Rob posted by Rob 09 May 2019  

/pix/general/

Existence of God debate

https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/970992037905403904

https://youtu.be/HK5M1BrQeG8

Sam Harris doesn't believe in consciousness or freedom of the will, taking the atheist argument to it's logical conclusion, thus proving the existence of god by reductio ad absurdum, reducing the alternative hypothesis to absurdity, for consciousness and freedom of the will clearly exist. And anyone who thinks they don't isn't worth talking to, for what value are the words of a being with no freedom of the will or consciousness? They are not even your words, there is no "you" of any significance to be worth listening to, if you say you have no consciousness and no freedom of the will, hahahahahahaha
thumb_up2thumb_down2reply4 Replies
4d ago
Andredal

well he takes the biology approach where humans act on their instinct and biology. That's how he labels it
thumb_up4thumb_downreplyReply
4d ago
Rubb

indeed and ends up denying metaphysical concepts such as consciousness and freedom of the will as every rationalist must deny metaphysics - and is thus wrong - and thereby, ironically, proves the existence of God by reducing the counter position to absurdity - because consciousness and freedom of the will exist, obviously
thumb_upthumb_down2reply24 Replies
4d ago
Andredal

God doesn't exist, there is no evidence whatsoever in the world today to prove God. Just because you claim free will exists, doesn't prove God does. The bible is one big lie and a book filled with fairy tales with no evidence of reality. Evolution disproves the fact of God and the bible
thumb_up5thumb_down
4d ago
Zemran

But I have this book that proves God exists. It was written 2000 years ago by all sorts of people and has talking snakes and talking bushes in it so it must be true. How can your logic hold up against talking snakes?
thumb_up3thumb_down
4d ago
FoxFox

Harris has a scientific curiosity about both consciousness and free will. So you claim he believes consciousness doesn't exist. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Harris has studied consciousness from a neurological standpoint - that does not equate his position at all with him not believing consciousness to be 'real'. Quite the contrary is true of Harris, in fact he indicates that it appears to be our only interface with reality. That's why he is curious about its origin. Since there is zero evidence to show that what we call consciousness is metaphysical, and some evidence that it may be based on neurological functions, a reasonable approach would be to reserve judgement rather than to ignorantly pencil in 'metaphysics'.
thumb_up6thumb_down
4d agoedited
The Strike!

thumb_up5thumb_down
4d ago
Rubb

consciousness does not exist in exactly the same way god doesnt, haha, or love - or even a wave, actually, or anything at all
thumb_upthumb_down
1d ago
sharingFOCUS

Harris doesn't argue that consciousness does not exist... rather that the way this neurological effect presents itself, to self, is an inside-the-box illusion. To understand that, you need to take an outside view - and to understand that the god principle is useless, you need to be able to step past causal reasoning. It would also be helpful to understand that a complex neural biofeedback system's involuntary need to try and materialize mental projections is an interesting pastime but not 'free will.' To understand what free will might be, if it existed - but isn't , because it doesn't - it would be helpful to understand relativity ;)
thumb_upthumb_down
15h ago
Rubb

The opinion of someone who doesn't believe in their own freedom of will is worthless. :) I understand relativity very well thank you I did five years of physics and philosophy at Oxford:) you don't:) neither does Same Harris :) neither does Richard Dawkins. Could you derive the Lorenz transformations? No. :). Neither could he haha or any other of the psueds who know no science yet present it like "here comes the scoence" shampoo commercial designed to persuade dumb girls that "it's true!" Hahahahahahaha:) so you don't believe in freedom of the will, you don't believe in God either hahahahahahaha point proven, rereductio ad absurdum. You are reduced to absurdity :) God exists, as does freedom of the will, love and consciousness as well as your immortal soul. Tremble not mortal unless immortal you wish to be! :)
thumb_upthumb_down
1h ago
Rubb

Mind is an epiphenomena of matter was Karl "idiot no maths" Marx's position as well, European reactionary philosophy, reaction to the British revolution scientific and political, they say the two world wars rushed into a god shaped hole in the heart of europe when idiots like neitschze Marx and Freud thought British science had explained the universe when Newton himself said he had merely polished one pebble on the beach Voltaire said it was too much to have to credit Newton with founding all modern knowledge history physics chemistry and theology
thumb_upthumb_down
1h ago
Rubb

Sorry for tone of reply :) smug smiley face wound me up and got you a smug response :) hate myself now, but yeah, my maths is pretty good graduate in physics and philosophy, 5 a levels a grade best in the country leaving school, studied with the best on special and general relativity, neither of which are particularly relevant to consciousness debate, quantum mechanics more so - but both introduce the idea of the observer and Mark the limits of Newton's objective, or "God's eye" point of view. A conscious observer is required to collapse the wavefunction of the universe, time itself has no meaning without an observer experiencing it, when it's all over none of it ever happened, reality is consciousness dependant not the other way round. The collapse of the wavefunction of the unive
thumb_upthumb_down
1h ago
FoxFox

An 'observer' in quantum mechanics is any apparatus used to measure a quantum system and has nothing at all to do with consciousness.
thumb_upthumb_down
1h ago
Rubb

That non conscious "observer" goes straight into the wave function which remains uncollapsed. The time argument is nothing to do with quantum yet leads to the same conclusion backing it up. Bishop Berkleys idealism pointed the mistake out right when people first started making it 350 years ago
thumb_upthumb_down
1h ago
FoxFox

The collapse of the wave function is the Copenhagen interpretation and serves as a mathematical construct to predict quantum probability. The Copenhagen interpretation, once popular, is no longer the popular concept. it is useful for doing the math to determine probabilities if you wish to prevent infinities from blowing out the results of the equations.
thumb_upthumb_down
1h ago
Rubb

You're all a bunch of 19th century rationalist materialists like Karl Marx, you have not seen the limits of this type of thinking, these limits were surpassed over 100 years ago, technically, but the wise always knew
thumb_upthumb_down
1h ago
FoxFox

When any quantum system interacts with any other quantum system, both systems are changed and no accurate measurement can be assured. It does not require any conscious observer. Next you'll be telling us that if you don't look at the moon that it isn't there.
thumb_upthumb_down
56m ago
Rubb

Dishonest paraphrase read again, not what I said. It is time to brush up on my quantum mechanics yes, it's been years. Regarding bible comments above my dad always said "once you have proven God's existence that doesn't mean you have to take the Bible as true" just to make clear this is a philosophical argument and "god" and "religion" are two totally different subjects and I am probably more angry at religion than you are.
thumb_upthumb_down
54m ago
FoxFox

yes I misread your comment. Nobody has ever offered any proof of God's existence. There isn't even any good evidence. Does that mean God doesn't exist? No. But with no good evidence and zero proof you've got a lot of work to do to believe it. That's where faith comes to the rescue. Faith is wishing and hoping something is true when you have no good evidence that it actually is.
thumb_up1thumb_down
52m ago
FoxFox

I'm not angry at religion. It's no different than any other fear-based assumption that humanity has come up with. I was raised a Christian and have read many versions of the bible. But the bible is written by superstitious men from antiquity. We can't be too hard on them for their ignorance, but neither should we drag it with us into our future.
thumb_up1thumb_down
49m ago
Rubb

The reason this, the one existent universe, has the laws it has is precisely because it makes consciousness and therefore wavefunction collapse possible thus every possible universe with every possible physics collapsed into this particular universe. Consciousness is a necassary condition for the existence of the universe, not just the moon. The universe was created to create life, the human mind is the most complex object in the universe, we are the pinnacle of creation, the universe was created for us, we are the meaning of the universe, time we started acting like the human story is the most important story in the universe, time we started acting like it. I don't believe in aliens either if you want a further whacky belief to challenge.
thumb_upthumb_down
48m ago
FoxFox

Woo woo. The universe doesn't care about you, has no special purpose, and the belief that we are special is one based in ego.
The probability that aliens exist is reasonable, but until I see proof I reserve my judgement. Same with Gods, angels, demons, ghosts, goblins etc.
thumb_up1thumb_down
46m ago
FoxFox

Most physicists do not support the wave function collapse (Copenhagen interpretation) at all, and nowhere in quantum physics do we discover that consciousness is required. The Copenhagen interpretation spurned the nonsensical and unscientific idea that 'we create our own reality'. Many people will tell you that quantum physics states that we create our own reality (a nice idea for sure) but quantum physics certainly does not state this anywhere at all.
thumb_up1thumb_down
36m ago
Rubb

Consciousness is a necassary condition for the existence of the universe. Time argument completely separate to wavefunction argument, time has no meaning without an observer, a universe without consciousness cannot "exist" in any meaningful sense of the word. We can't do physics here so let's try philosophy. "Exist" what does it mean? A wave, on a pond, you see it moving across the top of the water, nothing is actually moving across the water, the water just moves up and down, the wave is nothing as in "no" "thing", if one is to say the wave doesn't exist I am quite happy to concede God doesn't exist or freedom of the will, or consciousness or love or the soul, for these are not "things" either and "exist" can reasonably mean "things" but since EVERYTHING is waves NOTHING exists following the logic through, so, God doesn't exist in the same way you don't exist, reductio ad absurdum again, primary technique for proof in logic. Physics and philosophy at Oxford requires an advanced formal logic course as well, all logic is based on this principle.
thumb_upthumb_down
31m ago
Rubb

I have no argument against caveman atheism just scientific atheism, those who think science disproves God are just flat out wrong, quite the opposite in fact, unless your a Marxist or fascist or clinging to one of the other bogus philosophies and pseudo sciences that emerged from the late 19th century paradigm when it did indeed look like science was saying not only does God the soul love consciousness and freedom of the will were impossible in a universe of billiard ball atoms operating under deterministic equations not only were all of the above impossible the universe was fundamentally deterministic and everything necessarily preordained hence Karl "false prophet" Marx's dialectical materialism and determinism
thumb_up1thumb_down
23m agoedited
FoxFox

Yeah let's NOT do philosophy. Instead of asking 'why?' Ask 'how?'
If you ask for example 'Why are we here?' you can only philosophize and there is nothing tangible to tell us the true nature of reality. Everybody has a different answer and we are not much better off (except that thinking deeply about any topic can help us to clarify the topic itself). If instead you ask 'how are we here?' you embark on a journey based in observable and testable facts and can learn something useful about the true nature of reality.

Atheism is not a belief that there are no gods. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. It is difficult to believe in something which you cant empirically justify without employing faith and imagination. So when good evidence (or better still: actual proof) of aliens is presented, we can do little more than speculate about their existence. Same with deities, or in fact anything truly 'supernatural'.
thumb_upthumb_down
17m ago
FoxFox

You will come across people who firmly avow that there are no gods, but if they are honest the best they can say is that they simply don't know - perhaps can never know - and all they are portraying is their lack of belief. Same goes for theists - they don't actually know and so far in human history there is no way of knowing. Beliefs are useful of course, but believing something isn't the same as being able to state with any authority that it is true.