does not take a theological stance nor does make a case for the righteousness of his religion.
he just makes some points and in a respectful way.
i *promote that form of discussion.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, May 9th, 2011 3:27pm PDT - promote requested by enoch.

Could be wrong here, but it seems the seem is to try and flip the burden of proof arguement from:

"There is no good evidence for the existence of god, therefore it is rational to believe there is no god."

to

"There is no good argument for fully disproving the existence of God, therefore there must be a God."

I see what he did there.

Actually, he is just pointing out that the affirmative position that God doesn't or/and can't exist takes as much of a leap as saying he does exist. In spite of evidence, a positive or negative position isn't rational. Which is why I have always said that the agnostic atheist position (of which I am, so totally no bias) is the most logical. I haven't been presented with a certain case either way, so I am resolved in saying I don't know, and I don't know that I can or can't know. Don't confuse the last part of his statement that non-belief = non-existence. Claims of non-existence are indeed faith biased (if they have no evidence), but a non-belief is a different animal.


I would like to point out, though, his second rung is completely flawed. There is no compelling reason to believe those odds about life being 1 in a trillion. You would need to know several things, like what is the density of life in our universe, under what conditions could that life exist under...but most importantly, and the knife in its face, why life couldn't exist under different circumstances. To answer that last question you would have to know every condition life could happen under...and we don't even know how ours happened really. So that figure is complete horeshit, bad science, bad philosophy, bad reasoning.

There is a second reason it is bad reasoning and that is assumes that life is something intended. There is this great economic theory which I have been using in other places now from called "Spontaneous order". It is exactly what is sounds like. That via a system of random rules and interactions, order seems to derive. So you have this tangle of rule sets in the universe, but it was a mathematical certainty that over time, solar systems would most likely form, that there would be rocks, suns, and planets. It is flawed reason to think life is any different than rocks. Rocks are just as "special" as life, and just as meaningless as the vast emptiness of space. He is begging the question that life is any different from any other of the orders and forces that innately exist in this world. This is a logical fallacy that exist in all intellectual design arguments. Begging the question fallacies are hard to spot when you have an moral position to the topic. The reason is, begging the question fallacies validate. Meaning that if the premises is true, the conclusion is as well...but assuming the premises is true is faith and not logic.

I have realized that in my own intellectual constructions, I haven't used completely sound logical arguments either. As homework, I have self assigned myself the homework of studding and rooting out all the fallacies that exist in my philosophy as it stands. I found a useful tool for this as well, others would be appreciated. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

Upvoted this video because it is mostly good with some silly bits that I don't agree with either...but that is far better than par for course on many things of this nature...namely many of the Hitchen's videos on here...his philosophy is so flawed, and damn mean.

>> ^asynchronice:

Could be wrong here, but it seems the seem is to try and flip the burden of proof arguement from:
"There is no good evidence for the existence of god, therefore it is rational to believe there is no god."
to
"There is no good argument for fully disproving the existence of God, therefore there must be a God."
I see what he did there.

After a full viewing, it really is just a re-packaging/re-branding of the same old, tired arguments and false equivalences, simply jazzed up a bit to sound fresh. It also seems extraordinarily difficult to argue the 'Reason for God' objectively without slipping in Christianity (inadvertently or otherwise). It tends to muddy the waters and makes it difficult to have a clear debate without slipping into canon/dogma which introduces a world of other topics.

I thought the Q&A session would be a bigger pay-off, but he seemed to back away from giving any qualitative answers. Say what you want about Hitchens...if you ask a question he will give a solid answer on the spot; I find it intellectually unsatisfying and a bit suspect that he deflected deeper questioning into "not having enough time" or "read my book" to some pretty simple and elegant questions.

That said, the last Q&A guy was a waste of everyone's time.

I'm commenting as I watch here, he's already screwed on the "problem" of evil. He's got the whole thing ass backwards. The only way to really solve the problem of evil from a theistic point of view is as he rightly points out the "lack of perspective argument" ie "Maybe there is a larger plan"/maybe it isnt evil after all/maybe its all part of gods plan or similar nonsense.

The point about bringing up this from an atheistic point of view is that there is of course a much more elegant, more logical, more reasonable and more probable solution to the "problem" of evil: There is no god.

It seems like Keller hasnt even considered this as a real possibility, because if he did, he would realize that the problem dissappears entirely. And its not just for human acts of evil, of course. Think of the recent Japan Tsunami..Thousands pointlessly killed by the physics of tectonic plate movement. In a godless universe there is no "why?!!" here, we live on a thin crust wrapping around a lava ball, partially covered by water. A tsunami now and again is inevitable.

If you believe in god, you'll have to make up lots of shitty excuses for these kind of events

None of this proves that there is no god, its just one of those many things that makes it unlikely.

Oh and now his dragging Stalins corpse out again to bash atheism. Nothing to do with atheism. Stalinism was a sick personality cult catering to creduilty and superstition in order to promote a form of marxism. The reason they went after Christianity was because they were competing to convert the gullible to a new mindless cult.

Its not just that its pointless "keeping scores" as it were, I would like to see him tackle Hitchens 2-part Challenge:
Part 1: Name for me one good thing done, or one nice thing said, in the name of religion, that it would be unthinkable that a secularist/atheist could just as reasonably say or do.

I've never hard a satisfying answer to part 1.

Part 2: Name for me one bad thing done, Or one bad thing said, in the name of religion,that it would be unthinkable that a secularist/atheist could just as reasonably say or do

I bet you thought of something after reading the fifth word in that sentence.

Its not a tie.

Kelller parroting atheist argument:"Until you prove there is a god, I dont have to believe in god!"

What a dishonest douche.

I've never actually heard any atheist make that argument. Heres how the argument really is: I've never seen a shred of evidence, ever, anywhere, in the history of everything that would even suggest, in the slightest,remotest possible way that there might be a god. None. Zip, Zero. I'm not demanding that you come up with a mathematical proof or anything, far from it, but until there is some evidence, ANY kind of evidence, I dont see any reason to believe in god, any more than santa.

More rubbish: Why do I assume god is "inside" the universe? I dont, douchebag, I'm not assuming anything, its your invisible friend, moron, you can fantasize. Oh great, there you go now... "He might be outside of everything", please do go on wasting brainpower trying to make that work..

"You cant prove anything" "So why do you say to God.."---BEEP-- I dont say anything, Keller, I dont talk to invisible things that arent there.

"You cant prove there is no god, so not believing is an act of faith" Yup, I take the same risk you do, Keller, But I'd wager disbelieving in Cthulhu will land you in much more trouble than the mere wuzzy little lake of fire I'll be surfing on (while listening rock music).

Oh fuck. "Fine-tuning" now.. Yep, this universe, that has almost NOTHING but vaccum at minus 270 celsius instantly deadly to any living thing, where the extremely tiny exceptions are 99.999% nuclear fireballs that will burn anything to death once its close enough not to freeze to death. So among a hundred billion galaxies with a hundred billion stars, we know of exactly one that has a planet at just the right distance. What are the chances, eh? Ten thousand billion stars and one of them has life around it (and in few million years its gonna toast that motherfucker too). Ergo: stars are perfect places to have life around. Yup Finetuning. Four aces? more like one ace and ten thousand billion worthless cards, but whatever.

Of course, if I was god, I might make just , I dont know, lets say ten stars, with lots of fine planets around them with lush green envirionments and no nasty earthquakes, asteroids, hurricanes and so on, perhaps I'd even make sure that the sun doesnt blow up and kill everybody in the end. But then again, what the hell do I know..


Ok, that was half an hour. maybe I'll do the rest tomorrow.

he also throws a little pascals wager which i have always found to be a weak argument.
i may be agreeing with many of his points because i have not encountered any true atheists.
i have encountered many who CLAIM to be atheists but are in actuality agnostics who abhor organized religion/fundamentalism and that is a wholly different discussion.

i really enjoyed the fact he didnt spiral into dogmatic speak.
but i found it a tad dismaying that he didnt first DEFINE god.you have to establish parameters otherwise people will use their own assumptions based on their own subjective reality and therefore your argument will fracture into a multitude of possible reactions.
meh../shrugs..maybe he covers that in his book.

Part 2 starting 30 minutes in..

Evolution now.. "The strong eating the weak"

Sigh.. Heres an idea, could any priest out there, just once , just for fun, just TRY to understand evolution and other scientific concepts before bringing them up? Ok thanks. Not gonna happen in this video, obviously.

Yes nature is red in tooth and claw, and fantastically wasteful and seemingly indifferent to most suffering, which should tell us something about its creator? But there is a spectrum, and a very interesting one too. It turns out that, in most cases, evolution favors some form of cooperation. For instance: very few species actually eat and kills members of their own species. Thats your first clue to human rights right there: You are human. If you were a lion, you'd effectively have "lion rights" Now , lions dont have language or a complex social structure, yet they nearly always behave as if lions had a privileged place in the universe, is it really so strange that we as humans have more advanced forms of rights? I dont think so, especially when you look at the life of our close cousins.

Yet, the inter-species interaction is nearly universally marked by total indifference to suffering, and I for one cant think of a better argument against a just and loving god. Not only has he apparently made it so that survival in many cases actively requires one species to eat another, but often the process involves insane, pointless cruelty. One would almost think there just wasnt anybody there who even cared..

Keller here pointlessly paints himself into a corner, where no one thing can explain human rights alone. (except god, apparantly)

And he's right, but he's careful not to admit that there may be more than one cause for our sense of "human rights". If it was purely genetic, for instance ie: innate morality, it would feel to us, for all intends and purposes, like it was god-given. Among other things, it would be the same for centuries at the time, and across all cultures and geographical borders, right? But thats not what we see, is it? In fact, if you study history and/or different cultures, we see that the modern human rights movement (the UN declaration, the US constitution etc) is a relatively new and special concept, theres no inherent racism, no in-group mentality, no requirement to obey a certain authority.. A purely genetic origin couldnt explain this, but neither does the "god-given" option.

But we know that we are, after all, genetic, so genetics cant be rejected entirely. Besides as I mentioned previously, we see hints of morality all the time in the animal world, there's no equivalent to the UN declaration among chimps, but they clearly care for their young, they dont generally mindlessly murder each other, they grieve their dead.. etc.

So morality might one part genetic, and one part cultural, is that so unlikely? No that actually fits pretty well with the available evidence.

It is not a bigger leap in the dark to reach this conclusion, because it makes much more sense. Not only does it provide a plausible origin for our modern idea of human rights, but just as importantly, it explains why we didnt really think of them earlier and why we've often seen so senseless disregard for them throughout history and still in some parts of the world today. The Taliban for instance, as Sam Harris points out, have manage to create the best place on earth to watch women and infants die in childbirth. And in order to comply with what they perceive as god-given law, they burn down schools and pour battery acid in the faces of little girls who are trying to learn how to read.

Human rights are not god-given, they are, like god, man-made.

So..at this point Keller feels its more probable that god exists, and he goes from there. Well, I'm thinking its probable hes been talking shit, and god is still just as likely to exist as santa , or FSM or Chutlhu or whatever.

totally agree on the "god given rights" point BRM.
i actually agree with many of your points.
that being said,dont you find the absence of dogmatic speak refreshing?
i would think an atheist at least could appreciate this type of conversation.
he is not preachy in this talk,nor is he attempting to convert or convince.

i have to say i find your conclusion disingenuine.
as i stated earlier.define god.
if you wish to call god cthulu then feel free.just names and labels.
he does not attempt to define god and i feel thats a mistake, made evident by your last comment.
which god are you speaking of.
a pantheon of deities?
judau-christian?
or any other of the 4500 religions?
i ask not to be confrontational nor to troll,but as a genuine question.

because it appears to me (and i am being presumptuous here and i apologize) that your problem is with a religious (judau-christian to be specific) god.
and i have no problem with that.
religions are man-made with texts,doctrine and dogma.
these are tangibles and being so SHOULD be scrutinized,criticized and debated.
but this mans talk simply puts forth the premise that you can not know one way or the other the existence of god.
or santa,FSM or yes..cthulu.
these are human terms and subject to scrutiny.
god is unknowable.this is the realm of faith and either you have it or you dont.
i could no more convince you the existence of a creator then you could convince there was not.
so i dont even bother.
why would i?
who am i to judge your perceptions and understanding?
that would be the height of hubris and arrogance.
i can only know what i feel/think/perceive.

so while you may disagree with this mans perception and consequent faith.
you have to admit (ok..you dont HAVE to) that his decidedly non-dogmatic approach is less...infuriating.
he gives you a window why he has faith and also understands that you may choose to dismiss his premise,but at least you may walk away understanding him a tad more.even though you may still disagree with him.
because at its heart,his talk is about faith.

that being said,dont you find the absence of dogmatic speak refreshing?
Yes.
i would think an atheist at least could appreciate this type of conversation.
he is not preachy in this talk,nor is he attempting to convert or convince.
No but it does have a smell of dishonesty about it. He's constantly calling out the atheists for unreasonably demanding that he prove the existence of god, which he then freely admits he cant do, as a sign op a kind of openmindeness, while subtly making that very same silly demand in return "You cant prove there is no god!"

which god are you speaking of.
a pantheon of deities?
judau-christian?
or any other of the 4500 religions?

Again, this isnt really my problem here: I'm not the one making shit up about elusive, invisible metaphysical overlords. I'm saying there is no evidence.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

that being said,dont you find the absence of dogmatic speak refreshing?
Yes.
i would think an atheist at least could appreciate this type of conversation.
he is not preachy in this talk,nor is he attempting to convert or convince.
No but it does have a smell of dishonesty about it. He's constantly calling out the atheists for unreasonably demanding that he prove the existence of god, which he then freely admits he cant do, as a sign op a kind of opendmindeness, while subtly making that very same silly demand in return "You cant prove there is no god!"
which god are you speaking of.
a pantheon of deities?
judau-christian?
or any other of the 4500 religions?
Again, this isnt really my problem here: I'm not the one making shit up about elusive, invisible metaphysical overlords. I'm saying there is no evidence.


agreed.
thats why i do not attempt to "prove" the existence of a creator.
to do so would be futile.
but he is making the point..the crux in the argument in my opinion,of the dynamic of proof.
i have had many atheists demand this of me also.
as if it were my job to somehow convince them.
which is is not, but i also do not put myself in a position where i have to i.e: making claims of the certitude of a creator etc etc.

everybody has their own path and come to their own conclusions based on their own subjective realty.
faith is personal while religion is not (though they claim it is..and often).
anyways i thought this was pretty good concerning that very argument and truly felt it was worthy for even an theist to be able to at least understand a person of faiths viewpoint in a non-dogmatic way.
seems i was wrong.
meh.../shrugs.
thanks for replying BRM.
very awesome of you.

You're welcome I enjoy discussing it, and I'm sorry if some of my comments sounded too harsh or negative, I was basically commenting while watching and pausing the video. I do see how he was trying to tip the scales from god being totally improbable to somewhat probable and to very probable and so on, and I suppose he deserves some credit for trying, and I think its easy to fall into his line of reasoning, because he presents it well. But as I tried pointing out, I found nearly all of his premises deeply flawed.

The main one is i think where we are coming from, namely that he lives in a universe where he basically assumes god exists, and that we atheists havent done a good enough job of disproving that. And worse, he seems unable to see the world from an atheists perspective. Thats the only way to explain why he thinks he's found a good solution to the problem of evil. Its a crappy solution. And its a solution that most atheists are familiar with. (ie: that god has a "larger plan" with all the evil stuff so its not really evil) As I said previously, assuming that there is no god at all, is a solution that's orders of magnitude more satisfying, because it erases the whole problem. Evil happens because the universe and the physical laws that govern it are completely indifferent to human or animal suffering, and humans, altho sometimes brilliant, are basically powerhungry tribal apes with guns and religion at their disposal, and some of them even have pretty much defective brains, lacking our usual specter of emotions, for example.

All that makes sense in a godless universe, where our hardearned human rights also makes sense, not just that we have them, but that it took thousands of years and thousands of wars before we figured we might need them. It also explains why some still dont believe in them.

>> ^enoch:

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
that being said,dont you find the absence of dogmatic speak refreshing?
Yes.
i would think an atheist at least could appreciate this type of conversation.
he is not preachy in this talk,nor is he attempting to convert or convince.
No but it does have a smell of dishonesty about it. He's constantly calling out the atheists for unreasonably demanding that he prove the existence of god, which he then freely admits he cant do, as a sign op a kind of opendmindeness, while subtly making that very same silly demand in return "You cant prove there is no god!"
which god are you speaking of.
a pantheon of deities?
judau-christian?
or any other of the 4500 religions?
Again, this isnt really my problem here: I'm not the one making shit up about elusive, invisible metaphysical overlords. I'm saying there is no evidence.

agreed.
thats why i do not attempt to "prove" the existence of a creator.
to do so would be futile.
but he is making the point..the crux in the argument in my opinion,of the dynamic of proof.
i have had many atheists demand this of me also.
as if it were my job to somehow convince them.
which is is not, but i also do not put myself in a position where i have to i.e: making claims of the certitude of a creator etc etc.
everybody has their own path and come to their own conclusions based on their own subjective realty.
faith is personal while religion is not (though they claim it is..and often).
anyways i thought this was pretty good concerning that very argument and truly felt it was worthy for even an theist to be able to at least understand a person of faiths viewpoint in a non-dogmatic way.
seems i was wrong.
meh.../shrugs.
thanks for replying BRM.
very awesome of you.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

*quality discussion

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dag.

I'm enjoying this thoroughly. However, the human rights argument is horribly flawed.

First, human rights is not something that existed persistently throughout the history of religion. Religion can lay no claim to human rights, as it makes no arguments towards it and has never shown any inclination towards it until recent history.

And why might that be? Nobody can deny that the rebellion of the weak against the strong which occurred during the enlightenment era were greatly responsible for our new forms of representative government. I think it's extremely disingenuous and shortsighted to discount this. Was it a perfect rebellion? No. But it set the stage for a morality which has evolved into what we now consider human rights. Our experiences, over time, has shaped our morality and crafted human rights. The situations were setup to make it occur and they are entirely in response to the environments in which humans existed.

That, to me at least, seems far more plausible than god being responsible for human rights. If god were responsible, then why was he absent for so long... I'm not sure anyone would argue that human rights were of any significant concern in the dark ages, or before the age of Christianity. Except for the few beacons of human reasoning who have grown the capacity for empathy - it is by no means a running theme of human existence.

@GeeSussFreeK"Actually, he is just pointing out that the affirmative position that God doesn't or/and can't exist takes as much of a leap as saying he does exist. In spite of evidence, a positive or negative position isn't rational."

That's not true. We have plenty of debunking so far, showing that God at least isn't in those particular places. So far we have no evidence positively for the existence of God, thus the rational conclusion is to move on with our lives as if there is no God. I also live as if there are no fairies or Santa Claus, even though I can't be philosophically certain. I am pretty certain though.

Pascal's wager goodness "What do you have to lose?" MY MIND!

>> ^enoch:

he also throws a little pascals wager which i have always found to be a weak argument.
i may be agreeing with many of his points because i have not encountered any true atheists.
i have encountered many who CLAIM to be atheists but are in actuality agnostics who abhor organized religion/fundamentalism and that is a wholly different discussion.
i really enjoyed the fact he didnt spiral into dogmatic speak.
but i found it a tad dismaying that he didnt first DEFINE god.you have to establish parameters otherwise people will use their own assumptions based on their own subjective reality and therefore your argument will fracture into a multitude of possible reactions.
meh../shrugs..maybe he covers that in his book.


Enoch, I absolutely respect you and your opinions. We see a lot of each other on the sift and I'm always curious what you have to say. But I want to get one thing straight:

I believe there is no evidence for a god. I do not believe or disbelieve.

I am an ATHEIST, NOT an agnostic.

ok.
i have stated this previously and in multiple posts.
lets define "god" for a moment.
and lets accomplish this without any religious influence or overtures...none.
because lets be honest,religion acts like it has the secret key to the hidden doorway.
which i find not only repulsive but dishonest.

lets see if we can agree on a few things.i shall use the monotheistic religions as example because using all 4500 would be..tedious:
1.god implies masculine.this is obviously a falsehood.why would god need sexual organs?
2.we are all made in gods image.again a falsehood.having never seen god how can we know?
3.the bible/q'ran is the written word of god.(i wont include the torah because jews do not make that pronouncement).again this is false,some basic research will reveal this statement to be an utter fallacy.unless of course you are a fundamentalist,and in that case..carry on with your wars of attrition /looking at you fundmantalist christians and muslims).
4.god loves you.unless you break these rules and in that case he has built a special place for you to burn for eternity (varying degrees of understanding here,even fundamentalists struggle with this obvious hypocrisy).conclusion=bullshit.


ok.i am going to stop because i could do this all day.
my basic point is that it is RELIGION that makes the claim that it is THEY who hold the keys to the gate.that only through THEIR understanding could any of lowly humans ever think to have salvation.
religion is man-made with tangible texts,doctrine and dogma and in being so is subject to criticism.as it SHOULD be.
these institutions define god and then attempt to compel through fear and..well..fear..to get people to comply.
in my opinion it is these very institutions which hinder the growth and development of us all as a species.
fundamentalism is the stunting of the spirit and the stagnation of the mind.
none of what i am saying here takes away from the poetry,literature and wisdom from the bible..it is RELIGION which perpetrates that crime.

everybody still with me?
am i making sense?
ok..now lets define god and lets do it in a way that religion will never do because it will make those institutions irrelevant.
(which ironically was the EXACT thing jesus was attempting to do..but i digress)
lets consider "god" an entity with immense consciousness.
let us for a moment imagine this consciousness giving birth to the universe from itself.
what is the first thing to come in to existence besides energy?
time.
and when that happened what else became evident?
everything became relative due to this added dimension.
let that sink in a bit because it has huge implications.
ok..
now if we continue on this thread of thought.this would mean that the universe is literally god.
every molecule.
every atom.
god.
and what if this creator put out only one simple edict for his construct?
create.
thats all.he sets the rules and puts only one line of code=create.
and everything his creations creates is part of him and he..it.
good..evil..arbitrary terms used to relate subjective realities focused from a singular perspective.
the creator does not notice them because all of it is the same to the creator.
WE make those very human definitions.
lets imagine for a second that the universe has a consciousness.one that we may be aware or unaware of,but we know we are an individual.
we have consciousness.
we do NOT know if a plant has a consciousness that we can measure but we may some day.
now if we are a part of this incredible creation called the universe and we have consciousness.this means we are aware of not only ourselves but the universe around us.
this means we experience creation on a daily basis.manifesting in so many dynamic ways:love,loss,anger,violence,wonder,imagination,making love,cheeseburgers with a cold beer etc etc
and in that light would not the creator experience its own creation subjectively through our experiencing his creation?

now this is not a new idea,in fact it is quite old but it does have the quality of not needing any religion,nor doctrine or dogma.
why not?
because in essence YOU are god and god is YOU.
if i had postulated something like this as early as 100 yrs ago i would be burned at the stake.
why? religion.
but this is the basic definition i use when i use the term "god".
it is also the reason why i have no urge to preach or proselytize.
the only thing i try to do is recognize that i do not hold the key nor the answers but i seek them and that is my path.
yours is your own and the only thing i can do is recognize that you are a spiritual being (whether you believe that or not) and respect your choices on how you wish to live.
because..in the end..they are YOUR choices.

now please understand i share this with you not to convince or to invite ridicule but rather to offer a different definition.
to me life is amazing in the very simple act of breathing.
of loving..
and arguing..ah..many thanks for those in my life for the glorious arguments.
this life is precious if only for those simple things.
is there an afterlife?
i believe so,what it looks like i have no idea but i know it wont be THIS life.
so cherish those who you care about because this is one helluva ride,and i am glad you all are here to enjoy it with me.

for those of you still here.
thanks for coming to the show!
dont forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses!
and thank YOU BRM for taking the time to discuss things of this nature with me.

I'm so glad that I read the comments before actually watching the video, sounds like a total waste of time.

No, it's totally worth it. I don't agree with it, it's got some flawed arguments, but it's worth watching.
>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

I'm so glad that I read the comments before actually watching the video, sounds like a total waste of time.

@ gwiz665
Philosophical certainty is the only kind I really care about. And I still don't suppose that God "isn't in certain places" is a true statement if you can't be certain about your certainty, then you aren't certain...thats for certain...wait what? I am not a theist mind you, but I am not certain that God doesn't or can't exist.

I mean, what is the say that the reason that gravity is the way it is and particles move in waves instead of lines aren't just the rules in God's head; that this is just a reality matrix of rules that exist in a beings mind...same thing he supposes in the video. Such would also be unverifiable, but true. That is my main problem with empirical inquiring as a method for truth, it has a limited number of predicates to deal with, and some subjects it can't address.

I admit, my mindset is a minority. I care about truth with a capital T. Most are just focused on limited understandings that make medicines and build spaceships, cool stuff mind you! For me, I much rather focus on what can be called certain, and certainly not. And for the most part, I have to rule that certainty in either case is lacking. As such, I am compelled to believe neither.

We don't see exactly eye to eye on this, but I will still let you touch my man cleavage.

In a complete aside, I had a dream where all the matter, energy, and "stuff" in this universe was actually just an abstraction of some other universe...like we were just a shadow of a reality that existed elsewhere. And there were special beings that could infiltrate this universe and hide. A war broke out between those taking refuge in the "dream world", and they would dodge back and for to reality to affect the dream world in ways that were desirable. Kind of maxrixy, fun stuff!

The reason I bring it up is much like Newton and Einstein point out, we seem to be trapped in perspective. The objectivity of science is really just group subjectiveness. Our individual experience of A is similarly described. So let us all call our experience of A, A prime and just refer to it as an objective event. It works when you want to build a building, but is isn't certainly true. And that defines one of my main problems with most empirical discovery. If you don't see a problem with it, well, then I just care about a different set of truths

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^enoch:
he also throws a little pascals wager which i have always found to be a weak argument.
i may be agreeing with many of his points because i have not encountered any true atheists.
i have encountered many who CLAIM to be atheists but are in actuality agnostics who abhor organized religion/fundamentalism and that is a wholly different discussion.
i really enjoyed the fact he didnt spiral into dogmatic speak.
but i found it a tad dismaying that he didnt first DEFINE god.you have to establish parameters otherwise people will use their own assumptions based on their own subjective reality and therefore your argument will fracture into a multitude of possible reactions.
meh../shrugs..maybe he covers that in his book.

Enoch, I absolutely respect you and your opinions. We see a lot of each other on the sift and I'm always curious what you have to say. But I want to get one thing straight:
I believe there is no evidence for a god. I do not believe or disbelieve.
I am an ATHEIST, NOT an agnostic.


fair enough my friend.
i am only speaking from personal experience and not offering empirical data based on anecdotal evidence.
but if i may point out that to say you do not believe NOR disbelieve is to not know.
which is the literal translation of the word "agnostic".
agnostic does not mean you are unsure.it means you dont know,one way or the other.
maybe you dont care, which would be indifference.
i see many religious people use the term agnostic in the wrong context implying that agnostics are unsure,wishy- washy, even indecisive.
i disagree with that usage.
in the end it doesn't really matter what term you wish to use.either works fine to convey your position.

http://nirmaljoshi.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/the-elusive-theory-of-everything/

Being a Christian, this probably puts me in a very finite minority here on the Sift. I'm kinda surprised this made it above the 10 vote mark. Even more surprised at the relative tameness of the discussion, so thank you to everyone who knows how to respond with civility and keep the discussion interesting.

@enoch

The definition of god for me is mostly irrelevant, I reject anything that would even remotely fit the description, including some kind of "consciousness giving birth to the universe from itself" whatever excactly you mean by that.

Consciousness is a wonderful thing, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that it is a feature or consequence of having a large collection of neurons, in the form of a physical brain. In our case, that brain is the product of 3 billion years of evolution of millions of different lifeforms. In other words, consciousness, as far as we can tell, is a late arriver in the universe. A complex sturucture with literally billions of decreasingly complicated ancestral prototypes.

To assume that such conscious thought or even an almost infinitely more complicated type,existed before the universe itself, is one hell of an assumption, and its one that there really is no evidence for. Not only does the universe appear to behave as if it didnt have consciousness, or a conscious creator, but if it did, that would pose a big problem. Where did such a consciousness come from? did it evolve in a different meta-universe? It all seems to be a pretty far-fetched fantasy with no basis in reality, as far as I can see.

Remember that these are terms we use to describe ourselves, so anyone using them is going to have their own individual... flavor.

The issue I have is that if you claim to know something about a deity, anything at all, even if you claim to know that there is no deity, them in my book: you're a theist. And I don't see how that reconciles itself with the term atheism.

If you pick up a dictionary from 30 years ago, it will most likely define theism as: the belief or disbelief in a deity beyond death. That definition has been largely re-written over the last decade or so, and it pisses me off. But the opposite of that definition is what I term as atheism.

My problem with agnosticism is that it implies that there IS some sort of religion-based deity or force or whatever you want to call it that is unknowable.

As far as your longer post above, it's very interesting. The first thing I think when reading it is that your god issued one edict: create. And what's our answer: "God, you'd be so proud of us, we've invented nuclear weapons." (God sighs) The second thing I think when reading it is that I cannot picture a consciousness existing outside of time, and then creating time. It wouldn't have a linear stream of thought you know? Coming up with problems and then solving them? I find that a little hard to imagine. Also, even if that consciousness created the universe, it seems like it would still exist outside of the universe. It wouldn't literally BE the universe. Not that I think what you have to say isn't fascinating.

first let me thank both BRM and ryjkyj for reading my novella.very cool of both of you.i kinda put myself out there and you both didnt just outright laugh..i thank you both.
@BRM
i understand.
the reason why i wrote that short novella was to put forth an alternative idea of god,not to push any form of ideology upon you.while it may be an ancient concept,it is not exactly a popular one.the people who attempted to make a community based on that ideology were wiped out.
hopefully it accomplished two things:
1.not every idea of god is based on theology.
2.that i do not pretend to hold secret knowledge,nor am i somehow more special than you due to my faith.
my faith is not based on a book nor a old white dude with a beard who watches from afar judging us all.
my ultimate goal was to paint a picture where those i converse with on the sift could know that i have no religion to offend.i wont take some slight against my ideas as some attack on my god based solely on dogma.
because i adhere to no dogma.

consciousness is one of my favorite discussions and something i have spent a great deal of time thinking about since i was a teen.
what is consciousness?
this is an ongoing question and one i feel is vitally important.we are still learning and the subject fascinates me.
i find this discussion more engrossing and challenging with atheists and other seekers.fundamentalists tend to be quite boring with this subject for obvious reasons.

@Ryjkyj
i was just pointing out the literal translation but i understand why you would reject agnostic in a literal sense.as i stated.it does not really matter,i understand your point and desire for your position to not be confused in any way.
i am totally ok with that.

as for my thesis on god and the edict to "create".
you mention nuclear weapons.
good example.
let me add:murder,torture,domination,genocide.we could go all day.
conversely we could talk about:love,compassion,understanding,forgiveness.
my point was that the creator regards all these as the same,it is WE who deem them "good" or "evil".
that god experiences its own creation subjectively through us..all of us..while we experience gods creation every minute of everyday.
you being aware of this is not necessary because you do it naturally and is one of the main reasons why i would have been burned at the stake (and those that DID postulate this idea centuries ago were executed).religion becomes irrelevant with my scenario.
you are god..god is you and we are all connected.

we understand and relate to the universe through only FIVE sense...thats it..five.
our consciousness interacts with this universe using those senses.with the advent of more and more complicated tools which allow us to perceive the universe in a much more grand scale we have found that the universe keeps getting bigger,richer and far more poetic than any theology could EVER put forth.
evolution has more poetry and beauty then the book of genesis could ever think to muster.
(genesis is actually a metaphorical representation of kabballah)

i love science.
i am not particularly good at say bio-chem or the math of quantum physics (that math is beyond me)but i find each discovery a revelation concerning my faith.
to me science is the slow pulling back of the veil by way of exploration,curiosity and eventual understanding by way of testing physical evidence and/or repeatable,testable results.
these results tend to conflict with religious doctrine but totally coincide with my understanding of a creator.

consciousness is not a closed chapter but something we are still discussing,probing and attempting to understand.so when i use the term to describe god i do so in that light,not with any secret understanding.
so..according to my way of looking at things.if god created the universe from itself it would reside both outside time/space and also WITHIN time/space.
proveable? not a chance...hence=faith
we are talking about a consciousness that is literally the entire universe.a concept that would be hard for anybody to wrap their head around.
i do not pretend to understand this consciousness.how could i?
but i do know i see this consciousness manifesting all around me and it is constant.

i understand that both of you reject this ideology and i am totally ok with that.
in my eyes conversations such as these are more about sharing ideas than being right..or righteous.
my conclusions are my own and they are always changing as more information becomes available.
but i have to say that since i was a teen nothing i have read or learned has changed my position,in fact,it has strengthened it.

thank you both for being so kind and respectful towards my ideas.
i tend to avoid putting things like this out there because i get whacked by both sides..atheists AND religious.
you both have been very kind.
and i thank you.

Well, I certainly don't reject the idea that science is fascinating and that the universe is beautiful. So we got that going for us.

Currently, I am very fascinated the metaphysical explanation of immaterialism of George Berkeley. There is a certain simplicity that makes it appealing. It is also unverifiable, thus making any means of discovering the truth of the mater impossible. Recently, I have started to become more of a strong agnostic rather than a weak one. It really does seem like we are ill-equipped to deal with the question of real, certain truth as it pertains to our complete condition. Our current tools are a priory reasoning, science, and intuition; one only goes so far, one can't make truth claims, and the other can't show that it is right. There has to be some other form, that is what faith is supposed to be, divine revelation: that only an outsider could inject insight into your situation. Kind of like Newton's third law, you have to be acted on by an outside source to cause change in a given system. That is an actual scientific argument for faith being a method to discovering truth. It can't, however, tell us how, which one, when we are wrong...and so many other problems it is why I have abandoned it as my method.

It was an enjoyable video with intelligent arguments (which I didn't necessarily agree with). Deserved an upvote imo.

>> ^Morganth:

Being a Christian, this probably puts me in a very finite minority here on the Sift. I'm kinda surprised this made it above the 10 vote mark. Even more surprised at the relative tameness of the discussion, so thank you to everyone who knows how to respond with civility and keep the discussion interesting.

@enoch

I think what you are doing with the argument about consciousness is rather confusing to me. It seems to me that you are applying our own consciousness to the universe as a whole, in the same way I look at my dog as a human ie: applying human reasoning to an animal that I really know isnt capable of it. (such as predicting or planning future events, like "My dog feels a sense of abandonment when I'm on vacation" etc.) My dog, and even more probable, the universe, doesnt give a shit that I'm in the next room or 4000 miles away, it doesnt know that I'm in a different country and it has no idea how long I might be gone. But its in our human nature to treat the things around us, and even the environment itself, as if it was socially connected with us, the way a fellow human might be.

Now, dogs may be more perseptive than one would think, and us dog-owners may be more right about our relationship with these animals than our research has been able to establish at this point, and there is even some mounting evidence that they understand us better than we could imagine. But again, we are talking about complex animals with very sophisticated brains that have undergone domesticating selection for thousands of generations. In other words, the human and conscious qualities that I unwittingly apply to dogs may not be entirely fictional.

But to apply this (consciousness,awareness,prediction or social behaviour of some kind)to the universe itself, is another matter entirely. Unlike the case with dogs, for example, there really is no evidence for this, there is no known mechanism, or even a credible potential mechanism, to give the universe an intelligence capable of conscious thought. In fact, all the evidence and knowledge we DO have, suggests that the universe is overwhelmingly indifferent, unintelligent, unconscious, and contains nothing but physical energy condensed into matter.

If the universe was conscious in some way, why would it, for instance spend 4 billion years evolving life, and eventually creating conscious creatures like ourselves around a burning fireball thats destined to explode and destroy it all within a few additional billion years, rendering the entire excercise completely pointless in the grand scheme of things. The universe will go on existing for at least a hundred billion years after that, and there will be no, absolutely NO sign that life ever existed in this part of that insignificant little galaxy (one out of a hundred billion) In fact that galaxy itself would be nothing but a supermassive black hole with fading stars(literally) around it. All our books and all our efforts, all our suffering and all our triumphs will be gone. forever.


Allright too gloomy, I know, but its the truth. we live here.. now, and we should appreciate our tiny visit to the spotlight. We are the universe understanding parts of itself, in a few short decade I will be no more, and in a few million years, mankind will be no more. We are conscious, now, and we are as far as we can tell, the only things that are.

We are the universe's consciousness.
As far as we can tell.
I say enjoy it while it lasts.

@BicycleRepairMan,
this is very close to how i view things.
be careful my friend..
you are venturing close to the rabbit hole.

upvote for the discussion