We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Why do you think there is no God?
| 154 | 21517 |
I ask this because a lot of these forums are of why people believe there is a God but, what about those out there who don't believe in a God? Why don't you think there is a God at all?
- 154 Replies
Thus, free will is hard if not impossible to integrate in a physical world since every action we do is predetermined by the past, and the present situation
How so?
It is an influence, clearly, but it does not determine the future. Who is to say it does? I mean. Unless you can accurately predict something that is no obvious in a few years time, and I mean pin-point accuracy, then it goes into a step of evidence.
Now, given what has been said and the possibiltiy that predeterminism is indeed real, which is a possibility. Would it not be our individual growth that is affected by this predeterminism? Thus stretching furthermore as a result of individual thought?
Not only that, but it is not like you cannot rethink over the same thing, drawing different aspects of it and developing new ideas. Ultimately, people like this appear to change predeterminism, not the other way around.
- H
Look my friend, For each and everything there doesn't require a proof. Somethings have to feel. For god's availability, do some meditation, then you will feel his appearance. He is always there helping us to get out of each and every situation. There is always a silver lining on the cloud and who show us that silver lining when we are in trouble. He is the one. God.
Yes, make a completely unfounded assumption and act like this is proof. How do you know ths feeling is god? Hindus, muslims, christians all feel god but they have incompatible religions so it can't be god.
Look my friend, For each and everything there doesn't require a proof. Somethings have to feel. For god's availability, do some meditation, then you will feel his appearance. He is always there helping us to get out of each and every situation. There is always a silver lining on the cloud and who show us that silver lining when we are in trouble. He is the one. God.
Did you honestly just tell an Atheist that? Ha! Good luck with that one!
Personally, the very concept of a consciousness sounds ethereal, and it actually seems really silly and arbitrary to say that physical things arranged in a certain way can generate a consciousness.
Yes, but why necessarily is it silly? It may SEEM silly, yes, but impressions are no excuse for actual arguments. It is possible that consciousness as we understand it is purely derived from physical processes, making sentience/consciousness compatible with determinism, physicalism, reductionism and all of that. However, there would be no free will. Could consciousness exist without free will? I say it is certainly possible, as we could be observing our actions and believing that they are made based upon free will when actually they are predetermined and such, as our minds are bound by the same immutable laws of physics as everything else. My only question is, again, what is your reasoning that free will exists in the first place?
Also, highfire, I would highly recommend you read his links and read up on the subjects of determinism/physicalism and all of that, and the wikipedia links programpro posted earlier. They're interesting and they'll give you a better understanding of the subject.
Did you honestly just tell an Atheist that? Ha! Good luck with that one!
You sounded halrious in my head Paarfam.
Unless you was insulting atheists...
...
Was you? I don't think you was XD
Oh and yeah see - I saw you on WEPR <3
Yes, make a completely unfounded assumption and act like this is proof
If you carry on debating like this (as in very well) with theists you're gonna have to copy and paste that line.
- H
They're interesting and they'll give you a better understanding of the subject.
I skimmed through them and yes, they are interesting but I must say that there is not a great deal of proof. Albeit there isn't much of a way we could actually find proof if our consciousness' were not physical substance - leading me more to believe that physical substance is what makes the consciousness, there hasn't been such a lack of proof on the matter that it cannot be accepted - and even if you think there is, I think it has more leverage than ethrealism. Why not try and find out rather than believing that your consciousness and free will is not a physical substance and be done on the subject?
However, there would be no free will.
My predeterminism theory - did you read it?
- H
I skimmed through them and yes, they are interesting but I must say that there is not a great deal of proof. Albeit there isn't much of a way we could actually find proof if our consciousness' were not physical substance - leading me more to believe that physical substance is what makes the consciousness, there hasn't been such a lack of proof on the matter that it cannot be accepted - and even if you think there is, I think it has more leverage than ethrealism. Why not try and find out rather than believing that your consciousness and free will is not a physical substance and be done on the subject?
Actually read them. These are philosophies made based on deductive reasoning - not inductive scientific theories. You don't really seem to understand what the argument is about.
not inductive scientific theories.
What scientific theories? They're theories, surely, but it is not as if they have no ground on them. They have understanding in them and furthermore you can see its effects of a physical manifestation.
A non-physical substance of consciousness, based on deductive reasoning still is not true. It has not got the ground to cover it, I see that it has people thinking about these things but in no way I see the foundations necessary to make it a viable thing to accept.
- H
I say that free will needs to be independent of fixed rules. Therefore, it cannot be chemical. This is solid reasoning, in my opinion. Yes, then I go on to suppose that our consciousnesses are linked (how transcendentalist) and that they stem from God, and yes that is much more speculation-ey. I guess all I can say is that it makes more sense that, all of us being so similar, we are all derived from one source. And, of course, the source of all consciousness must be conscious. :P
All speculation. We are similar as we are humans. Free will can just be chemical. And what made god since all consciousness must stem from somehwre where does god stem from.
...*sigh*
Okay, answer me ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: Can we have predetermined actions and still have free will?
Yes, we are a person whose reactions can be foreseen if you know our minds. We have free will but for different people the decisions will be different depending on who they are and if you know who they are you know what they will choose.
A non-physical substance of consciousness, based on deductive reasoning still is not true. It has not got the ground to cover it, I see that it has people thinking about these things but in no way I see the foundations necessary to make it a viable thing to accept.
This further convinces me that you don't understand what the argument is about. >_< also, your sentence structure needs work, because it took me a while to interpret what you were saying.
No one has answered this yet: "What mechanical processes and conditions do you believe are required in order to spawn a consciousness?"
I actually understand what you're saying, unlike . . . some of the people earlier...
Thankyou
...and I only have one question so far - are you defining God purely as the conscious source of consciousness, or are you using a definition more in-line with the general idea of a deity - that is, a sentient creator who is omniscient/omnibenevolent/omnipotent/omnipresent and such, similar to the Christian God?
Hmm... I guess for this argument I'm just arguing the former: there is a supreme being, independent of the physical world.
Personally, I also think that he's connected to us, so he's omniscient about our thoughts and he's omnipresent with each of us. Also, he probably has a means of knowing what is happening in the physical world (other than his link to us). And I think we should assume he's benevolent, because he gave us life (and because otherwise, there's really no point :P).
Also, I said benevolent, not the God that's in the Bible. No offense to believers, but that person was NOT benevolent. I don't think He is so cruel as to give people reasoning and then demand that they ignore it, or so vain as to demand eternal worship and condemn the non-complicit to fire.
Also, for your argument to be true, there has to be free will in the first place. What is your reasoning behind the idea that free will does, in fact, exist?
Yes, this is a very, very tough one. I guess the basis of my belief in free will is that I feel free. Furthermore, I believe that a consciousness who is simply "taken along for the ride" -- that is, a consciousness who is made to believe he has free will but doesn't -- would not be fooled for long.
Getting further into the core of the issue, to me a consciousness seems to necessitate free will. Think if you made a robot that looked and acted exactly like a human, except all of its behaviors were simulated. Like, instead of loss causing grief, we'd have commands that say "if (someone_close_has_died) then {grieving = true}". Such a robot would not have free will, and would not be conscious. Well, it seems to me that we could very easily have been made that way, but we weren't. We have someone sitting in the driver's seat, experiencing and remembering and choosing, and to me that necessitates an independence from control.
I mean, if we are all just a series of chemical reactions governed by the laws of physics, then why the heck would we be conscious? We'd be no more conscious than a boulder rolling down a hill, where the laws of mechanics determine its path for it. It doesn't make sense that we can be all-physical and conscious.
Well, that was long-winded :P I hope that was a good answer.
It is an influence, clearly, but it does not determine the future. Who is to say it does? I mean. Unless you can accurately predict something that is no obvious in a few years time, and I mean pin-point accuracy, then it goes into a step of evidence.
The laws of physics are not "random", they do not change, and they are always in effect. This means that if A happens then B will certainly happen, and could not have happened any other way. When you claim that our minds are composed of biochemical processes, you claim that our minds are subject to the same rules as every other physical process in the universe. Thus, our actions would happen in a set fashion in accordance with the laws of the universe, and all of our actions would be predictable (ie. predetermined).
Now, given what has been said and the possibiltiy that predeterminism is indeed real, which is a possibility. Would it not be our individual growth that is affected by this predeterminism? Thus stretching furthermore as a result of individual thought?
Not only that, but it is not like you cannot rethink over the same thing, drawing different aspects of it and developing new ideas. Ultimately, people like this appear to change predeterminism, not the other way around.
I honestly don't know what you're asking, but I don't believe in predeterminism, so...
It is possible that consciousness as we understand it is purely derived from physical processes, making sentience/consciousness compatible with determinism, physicalism, reductionism and all of that. However, there would be no free will. Could consciousness exist without free will?
Well, it just seems far too arbitrary. The Universe is about simple, predictable rules. If you try to move matter into other matter, you get a resisting force. If two particles collide and annihilate, 2-or-more photons must be produced to preserve momentum.
To transfer from that into "When electrons and chemical reactions all line up in a certain way so that things change and record events and stuff then a consciousness is created"; that sounds quite bogus to me. Unless someone can discover an elementary definition of the smallest, most irreducible form of consciousness, then the idea of it arbitrarily existing only in these huge complex systems is unbelievable.
Could consciousness exist without free will? I say it is certainly possible, as we could be observing our actions and believing that they are made based upon free will when actually they are predetermined and such, as our minds are bound by the same immutable laws of physics as everything else.
Again, I don't think such a facade would work. Definitely not for any long period of time. The only way to not give someone control while making them feel they have control is if all of their base intentions match perfectly with what happens; that is, their will is actually done, always. I think the fact that we can even evaluate our will is evidence that we can do what we want.
My only question is, again, what is your reasoning that free will exists in the first place?
I hope I gave a good answer earlier
All speculation. No. Part introspection. We are similar as we are humans. Free will can just be chemical. No, as I've stated And what made god since all consciousness must stem from somehwre where does god stem from.I don't know, but then again, whence came the universe?
Responses in bold.
Okay, now let's assume that the brain is conscious; that is consciousness is purely physical. Then what is the smallest, most elementary part of the brain that is necessary for consciousness to be maintained? Like you said, you could cut out parts and remain conscious... so, could you do without your memories? Your sensory units? What part is essential for consciousness? And why can't we replicate it and create life?
Hmm.. this isn't easy, but I'd go with brain sectors and cervical ganglions. Those in turn rely on the function and interplay of neurons, so in the end it goes down to neurons, but a neuron alone doesn't make someone conscious. Neither does one sector alone btw. Maybe I should say it's the interactions between everything. There are of course sectors that are directly necessary for viability, and others aren't (maybe two of the most prominent examples, Phineas Gage and , might help in understanding).
Why can't we replicate it and create life? I guess because it is too complex and fine-tuned for us to just create something similar, also brains are physiologically very sensitive units. But technically it is possible to create consciousness with regulated neurons.
Oh and don't forget that consciousness isn't necessary for life, just think of mikroorganisms, plants and fungi etc.
Yes, they'd have to be stochastic on the small-scale, so I don't think that that quite works. Also you can't have "redetermined" and "robability", it's gotta be one or the other.
What I am saying is, if we say there are stochastic events, the probability that what you will do next is action X is almost 100%, whereas the probability that next years action is action X, is lower, etc., until you get near to zero if you try to predict things ages and ages in the future.
Personally, the very concept of a consciousness sounds ethereal, and it actually seems really silly and arbitrary to say that physical things arranged in a certain way can generate a consciousness.
Maybe it's because you think that consciousness is something separated, although it is simply a product of our brain, and in my eyes it seems silly and arbitrary to think that there is something ethereal that plays the role of captain in our body. The whole concept of life can be reduced to organized and self-replicating matter.
How so?
Let's say there are no stochastic events, then the world would be 100% deterministic, since the base progresses would always work in a certain pattern, and if you would know every action at every given time, you could calculate how it will develop after a given time. This would of course be such an immense set of data that you'd need a computer probably the size of the universe to be able to do that. But this is not what I think; like I said I think there must be at least some events that are stochastic, reducing the certainty to a probability that drops with passing time. There still are a lot of processes that have a given way of reacting in a given system, so influences of the past and present have a huge influence on what will happen next.
Now, given what has been said and the possibiltiy that predeterminism is indeed real, which is a possibility. Would it not be our individual growth that is affected by this predeterminism? Thus stretching furthermore as a result of individual thought?
Err.... what? o.0
Not only that, but it is not like you cannot rethink over the same thing, drawing different aspects of it and developing new ideas. Ultimately, people like this appear to change predeterminism, not the other way around.
You can't change determinism; as long as you accept determinism, you must accept that the guy that rethinks and meditates about things, was to do exactly that from the beginning, and it will not change anything.
Anyway, the reason why I believe there is no God is because there's absolutely no logical reason for me to believe there is a God.
So there is no God because you say there is no God?
no he thinks there si no god because to his mind he hasnt seen any evidence proving there is one, and he didnt say thre isnt one he said he believes there isnt one, its not just because he says there isnt one
So there is no God because you say there is no God?
What the hell? How did you reach that conclusion?
Anyways, as sproos said, I don't believe in God because I'm not just going to take someone's word for his existence when it seems so unlikely.
Besides, with so many religions in the world, the probability of picking the right one is quite low, even if one of them was true.
Thread is locked!