One of the seemingly silliest goals ever set by a scientist, the quest for a unified field theory of everything... — ucarr

Ah, silly you say? The quest for great knowledge is futile to some, but intellectuality, methodology, precise accuracy, these are the measures of science.

Great discovery will always be checkered by impossibility & failure. Imperfection is the reality that pushes you forward... — ucarr

Indeed, imperfection is the sickness of life. And yet, there must be some perfection at the outset. I think you agree. Otherwise, we would not be here.

Ahhh, yes blame it on my old age. I was breaking up one premise into 2 premises. I'm too used to old college days of at least 2 premises followed by a conclusion.

So, your first premise (an "or" statement) as I was trying to say, can be written as such:

1. Either the universe has a beginning or the universe does not have a beginning.

Okay, very well I can completely agree with that. :)

Ahh, very interesting.

1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows.

So, you are saying that (don't mind my rewording of the 2 premises)...

1. All things have a prior cause.
2. There is one or more first causes from which a chain of events follows.

Or more precisely...

1. All things have a prior cause.
2. There is a first cause from which a chain of events follows.

I'm just doing this to help me figure out what you are saying more clearly...

"...All things have a prior cause for their existence..."

Meaning that there is an infinite regression of cause and effect in the universe (there never was a beginning)?

Sorry it's just a very strange way of saying that there simply is no beginning :snicker: (please correct me if I am wrong).

"...there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows."

Okay, so the universe has a beginning (there is no infinite regression of cause and effect)?

It sounds like your 2 premises are: Either the universe has a beginning or the universe does not have a beginning.

Sorry for my simple way of thinking, but I just can't understand how you're complicating two such easy premises.

Let me show you how I would make the premises for your argument:

1. The universe has a beginning.
2. The universe does not have a beginning.

:snicker:

The "or" logical connective is meant to make sure that only one condition has to be met for anything. It's to prevent infinite regression. Whether it's justified or not is different but it has to be one statement for validity. — Shwah

You're saying that...

1. All things have...prior cause.
2. There is...first cause of existence.

Are not the exact same thing? Okay! :smile: :up:

1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim

Let's take out the fluff...

1. All things have...prior cause.
2. There is...first cause of existence.

:snicker:

Years and years ago, I knew some really smart European brothers that ran one of the local gas stations in my area, and I would come to them with various logical problems and talk with them about intellectual topics. One of them told me that I was trying to figure out a new way to do mathematics, which I found quite interesting. I thought I was creating philosophical ideas but it turns out it was just math :snicker: since I was using numbers for that particular work.

Anyways, I remember one of our conversations, in which the same brother (the other one usually stayed quiet and just watched us talk) gave me an insight about a particular philosophy of their people. I was lamenting to them about the question of "why". I remember saying to him that "why" is the greatest question that we can ask because In all of life's quandaries it is "why" that persists. I was expressing my frustration about this ever-persistent question of "why" and how it really is the only thing that stands in the way of our knowledge (obviously not articulating it as explicitly as here).

He told me that where they come from, the people there say that (in his broken english), "if you keep ask why, you die".

You know that profoundly changed the way that I thought. And I'm quite sure they were smart enough to know the effect they would have on me. And ever since then, I hardly ever ask "why". But I do always ask "how" (kinda escape that trap). :snicker:

1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim

That is literally saying the same thing twice. :snicker:

Yes his argument is valid. But in logic, a valid argument has nothing to do with the truth. :smile:

But I would certainly agree with Aristotle that either time always existed or there is some supernatural explanation for it's becoming.

Freewill can be based on 2 differing factors. One involves the inevitability of fate, while the other involves the more commonly referred, ability to behave autonomously or make a decision with full volition.

What is very important to understand is that though we can never escape fate (at least not in this current era of time) we may be able to approach a pure and free autonomy of choice.

How we can approach this, almost superhuman like ability would be a wonderful topic. In my current work, I actually ponder whether or not humans already have this ability. It may be that humans already have this incredible ability and it may actually be a mere given of universal cognition.

Materialists already have a lot on their plate by denying the whole existence of that which is beyond mere explanation, so I figure it's better left to the idealists to figure this one out. :nerd:

I also wonder whether or not fate can be overcome by way of idealistic, universal notions.

Well most people believe in a God that gives freewill. The argument of evil is only purported by those with rose-colored glasses.

God loves all people. God's love is so great that you cannot even comprehend it. And God's love is far greater than the tiny differences that you see amongst humans. The real difference is in how much love you want to receive from God. For instance, Hitler by being evil will receive less of God's love than someone who works in a charity. God's love is the same, but it's you who determines how much of God's infinite love you want to receive.

Again apologies. — Tom Storm

Lol, so now it was a mistake? You didn't even have to ask for proof! :snicker:

Just stop with the false and constant pretense of authority and things might come along for you just yet. :)

And no, atheism is not about interrogating theists for proof of God.

Most forms of atheism are about interrogating... — Tom Storm

Goodness gracious :grin:

Cheers for now. — Tom Storm

As I said before, you take care bud!

Hold on, did you just falsely accuse me of changing my comments? I certainly did not.

All of my comments are in their original form. I'm not sure why you are acting like I am scared of what I say to you, as if you are an authority.

And as far as your atheism, again I respect all atheist's opinions. As I have already asked you, what is wrong with just being an atheist? You do not believe in God, okay and? You go around asking theists for proof of God but you are not genuinely interested in their beliefs. Really you are trying to prove to theists that there is something wrong with their personal beliefs.

Oh and I almost forgot you're somehow trying to prevent the formation of future theocracies. :snicker:

If it is not immediately evident to you that there is nothing going on, whilst living and breathing in a gigantic universe...then it's a safe assumption that you will probably always use god/s as an emotional crutch. You see, you are not presenting an argument, you are just using words to construct a rudimentary appeal to mystery and emotion. I can do it in reverse and it's no better. — Tom Storm

Alrighty, I somehow failed to make you believe in God. How ironic that probably no one here is trying to convince you to believe in God. :razz:

I did not say religion has a monopoly on psychopathy. Although in some theocracies it does. I see you prefer deflection to argument. — Tom Storm

Again, no one is trying to convince you to believe in God. Continue on with your fake entitlement though. :wink:

Do you have evidence of anything that is not natural? I thought not... — Tom Storm

No one is trying to convince you to believe in God. Goodness, how hard is it for you to be around people who talk about God without you asking them to prove God exists?

Justification? One of many reasons for anti-theism perhaps. — Tom Storm

Hey, it's your right to not believe in God, I won't argue with you there. As I originally said, I think it's very important to respect the opinion of atheists. It's you who seems to have an issue respecting the opinion of theists.

But still you avoid discussing yours and resort to deflections Ok I get it, it's hard if you have no good reasons. — Tom Storm

Just stop already. You are hardly some sort of authority that anyone needs to impress or prove to you their own personal belief in God. Again, the thread is about the "invalidity of atheism". I know the difference is apparently too subtle for you to comprehend. For you, the "invalidity of atheism" is an opportunity to make believers prove God exists.

And you know what? I don't care that people are theists (as long as they don't want to establish a theocracy)... — Tom Storm

Acting innocent again, eh? :yawn:

...I'm just on a forum and when theists use words that sound like they know stuff when it's way more likely they don't, I sometimes enter the discussion. — Tom Storm

Stop insulting my belief in God. Again, you are not some sort of authority that I need to prove to you that God exists. That's silly.

I will say this though, God is very real. All you have to do is just look at the world around you. I know you think this is all a game and you can just copy my words and then input them with your atheist beliefs. But as I said from the beginning, if you can't realize that God created this world then you are probably never going to believe in God. What's wrong with being an atheist by the way? If you don't believe in God then you probably should have very little to say. But yet you talk so much about wanting proof of God. It's almost like you keep forgetting that you don't believe in God. You're not even staying on topic and discussing the "invalidity of atheism".

Here are my two cents: we should all respect what atheists have to say. Many atheists are incredibly smart people. The real difference between believers and atheists is that atheists tend to think (in my humble opinion) that people need or should prove that God exists. But really there is no way to prove that God exists at least not in the way that you want proof. By the way, you can't even explain what proof would look like to you, because you're just here to troll believers. Typical, old atheist agenda. Some things never change.

The only reason I mention the word "theist" is out of respect for the thread (which is about atheism). Plenty of non-religious practicing people still believe in God. Nice try though.
— chiknsld

A theist is simply a believer in god/s. It has nothing to do with practicing a religion. There was no 'nice try'.

If it is not immediately evident to you that there is something going on, whilst living and breathing in a gigantic universe...then it's a safe assumption that you will probably never believe in God.
— chiknsld

If it is not immediately evident to you that there is nothing going on, whilst living and breathing in a gigantic universe...then it's a safe assumption that you will probably always use god/s as an emotional crutch. You see, you are not presenting an argument, you are just using words to construct a rudimentary appeal to mystery and emotion. I can do it in reverse and it's no better.

You've got to be kidding me. Haughtily asking for proof of God in the guise of sincere and genuine civic duty? Vladimir Putin? Gays in Saudi Arabia? You're making a mockery of atheism.

Religion does not have a monopoly on psychopathy,
— chiknsld

I did not say religion has a monopoly on psychopathy. Although in some theocracies it does. I see you prefer deflection to argument.

Wouldn't it be so easy for you if everything was all natural? I mean, then you wouldn't even have to ask a theist why they believe in God right? Or for proof? But wait (here comes the justification)...
— chiknsld

Do you have evidence of anything that is not natural? I thought not...

Justification? One of many reasons for anti-theism perhaps.

Asking people why they believe in god/s? I know many of those reasons, having a priest as a close friend, having worked in palliative care services and working with people to prevent suicide has taught me enough about believer's reasons.

But still you avoid discussing yours and resort to deflections Ok I get it, it's hard if you have no good reasons.

And you know what? I don't care that people are theists (as long as they don't want to establish a theocracy) I'm just on a forum and when theists use words that sound like they know stuff when it's way more likely they don't, I sometimes enter the discussion. Arguing about god/s is no more useful than arguing about what the best Adam Sandler movies is.

Take care, it was fun. Maybe we can engage about some other stuff later. — Tom Storm

Well I went out to the bar tonight, "so to speak", long awaiting anything that resembled moderate discourse on your behalf (rather than the child's play you seem so eager to engage in).

I will refrain from responding to the flagrant disingenuousness of your comments until tomorrow. Don't worry, I'll make sure to address all feeble trivialities with sober mind as I did earlier, if at the very least for "argument's sake".

Yea, you take care as well, lol.

As an atheist, I hold the position that I have seen no reason to be convinced there is god/s - let alone people knowing what god/s want. — Tom Storm

If it is not immediately evident to you that there is something going on, whilst living and breathing in a gigantic universe...then it's a safe assumption that you will probably never believe in God. It's kinda just one of those things. In all my incredible wisdom, I can say at least that much.

The main role for an atheist in these conversations is to ask theists - 'why do you say that?' — Tom Storm

Wouldn't it be so easy for you if everything was all natural? I mean, then you wouldn't even have to ask a theist why they believe in God right? Or for proof? But wait (here comes the justification)...

It's important because governments all around the world have harmful religious agendas, from killing gay people in Saudi, to working to overturn Roe versus Wade in the USA. We know religious nationalism is a huge problem all around the world (Putin anyone?) with all of these are folk who not only believe in god/s, but think they know what god/s wants. — Tom Storm

You've got to be kidding me. Haughtily asking for proof of God in the guise of sincere and genuine civic duty? Vladimir Putin? Gays in Saudi Arabia? You're making a mockery of atheism.

Religion does not have a monopoly on psychopathy, not to mention the fact that you are trying to veer the conversation towards the term "religion" rather than the far more neutral term "God".

The only reason I mention the word "theist" is out of respect for the thread (which is about atheism). Plenty of non-religious practicing people still believe in God. Nice try though.

my post is not meant to be persuasive
— chiknsld

You can't make extravagant claims on a philosophy forum and expect for them to go unchecked.

So you not only believe god/s are real, you claim to know what god/s think. A double whammy of implausibility from an atheist's perspective, as I am sure you must know. Pray tell us how it is achieved?

The debate about the nature of atheism takes place precisely because people make claims such as yours and won't or can't justify them. Ideas live in ecosystems. — Tom Storm

I'm sorry that I tickled your fancy by mentioning that I can prove we are not alone (by way of logic). Again, my post was really about the "invalidity of atheism".

For fear of derailing the thread, I'll have to ignore if you continue to ask for proof of God. I'm not going to continue repeating myself.

I will say this (correct me if I am wrong), you do not believe in God but you continue to ask for proof of God. What to you is proof of God?

By the way, you have 3 thousand posts on this site. In my younger days I could do that in a couple weeks (if not less). You speak to me as if you represent a group of people by referring to yourself as "we" or "us" and you seem to think that you have more experience in philosophical conversations than me.

Also, what are your thoughts on the things I said regarding the "invalidity of atheism"?

Which of course is not the same thing as actually proving it. A Nobel Prize and a shit-ton of money awaits the person who can prove gond/s. One suspects this will go unclaimed. — Tom Storm

As I have stated to you, my post is not meant to be persuasive. And I also stated in my first post that this is not the place to discuss God since they are heavily moderating which discussions can be had about God.

My post was mostly about the invalidity of Atheism. I'm not here to explain to you how or why I believe in God (no offense).

I think you (not "we") are assuming that my post or my work in general is persuasive. You come across a bit on the aggressive side (as far as the assumption goes).

I can actually prove (through logic) that we are not alone, but since I created a discussion on God giving us gifts and talents (for the philosophy of religion section) and it was never even posted by this site, I know this isn't the right place to discuss God.

As far as the invalidity of atheism, I do have a lot of experience talking with them (atheists) and I will say that it is important to respect everyone's opinion/belief/position on life and things of that nature. I have long since made it a point to always consider the position of an atheist when writing philosophy. I ask myself, "what would the atheists that I've known, think about this particular philosophy"?

God really does the same thing if you think about it. God takes into consideration all people, not just the ones who believe.

Oh my, for the op. Did they just happen to leave the site? Such a shame, he seemed like he did have something to offer to the topic of consciousness and I was interested if he had any other ideas other than consciousness arising in the posterior cortex?

It did seem that the op was more about attacking philosophy with a small order of hubris on the side. And it's not exactly quite clear what it is we were supposed to be debating against whilst providing our supportive scientific, empirical evidence.

Were we supposed to find opposing evidence that consciousness does not arise in the posterior cortex or in the brain at all?

I think the biggest issue with consciousness being in the way of our current sciences is the inability to quantify consciousness and I think that might be where the op was finding their frustration.

God is before trivial notions such as the notions that you apply to humans and intelligence.

So, you have a problem with someone creating a logic for a particular religion that they believe in. You also have a problem with fear.

Let me say it another way, I do not have a problem with a specific logic that applies to one thing rather than another. Example: I create a logic that pertains to me rather than other people to help me better understand myself. I create a logic that helps strengthen my own faith in God rather than a logic that other people will use to strengthen their own faith in God. I create my own personal prayer to use that might not seem fruitful to other people who pray. I create a logic for a lifestyle that works for me but might not work for others.

I do not have a problem with fear. I see a big bear and run away, and then I get to tell the story to my children one day. I see a movie that is really scary and I turn off the movie because I don't wanna get nightmares. It looks very dark out in the woods so I bring a flashlight so I do not get bit by an animal. I follow a law that I do not think is very important, like very low speed limits even though everyone on the road is going 20 miles faster. The reason I follow the law is because I do not want to get arrested. If I saw a cop flash his lights I would probably be scared that I was speeding and then get a ticket.

I do not see anything wrong with a logic that only applies to Christianity nor a logic based on fear. What I think is more important though, is how you think a logic is wrong based on your preferences. Are you saying that any logic can never be personal or particular, but rather must be universal in every possible way? Or were you looking for more of a formal modus ponens logic? What exactly makes Pascal's wager wrong, outside of the scope of your preferences?

What is the primary reason the murder rate in the United States is almost 5 times that of the United Kingdom?

Not to sound facetious, but the primary reason is probably that the United States is far more violent than the United Kingdom...the answer you are looking for is "culture" (amongst other things). It is most likely that our culture in America leads to an allowance and appreciation of more violence than is typically seen in United Kingdom.

I notice one of your choices was "gun law". Well "culture" (the beliefs, customs, traditions, etc., of a people) is the social basis for a multitude of statistics that apply to a country, including the statistic of murder rates. Culture affects the philosophy of a people, which in-turn affects the ethics of a people, which in-turn affects the laws that are created and voted for (in a democracy) by the people, including gun laws.

Consciousness is an illusion, in that it does not actually exist? Well interestingly enough, science cannot prove that consciousness exists either, at least objectively speaking.

Science can only point to a series of biological processes such as breathing, cognitive awareness, etc., when declaring a person to be conscious or not (as often happens in a hospital emergency). And the line blurs even further when comparing animals and humans, and further, animals and plants.

Personally, I would ask what benefit is there in claiming something so essential to human reality an illusion? Are we going down the path of solipsism? In other words, if consciousness is an illusion then what is actually real? We know everything by way of our consciousness...

Maybe I am going a bit too far here, let's take a step back for a sec. Let us assume that consciousness really is actually an illusion.

Our experience of our bodies, our sentience and its presence in our environment is a complex biological, electrical and chemical process. These processes are necessarily filtered and prioritised in order for us to efficiently react, intellectualise and behave in a way that makes sense in our environment.

I believe that nowadays, with the benefit of modern science and an understanding that the source ancient ‘thinking’ that led to dualism was relatively uninformed, we can dispense with the illusion of consciousness, or the mind, and shift our perspective away from these imagined ethereal forms.

Okay, so we get rid of the "name" of calling it consciousness, but the processes which describe consciousness still remain? The entire point of dualism is not just an "ancient" contention. There is a very current, modern and real problem (called the problem of consciousness) in that there is absolutely no way to prove an objective, physical consciousness exists (we simply cannot find it anywhere in the brain).

We cannot point to any one biological process and say, "there, that's consciousness". Instead, it's a combination of different biological processes from different areas all combining together to create what we call consciousness. It's an approximation of measure because there is no way of truly quantifying "consciousness".

So, dualism really points to something that is a current enigma, a mystery in our current sciences, not just the long-ago ancient times. There is simply no way to explain how consciousness arises from physical processes. It cannot be located, we do not know what it looks like, smells like, its shape or form. For all intents and purposes it is an illusion, but it's a very real illusion that permeates our very understanding of objective reality.

There are various processes that when combined together create what we refer to as "consciousness", if you get rid of the name it just makes it more difficult to talk about it.

But I sense in my poorly-worded musings, that you are referring to something deeper than merely getting rid of its title (as I had alluded to in the beginning). You are saying consciousness does not actually exist -in the abstract. You are saying that the biological processes do not culminate in a greater, non-physical and mysterious instantiation of reality.

If this is the case, then join the other scientists out there in finding where this material, physical consciousness exists and get your nobel prize!

The dualism referring to the "mind-body" problem is one of the greatest scientific mysteries to date. If you want to be a materialist then science is your best bet, but as I stated, a quantifiable consciousness will need to be discovered, somewhere, wherever it is (probably in the brain).

And if such a thing as a physical consciousness is discovered then it will create all kinds of marvelous new science for us to sink our teeth into.