself a skeptic) doesn't believe in unprovable absolute truths about the universe. You are claiming there might be one...or many. That is faith. That is what a deist or a theist believes. You must "pick a side". Intuition is scientifically provable. You are engaging in "magical thinking"; junk science.
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 They are both positions of moderate belief. Faith is a strong, confident belief in something. My belief is a merely a moderate hypothesis about the universe, based on pattern recognition and logic, not empirical evidence, but also not faith (I am a deist/agnostic). I believe for the most part I don't know, but my logic and intuition tells me that it is possible that something created the Universe for some sort of reason.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@12Ominous There's nothing "moderate" about formulating a hypothesis without empirical evidence while simultaneously criticizing the scientific method as "arrogant'. That is radical. That is the core argument of "intelligent design". That is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 A hypothesis is nothing more than an untested observation. The scientific method is a human concoction, like all things created by humans, it has flaws, it demands there be solid empirical evidence for everything, the very notion is arrogant, the very notion that the human eye can perceive, feel, comprehend everything, that all things are within reach of humans is the embodiment of arrogance. Attach whatever pejorative you wish.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 *The human eye can perceive, we can can feel/comprehend everything. The human method is not infallible, nor are humans, it is arrogant to maintain this, is it not?
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@12Ominous I'm sorry, but there is nothing "arrogant" about science and the scientific method. In fact, it is the exact opposite. But it is unequivocally arrogant to make that claim when there is no evidence to support it. Your argument about human fallibility is a non sequitur. It is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 No, but there is arrogance in concluding that because you can't prove something, or because evidence doesn't exist in your own little world that it there for must not exist. I was never making a scientific argument for the plausibility of a creator of whatever sort, science is limited and not able to determine this, it is limited by technology, our intellectual capacity and our relatively short life spans. Philosophy can lead us to approximate truths by means of logic and reason.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@12Ominous So, in essence, you believe the scientific method is not valid unless it uses empirical evidence to disprove a belief in something that does not depend on that empirical evidence. Can you not see the fallacy of that argument?
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 It is not so much a fallacious argument, so much as my argument presents a paradox. Science depends on empirical evidence under the arrogant notion that if something existed, evidence would exist within our plain of existence, be within our grasp, be visible to us, and measurable by our technology. What we're looking for however may not be. I am not stating the scientific method itself is invalid, so much as I am stating we are not currently capable of applying it on this level.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@12Ominous So the paradox is philosophical. But if the scientific method is solely concerned with debunking or supporting a predetermined absolute philosophical truth (as you apparently believe it should), then it's no longer valid. Insistence that science must be used to solve this philosophical paradox is no less wrongheaded than claiming that science presumes to know everything there is to know.
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 The paradox concerns Science not philosophy. Science is not capable of assessing the truths which it seeks to rectify. It's trying to film molecules with a handheld camcorder and concluding everything isn't composed of atoms because your the handheld camcorder didn't capture them. Ok, lets wrap this up, I can't even recall my original argument now.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@12Ominous "Science is not capable of assessing the truths which it seeks to rectify."
Yes, we are talking past each other. Truth is the realm of philosophy. It's subjective. Evidence is the realm of science. It's objective.
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 Yes. Science may become more capable in the future, but science can only reach as far as our capabilities will allow it. Philosophy allows us to at least some degree make sense of everything on a hypothetical, intangible level. I'm not sure I even have a dissenting contention from you. Our only difference is you lack belief in any theistic God, I lack belief in the same thing but I haven't rule out the possibility of a catalytic entity or a mover based on my lack of faith is Science
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 Or more accurately human technology.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@12Ominous Interesting exchange, folks. Seems we are still mired in the swamp, where we "see" what we want, or have been trained to see. Occasionally, though, we are "forced" to "see", by unforeseen expedients, which, again, leave us mired in the swamp, because, for example, who really listens to the person who smells like an old urinal and wanders around in deep conversation with....whatever or whomever?
Is a real connection with the divine that difficult to express?
I can't do it.
xlsyor 3 weeks ago
@xlsyor That is why we have, in my opinion, poetry and art. Religion is certainly poetry, but falls flat attempting to be rational and compete with rational systems of thought, like science, which is its own "religion".
xlsyor 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 We are that ant hill, and you are that ant who thinks he knows everything about the Earth and human beings.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.there is no way to obtain evidence of a cosmic force that may be a Universe away. So your belief that there is no God can be incorrect."
What a bogus argument. An atheist is not looking for evidence of a God. An atheist simply says there is no evidence of a God. There is no compelling need among atheists to find evidence to prove (or disprove) a belief in a God. But that doesn't mean there is no compelling human need among atheists to understand life and the universe.
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
Atheists and skeptics rely on logic and reason and they don't believe in something without evidence, which is exactly what faith is all about. There is no evidence that any God has ever existed outside the wishful thinking of those that believe it to be true.
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
Atheism is faith like off is a channel on TV.
oooBOOSHooo 3 weeks ago
@oooBOOSHooo Well the definition of faith is just a strong belief, trust or confidence in something. The metaphor doesn't apply because we all form beliefs about the Universe. If you strongly believe/trust that there is nothing else other than humans and everything is just random, I'm sorry to say, but that is faith.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@oooBOOSHooo Unless you have evidence of course. You can only understand this if you void established Religions. We are 2 caveman on an island somewhere. The only difference between us is you look at the sky and conclude there must be nothing else because you can't see it. I think there must be something else. If you were take this approach 2000 years ago, you would conclude there is nothing beyond the sky, space would be the equivalent of a god.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@12Ominous way to twist things, just because i don't see a god doesn't mean i don't see stars ect. i know i don't know everything and i can know this and still not believe in god. we both look up and dont really know. but only one of us is making assumption.
oooBOOSHooo 3 weeks ago
@oooBOOSHooo You see lights in the sky, you wouldn't necessary conclude that those are individual planets, in fact people formed a number of incorrect beliefs about them, and to think all along there were light years of space and billions of galaxies, no one guessed. I haven't twisted things, I've just simplified them in order to avoid cliche's, stigmatized words like "faith", and semantics. There's a different between saying you don't know and believing there is nothing else.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@12Ominous sry i don't think your example is good when it comes to religous faith. is there anything past god? how do you know? faith is beyond just strong belife its knowing without questioning the reason i'm an atheist is exactly because of me questioning my faith. good on you though, i've reach my max allowable responses for youtube. i really can't think of a bigger waste of time debating on youtube. peace out.
oooBOOSHooo 3 weeks ago
@oooBOOSHooo Possibly, I don't, I'm not claiming to. The definition of faith is a strong belief in something without evidence.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@oooBOOSHooo If you don't know you're an agnostic. An atheist is someone who almost certainly believes there is no God or no moderating influence in or outside of the Universe because there is no empirical evidence of it. Of course the problem is like Space was even 500 years, there is no way to obtain evidence of a cosmic force that may be a Universe away. So your belief that there is no God can be incorrect. Your erroneous assumption is if a God existed there would be evidence, no way.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@oooBOOSHooo The galaxy spans billions of light years. There is no way evidence of a god could be obtained by us, not in another 2000 years and more.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@12Ominous Sorry man, the glaxy is pretty damn close to 1,000 light years across, that is 500 light years radius. you are also dismissing the fact that all information within 14.2 billion light years is actually reaching us and is obvservable at this moment in time. some of it may not be up to date, but you say god has always been, so this should not matter...
Ben4Play 3 weeks ago
@Ben4Play Did you forget?
"Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a *hundred* thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe."
IamBHM 3 weeks ago
@Ben4Play It's at least 150 billion actually (I looked it up). You have a little too much faith in science. Out of the billions upon billions of planets that exist in the Universe, science maybe knows 200 of them. Science knows relatively nothing still. That's presumptuous, God could very well be in another Universe where the laws of physics as we know them do not apply. Your ability to understand such a being if it did exist would be equal to an ants ability to understand you.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
If Atheism is a faith, then bald is a hair color.
aaddaammize 3 weeks ago
@aaddaammize If Atheism is a faith, then not smoking is a habit.
mrface19 3 weeks ago
"Atheist faith"? A perfectly formed oxymoron, if there ever was one. And speaking of morons, onefodderunit, your inability to comprehend the depth of your ignorance is evidenced by your attempt to insult those far more learned and intelligent about science than you.
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 Atheism is a faith. Faith is defined as a strong and confident belief in something without evidence. There is no evidence that a god does not exist, but you have formed a belief that one does not. Unless your belief that one does not is not strong, you have faith.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@12Ominous Please, stop with this ridiculous nonsense. An atheist does not believe something without evidence. Atheism is not a religious belief. The burden of proof that there is a god rests with those that have invested their faith in one. Atheists aren't interested in proving that a god exists because it's a colossal waste of time. And until the faithful provide evidence that a god exists, we go about living our daily lives without the need to prove (or disprove) it.
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 It doesn't have to be religious in order to be defined as faith, a confident belief in something is its definition, it doesn't say religion. Well in that case 300 years ago you wouldn't have believed in space because there was no evidence of it, or that the earth was round. No one can prove or disprove something that may be a Universe away. Of course, but you are still forming a belief about the Universe, unless your atheism is just a reaction to Religious establishments.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
@12Ominous You're being obtuse. Faith REQUIRES NO EVIDENCE. I can safely predict that lightening will strike when the atmospheric conditions are right for it, because there is a historical pattern of measurable, physiological evidence that makes that belief plausible. That's a far cry from having faith that Zeus throws lightening bolts down from the clouds. My trust in evidence is not a faith in evidence. Evidence can change. To repeat, faith requires no evidence.
jjb1310 3 weeks ago
@jjb1310 I never said it did. You haven't addressed what I said at all. I never said it was a faith in evidence. My statement was that it's arrogant to think you can obtain evidence from something that might be in a Universe of its own and furthermore believing that something doesn't exist because it doesn't present itself to you is even more arrogant. How many ant hills would follow that same logic through to that same conclusion because no one gets out of there car to bring them trinkets.
12Ominous 3 weeks ago
atheism is not a faith, it is the lack of faith. it is impossible for someone to do something "in the name of atheism", easy for someone to do something in the name of religion however
JoshLulz 3 weeks ago