the no god delusion

[Amorphos]

the no god delusion
ha ha, i thought it is about time we had this one out

we have discussed the limits of logic and the peramiters of self many times before and i have heard no proof that ‘you’ don’t exist. for me ‘you’ are the most obvious truth of any existence and one that isn’t transient. we don’t even need to observe this truth as it is ever-present.

premise; if we can say that ‘you’ exist i.e. that we are not all puppets -a program within a program - if you will, then can we not go on to say that we must have an origin? must there not be;

a. an original self i.e. if ‘you’ are not purely physical, then we ‘exist’ before we come into this world - so to say [if we ever entirely go out of this world?], thus there must be an original state that transcends our transient forms.

b. as the universe cannot also be purely physical - as it emanates from that [whatever the given ‘it’ is] which is not of it, then must it too not also have an original and non transient state?

c. ‘that from which all things arise must contain the essence of what they are’, is there then a universal state of which both ‘you’ and the omniverse emanate? how may we distinguish between your essence and all others, by what may we draw the lines between being - the experiencer, observer, perspective viewer, and the general essence of all things - the infinitive. in other words there must be a universal essence of which all that both you and the rest of reality is composed.

what would this universal and original being be? = god; the ‘you’ entirety. perhaps not in the biblical sense of the term, but i am wondering if ‘creator’ comes into it or if the universe is self creating upon universal principles. it certainly would not be a male as it would embody all natures by the formula of finding universal natures; it = either neither and both of any dichotomy.

[Silver Guard]

thus there must be an original state that transcends our transient forms.

Its called genes, this is no beyond-transient, original being, its a code which exists before "you" do and tells you exactly what to become physicaly through the genarations, with slight alterations allowing for evolution to occur.

You are working on the ideas of Plato, who felt we are only copies of a universal base, like cookies out of a mould. You should read on Aristotle, who absolutely tore this theory to shreds. This is covered here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=62349

[Amorphos]

setarcos aneist

Its called genes, this is no beyond-transient, original being, its a code which exists before “you” do

and genes come from etc etc.

You are working on the ideas of Plato, who felt we are only copies of a universal base, like cookies out of a mould

no i am not actually, i am thinking along the lines of original potential and principles, along with the idea of the everpresent original state in the infinitive i.e. that not only is there an original state that has the essence of all things within it - not in terms of moulds - but that this state doesn’t come to an end at the beginning of the universe, it remains outside of time [is timeless] and is at the base of all things eternally [as it is infinite].

by essence perhaps we can see this in terms of infinite natures i.e.that which is not physically constrained to have boundaries, like being and pure mind for example.

[Silver Guard]

and genes come from etc etc.

You can keep going but in the end this is a quite feable excuse for a divine arguments, taking God's role as a God of gaps. Genes are formed from nucleic (sp) acids placed there by different enzymes and code for proteins which make up our fabrics. Evolution shows the development of genes through the less complex version seen in bacteria, and less complex still in viruses.
Scientists have theorised and even re-created the way life was formed, even managing to work out how cell membranes can be formed in deep-space, let alone on the more hospitable climate of Earth. That scientists have not YET worked out how the universe formed is not an excuse to stick in a God as a place-holder till they do work it out.

no i am not actually, i am thinking along the lines of original potential and principles, along with the idea of the everpresent original state in the infinitive i.e. that not only is there an original state that has the essence of all things within it - not in terms of moulds - but that this state doesn’t come to an end at the beginning of the universe, it remains outside of time [is timeless] and is at the base of all things eternally [as it is infinite].

Could you explain that more simply? I could not make a word of sense from it in my mind.

by essence perhaps we can see this in terms of infinite natures i.e.that which is not physically constrained to have boundaries, like being and pure mind for example.

Pure mind? Being? Explain

[Amorphos]

irishman

This whole argument is based on the irrational assumption that there MUST be a non-physical state to human beings

yes and to existence on the whole! why is it irrational? it is quite logical. what is irrational is the idea that we are merely puppets and don’t even exist! ‘you’ are seeing this image - explain exactly how???? it is said that the brain receives information from the radiation that enters the eye, then processes the information presenting itself [?] with an image and that that is sight. does it not seam logical that there is something missing here? if you can explain what is seeing and what is generally the experiencer within all our faculties then i will except that my argument has no basis [at least in these terms].

ozy

Preumes what it aims to conclude

presumes, that we exist, that you are sat there reading this! then says, if we do then what you are must belong to something universal... is this not logical? it seams to me that it would be illogical to say we exist then that existence has no basis.

setarcos aneist

taking God’s role as a God of gaps

i know how annoying it is when people do that and it is not my intention to deceive.

evolution; what is it on a universal scale? i would think that there is infinite potentiality in the primary state, thus every nature that exists in the universe has its origins in this potential. as the universe evolves it takes from this pool of potential e.g. if we have a sphere then there is a spherical potential that would include all the principles of which it is composed. is this illogical- my reasoning is that for everything to exist and to take on a given form then there must be a prerequisite and a cause to its existence, why else is the singularity what it is if not born of principles and potential that denote its nature?

Could you explain that more simply? I could not make a word of sense from it in my mind

looking back i can see what you mean!

allow me to give an idea of what i mean by an infinity which continues as existence unfolds:
this is just a preliminary idea - it needs some attention.
infinity and the ma’at [infinite balance]
there are three eternal natures to reality, two primary and the third as resultant of those two. infinity is the first and the infinitesimal is the second, i cannot see how these two natures can exist without anything else, if we add them together there seams to be a middle point of balance betwixt the two. how can we measure something that is between infinity and infinitesimality, all we can say is that there is a balance between the two and that it is the size of the singularity and also of all quanta, in other words it is valueless.

when we measure the quantum against the infinite it always remains the same size comparatively, the same applies to the infinitesimal, so the finite/quantum state lies in the balance yet eternally of no size. allow me if i may to use my overused example of the paper and the point; the piece of paper [imagined without edges] = infinity, the point equals the quanta. it doesn’t stop at primary natures of reality e.g. the universe/singularity and the infinities, this model may be used over and over again for every single particle in existence throughout time remapping itself eternally.
this then is the ‘universal principle of infinite balance’.

by this we have to have the quantum state in eternal stasis - if you will, we tend to think of the finite as limited by definition, yet by this principle it may be seen to be an infinity of its own i.e. eternal. there will always be the balance because the infinities are not constrained, so the finite is in essence given eternal life!

.

[Silver Guard]

evolution; what is it on a universal scale? i would think that there is infinite potentiality in the primary state, thus every nature that exists in the universe has its origins in this potential. as the universe evolves it takes from this pool of potential e.g. if we have a sphere then there is a spherical potential that would include all the principles of which it is composed. is this illogical- my reasoning is that for everything to exist and to take on a given form then there must be a prerequisite and a cause to its existence, why else is the singularity what it is if not born of principles and potential that denote its nature?

I don't understand how this removes God from simply being a God of Gaps

allow me to give an idea of what i mean by an infinity which continues as existence unfolds:
this is just a preliminary idea - it needs some attention.
infinity and the ma’at [infinite balance]
there are three eternal natures to reality, two primary and the third as resultant of those two. infinity is the first and the infinitesimal is the second, i cannot see how these two natures can exist without anything else, if we add them together there seams to be a middle point of balance betwixt the two. how can we measure something that is between infinity and infinitesimality, all we can say is that there is a balance between the two and that it is the size of the singularity and also of all quanta, in other words it is valueless.

That meant absolutly nothing to me, and I'd like to meet the person who it did not addle the brains of.

when we measure the quantum against the infinite it always remains the same size comparatively, the same applies to the infinitesimal, so the finite/quantum state lies in the balance yet eternally of no size. allow me if i may to use my overused example of the paper and the point; the piece of paper [imagined without edges] = infinity, the point equals the quanta. it doesn’t stop at primary natures of reality e.g. the universe/singularity and the infinities, this model may be used over and over again for every single particle in existence throughout time remapping itself eternally.
this then is the ‘universal principle of infinite balance’.

This still remains completly off topic and meaningless in this topic as far as i can discern, maybe its just beyond what I can understand.

by this we have to have the quantum state in eternal stasis - if you will, we tend to think of the finite as limited by definition, yet by this principle it may be seen to be an infinity of its own i.e. eternal. there will always be the balance because the infinities are not constrained, so the finite is in essence given eternal life!

Ok... so the finite lasts for ever... that dosn't mean in the slightest we do, as Ozy said, your jumping from the whole to the smallest sections of the whole, this is faulty logic and is equivalent to looking at Bush and claiming all of America is stupid and ignorant.

[Irishman]

a. an original self i.e. if ‘you’ are not purely physical, then we ‘exist’ before we come into this world - so to say [if we ever entirely go out of this world?], thus there must be an original state that transcends our transient forms

.

There is no reason that the non-physical cannot be created by physical actions. Why must they have existed before we did?

This whole argument is based on the irrational assumption that there MUST be a non-physical state to human beings. All you have done is tried to show what would happen IF there were a soul.

Since you can show no evidence to support the assumption

[Tom Paine]

Preumes what it aims to conclude, begs the question, is a circular argument.... use whatever term you will, this is a fallacious piece of reasoning, I'm afraid.

[Tom Paine]

It has no reason to jump from the specific (I) to the universal (I-as-part-of-universe). This is an illogical leap and begs the question of, why is it being made?

[Elfdude]

Your logic falls on its face when you remember that the universe can be completely physical and not have the slightest bit of difficulty in working.

Amazing what you can 'prove' with fallacies huh?

[Beiss]

Yeah, why not? My mind is made up of chemical reactions, all of which are purely physical. If not, there wouldn't be such a thing as a "mind-altering drug". Clearly, if a physical thing can affect my mind, my mind is physical.

[Irishman]

yes and to existence on the whole! why is it irrational? it is quite logical. what is irrational is the idea that we are merely puppets and don’t even exist! ‘you’ are seeing this image - explain exactly how???? it is said that the brain receives information from the radiation that enters the eye, then processes the information presenting itself [?] with an image and that that is sight. does it not seam logical that there is something missing here? if you can explain what is seeing and what is generally the experiencer within all our faculties then i will except that my argument has no basis [at least in these terms].

An argument from ignorance is not a valid form.

Just because you don't see how this could exist does not mean it cannot. If you want your claim that the universe must be more than physical you NEED to prove that the universe not containing the mystic is IMPOSSIBLE (it contains a contradiction.)

Your arguemnt is, "come on, that cant happen." I completely admit that your theorey (of a god) is possible, and cite the rules of reason to dissmiss it due to lack of evidence (and evidence to the contrary).

You have provided no contradiction and demonstrated no need for more than the physical in the universe.

if you can explain what is seeing and what is generally the experiencer within all our faculties then i will except that my argument has no basis [at least in these terms].

Have you ever heared of a camera? In detroit now, a team at ford is building a self driving car, which uses, among other things, a video analysis system which can recognize possible hazards and roadblocks much like our brain does (I have spoken with a chief enginier on the project).

It is not that hard to believe, but even if it were, you have shown NO argument to suggest that this is impossible!

[Gary88]

Descartes has had all of this out and he got no further than 'proving' you cant doubt your existence everything after that is far far to complex if at all possible to work out logically. Cogito ergo sum is as good as it gets

[Tom Paine]

Descartes has had all of this out and he got no further than 'proving' you cant doubt your existence everything after that is far far to complex if at all possible to work out logically. Cogito ergo sum is as good as it gets

Except Descartes thought he proved everything, and by making a few assumptions got a lot further than you imply.

[Amorphos]

ozy
when i said this; ‘if you exist, then you are not purely physical’ i was referring to the idea that there is no you according to atheists i.e.that we are programs within a program. i was merely cutting corners by excepting that you already made this argument, otherwise one tends to babble [in over explanation].

the trouble with matrix style perceptions of our existence is that it is hollow, there are no actual participants. this then is what i am saying when i talk about the user or ‘you’ - its the bit that makes the world full of life and love man.
if we could take that essence and explore it in a lab, then it would be understood and accepted as real, yet for some reason we don’t accept that our very foremost reality is indeed real. i think therfore i am or i would say simply - i am.

Beiss

Yeah, why not? My mind is made up of chemical reactions

chemicals that produce elecricity, a bit like a battery. now what kind of electricity is it that is mind and thought exactly?

Clearly, if a physical thing can affect my mind, my mind is physical

if you get in a car and it starts turning the wrong way and making wierd noises it doesn’t mean that you have gone wrong. similarly if you take mind [?] altering drugs it affects you bodily vehicle i.e. your human form and specifically your brain. believe me i know all about mind altering drugs...

go on, now think ah this bloke doesn’t know what he is saying because he has taken drugs, so if i say 2 + 2 = 4 then it is wrong eh.

irishman

no need for more than the physical in the universe

1. and the universe exists within what? infinity perhaps.

2. what about parallel universes are they still physical... energy is conserved so it does not exist outside of the universe and that is why the arguments so far have stated that there is only the universe - so what are all the other universes, they cannot be physical as this is largely defined as being of an energy construct [the singularity] and hence within this physical universe.

Have you ever heared of a camera?

what kind of question is that? a camera doesn’t see, it just captures light radiation. if a camera is linked to a computer, it does not see. it simply gathers info taken from that light radiation, reading info is not seeing.[there is no it seeing].

video analysis system which can recognize possible hazards and roadblocks much like our brain does

exactly, that is exactly what our brain and body does! it is a chemical robot if you like, but it is one that has an occupant!!!! don’t you see the emptiness of the machine without ‘you’ in it?

[Silver Guard]

ozy
when i said this; ‘if you exist, then you are not purely physical’ i was referring to the idea that there is no you according to atheists i.e.that we are programs within a program. i was merely cutting corners by excepting that you already made this argument, otherwise one tends to babble [in over explanation].

Programs within a program? Since when was the universe a computer for Atheists?

the trouble with matrix style perceptions of our existence is that it is hollow, there are no actual participants. this then is what i am saying when i talk about the user or ‘you’ - its the bit that makes the world full of life and love man.

So basicly your theory is based on your need to have a purpose and that there be something more interesting for you to think about. Thats not logic

if we could take that essence and explore it in a lab, then it would be understood and accepted as real, yet for some reason we don’t accept that our very foremost reality is indeed real. i think therfore i am or i would say simply - i am.

Actualy I'm pretty sure the place around me is real, what makes you think that I don't? I had a debate with ozy the other day about "I think therefore I am", as this is essencialy the only think I'm sure of. Your assumptions are as unfounded as ludicrous

Beiss

chemicals that produce elecricity, a bit like a battery. now what kind of electricity is it that is mind and thought exactly?

Electricity which runs along nerves. Our memory is formed by image connections, our thoughts by our brain sorting through these and associating them to the situation.

if you get in a car and it starts turning the wrong way and making wierd noises it doesn’t mean that you have gone wrong. similarly if you take mind [?] altering drugs it affects you bodily vehicle i.e. your human form and specifically your brain. believe me i know all about mind altering drugs...

Yes... and? Your mind is in your brain, your brain operates your mind, thus mind-altering drugs work by affecting the brain.

go on, now think ah this bloke doesn’t know what he is saying because he has taken drugs, so if i say 2 + 2 = 4 then it is wrong eh.

That was... I'm not going to say it, you'll get insulted.

1. and the universe exists within what? infinity perhaps.

Nothing, the universe is finite, thus everything outside it is simply nothingness

2. what about parallel universes are they still physical... energy is conserved so it does not exist outside of the universe and that is why the arguments so far have stated that there is only the universe - so what are all the other universes, they cannot be physical as this is largely defined as being of an energy construct [the singularity] and hence within this physical universe.

What other universes? There is no proof there are any, its one of many quantum theories. And yes they can be physical, parralel dimentions are all just as physical as one another. Thus there are many energy constructs (singuarities)

what kind of question is that? a camera doesn’t see, it just captures light radiation. if a camera is linked to a computer, it does not see. it simply gathers info taken from that light radiation, reading info is not seeing.[there is no it seeing].

Sight is the capturing of light radiation. It is transferred along "wires" (nerves) into a computer (the brain) and processed into an understandable image there.

exactly, that is exactly what our brain and body does! it is a chemical robot if you like, but it is one that has an occupant!!!! don’t you see the emptiness of the machine without ‘you’ in it?

Nah, when I'm dead its due to lack of blood to the brain, nothing else. I cannot be removed from my body because "I" AM my body. The thinking part of me IS my brain, and dies when the brain dies, because they are one and the same. Only when the brain is dead is the body "empty", as all life is gone from the brain.

[Amorphos]

setarcos

Programs within a program? Since when was the universe a computer for Atheists?

well they state with great regularity that the brain is a bio computer and that we don’t exist, we are merely products of that computer i.e.a program. the program that that is within would be the environment.

So basicly your theory is based on your need to have a purpose and that there be something more interesting for you to think about.

i don’t need a purpose. all of my post here have been exploring ideas, it is simply philosophical inquiry.

Thats not logic

may i point out that there are limits to logic - as many people have stated here;
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=98889

Actualy I’m pretty sure the place around me is real, what makes you think that I don’t?

i didn’t say that you don’t think that what is around you is real, i am debating the idea that ‘you’ are not real as athiests seam to think i.e. that you are a chemical robot.

Your assumptions are as unfounded as ludicrous

i would appreciate it if you kept your insults to yourself. i believe that i am working on a reasoned perspective that i have endeavoured to explain as best i can. now what we are debating here is probably the hardest aspect of reality that there is to understand - i try!

Electricity which runs along nerves. Our memory is formed by image connections, our thoughts by our brain sorting through these and associating them to the situation.

and this is you thinking is it - or is it the functionality thereof. you have a user and environmental input, to which the brain responds and computes [in the manner you said i presume] responses.

Yes... and? Your mind is in your brain, your brain operates your mind, thus mind-altering drugs work by affecting the brain.

similarly to the above statement, perhaps your brain does not operate your mind but vice versa or at least where necessary your mind operates the brain. consider how you and your brain interact, it seams to me that there is a certain amount of self determination coupled with environmental inputs.

What other universes?

perhaps not, yet what is there when the universe ends?

Thus there are many energy constructs (singuarities)

if energy is conserved it is limited, most likely to this universe only. hmm yes you could have many ‘singularities’, yet the cannot interact or that would interfere with the conservation of energy in each one. then there is the infinity paradox - that you cannot have an infinite ‘amount’ [think about that term comparative to the meaning ‘infinite’] of universes.

Sight is the capturing of light radiation. It is transferred along “wires” (nerves) into a computer (the brain) and processed into an understandable image there.

and what exactly is viewing it?

[Irishman]

exactly, that is exactly what our brain and body does! it is a chemical robot if you like, but it is one that has an occupant!!!! don’t you see the emptiness of the machine without ‘you’ in it?

This may be an uncomfortable fact to restle with, but that doesn't make it false.

So reality is empty, it is all an illusion anyway, we are just highly evoulved animals, and you have shown no argument (other than "come on, I don't wan't to believe that!) which supports your claim.

if a camera is linked to a computer, it does not see. it simply gathers info taken from that light radiation, reading info is not seeing.[there is no it seeing].

All we are doing, when seeing, is capturing information and interperating it. There is nothing more, which is evident in the fact that people can "see" hallucinations and be color blind, this is just missinformation.

For the life of me I cannot understand the obsession of the human race with the illusion that they are somehow "more".

[Ummon]

The illusion is both to be more, and to be less. Compared to what, besides? As we don't know what we are, nor what the world is...

This is why Buddhism in western contexts is dangerous. What it leads to is another form of knowledge, which is illusion.

[Axe-Battler]

You guys, ..........

with all the millions of books, internet articles, 6 billion+ humans with 2.5 million years of existance(as far as the oldest human skull found was concerned so we could be even older than that)...countless, in a way infinite ideas, thoughts, theories, religions, concepts, philosophies, sciences that humans have come up with... why do we bother choosing a belief or philosophy? Argue with people considering the above? Discuss stuff, even if it's "no truth" and fancy taosit' concepts?

It's all just been thought of by people, passed down for all this time, built up on top of useless info...

We can obviously say philosophy and religion were never needed...we already can easily say science was never needed either... considering that we are actually animals, nothing more, animals do not need science or to even think about things...

considering the vast majority of humans are in misery, and have been since we stopped being animals, since we somehow thought of ourselves as more than animals, we somehow managed to believe we are better than animals... but why? Look at the pointless crap humans have done, it's all pointless, literally.

If you took away all science for example, and humans never had the mental defect of mental agitation, that is, to keep thinking... we would be living much better lives, and would be superior in being, superior like the animals we were supposed to be.