I can, and have, done all those things without a god. The stars are even more beautiful when you know what they really are. Knowing I am evolutionarily driven to love my kids didn’t make me love them any less.
The universe is not random, or not totally random. Planets move by the laws of gravity. Stars shine by fusion. Perhaps in 50 years we’ll understand why there is something instead of nothing. Not having it all cooked ahead of time makes life more valuable to me.
Plus, I have the advantage of not wondering why bad things happen. Weather and geology care nothing for us. We as humans can challenge them, the best we can, and we can band together to mitigate the pain and damage they cause, but we never have to worry if we were in some way responsible. The world is all about variation and imperfection, but if the world never threw troubles in our way why would we advance?
So much religion teaches that it is our fault, through original sin or whatever. It’s not our fault.
As close to certain as you are that there’s no God, *I’m that close * to certain that rocks aren’t conscious. Gravity isn’t conscious. Light isn’t conscious. Computers aren’t conscious.
I can take matter, and very carefully construct something, and give it a mechanism to maintain energy, but it wouldn’t be conscious. We are.
What’s the difference between us and the other stuff?
I agree with you, btw, about enjoying the ride. Existence of a qualitative difference between intelligent life, and stuff, does not imply any sort of afterlife. Although I have no idea what happens to that ‘thing,’ if it exists, either.
You misunderstand testability. Evidence is not testable, hypotheses are. For instance say many people have personal experiences of god. There is no evidence beyond their statements. If the hypothesis is that they had contact with some real entity, we can examine their statements for consistency beyond that which can be explained by the social environment. If they make predictions we can test these. If they say they have knowledge beyond what they would have without this contact, we can test that.
Which god? Krishna? Zeus? Jesus? The deity of Aldeberan 5? The fact that humans have invented thousands of gods means that the default belief should be that none of them exist, and anyone claiming otherwise needs to present solid evidence. Certain types of gods I can disprove logically, others can’t be disproven even in principle. Why do you choose one over the other with no evidence? I submit it is because of your upbringing and social circumstances, and if you were born 2,000 years ago you would believe in Jupiter or a tribal god with equal fervor.
Sure you could, if you had the right materials and Know-how. Consciousness isn’t magic. The human brain is nothing but matter. Consciousness is explainable entirely in physical terms. It’s nothing but chemistry- complex chemistry but chemistry nonetheless.
What aspect of human consciousness do you believe requires a supernatral explanation?
The self-awareness part. Who in there are the chemical actions reporting to?
I’m not getting how consciousness could be explained in physical terms. I don’t think I could bring about consciousness, even if I had the right materials and could make something very like a working brain. I won’t say ‘make a brain,’ because that’s begging the question.
I understand what you mean, but I can’t really see why consciousness is anymore special than just plain ol’ matter. Because it doesn’t seem as tangible? Why have any of it at all?
I wouldn’t consider any of those things conscious either, but none mentioned have a highly developed set of senses and a means to process those sensations. As remarkable and hard to define as consciousness is, it really seems to me to be just be the product of a being able to take in and process information.
Obviously this a whole other can of worms, but what about artificial intelligence? We’re not there yet, but it’s not unreasonable to say that we may, in the very near future have a machine (matter, mechanism, energy) that would be indistinguishable from human intelligence. And for arguments sake (if it looks like a duck… ) let’s say the computer is conscious. Does that then make us god? I’m having a hard time seeing how that would prove anything other than my assertion in the above paragraph.
And just for the record, I’m not that certain there isn’t a “god”, just a not a god in the traditional big man in the sky sense. I would love it if our consciousness meant we had some sort of eternal soul, but from practical standpoint, I’m not gonna hedge any bets on it.
Since it is you that claimed consciousness is explainable in entirely physical terms why isn’t the burden yours?
I wouldn’t say consciousness requires supernatural explainations. I would say that there is much about the nature of consciousness that remains unexplained. Why would we assume that what we “know” now is anywhere close to all there is to know. Perhaps we understand a mere 3 or 4% of what is available and there are things yet to understand which we barely concieve of now and is only hinted at by certain mythology and wild theories. Hasn’t that been the pattern in science?
Occam’s Razor again. One should assume a purely physical process unless there is evidence that something else is necessary. It’s the logical burden of those who claim some “non-physical” process ( whatever that means ) is involved to prove its existence.
Why? Because people need something to hang on to. For most people, the idea that we are utterly alone and that there is no divine Mommy or Daddy to look up to is chillingly abhorrent and depressing. I personally don’t believe that true atheists exist. My mother was Superatheist since I was three months old- she thought anybody who believed in any sort of divine power was just plain stupid, and relied solely on science.
She recently joined a Baptist Church.
Nobody stays an atheist forever. Because atheism is damn hopeless.
That’s why religion exists- it’s a damn sight better to most people than going around thinking that they are just tiny dots in all of existence and that their lives are totally meaningless.
It’s like that thing from the Hitchhiker’s Trilogy- that the worst thing in the world was to see, just for one second, just how important you really are. The sheer shock of your own insignificance drove you instantly insane.
Odd. I’m not religious, yet somehow I have avoided melting into a puddle.
So you are saying religious people never mature past childhood emotionally ? You religious folk seem to think humanity is composed of utter losers; we need a God so we can clutch at it in our neediness, and we need a God to define our morality so we don’t lay waste to everything.
We don’t need a god, real or imaginary. Millions of people do just fine without one.
There’s evidence religiousity is genetic/biochemical; I’d guess some sort of complusion set in.
Prove it.
Nonsense; it’s theism which is hopeless. If there is no God, we can hope to improve ourselves and the world. If there is a god, we are all doomed and damned. Only an evil god would let the world stay as it is, and an evil god who bothered to make an afterlife would of course make it a hell with no heaven.
Our lives have meaning if we choose it. If the meaning/purpose of life is imposed from outside by a god, then we are all tools or toys; I fail to see why that’s such a desirable outcome.
Those books were meant as humor, you know. I rather prefer insignifigance; it means less responsibility and I’m a smaller target. After all, that’s why I don’t need someone like the Secret Service to protect me.
I didn’t claim anything other than there is a crapload we don’t know about consciousness. I don’t think that violates OR. I agree we can assume something, some assuming purely physical and others assuming something else. Neither is proof only personal preference based on individual experiences and backgrounds. When it comes to facts, …the fact is we just don’t know.
Who’s talking magic? Acknowledging the possibilities based on an honest recognition of the limits of our knowledge is hardly that. Based on what we know and considering what we think very likely, what possibilities remain open, concerning consciousness?
Are you kidding me? You’ve said in other threads that mankind is basically losers.
Now you put those words in someone elses mouth.
For some. There are millions more believers from many organized religions and from no organized religion that are doing fine and making contributions to society.
I agree
Me neither. That’s why lots of folks with deep spiritual beliefs reject that notion.
(not all, but some)