The Seven Types of Atheism

[Cino]

Sorry:

Yet time clearly came into existence 13.8 billion years ago. Space too. 'Before' the BB there was no when and no where. A state in fact of nothingness? Or at least outside of nature?

Same problem, to my understanding, as "outside" requires space to be meaningful.

I'm not hair-splitting here, though this kind of discussion often descends to that level. To me, arguments like the kalaam are not debunked by the conditions of the big bang, but rather not applicable at all. With no before or outside, there is no meaningful way to refer to a cause for the big bang.

 

[Arif Ghamiq]

Oh no - just pointing out how difficult (maybe impossible) it is to express or even understand existence as the singularity - how much more difficult is it to understand what may have “caused” it or be the source of it ? And could that source or cause possibly be proven or disproven ?

I guess it could be said that space and time did exist at the singularity - all space as one place and all time as one moment - infinite now or something.

I am a theist, but it is a belief - not based on scientific fact and I feel the same about atheism.

I think the only thing in this regard that science proves is that we don’t know about the source of existence or if existence has a source. Scientifically speaking - we just don’t know.

So I guess maybe agnosticism is a scientific fact.

 

[Cino]

Is the mind entirely physical in nature? Is consciousness an elaborate illusion? Nothing but a bag of tricks as the atheist Dan Dennett would like us to believe?

Nice experiments!

My Buddhist leanings are showing strongly when I say that he's talking about perception, and that consciousness is, to me, related but distinct from perception.

Of course, psychology and neuroscience are using these terms in different ways than Buddhist scriptures.

To make the difference more clear: I can be conscious of the artifacts of the perceptual apparatus, as shown in these experiments. I can also be conscious of being conscious, which to me indicates that consciousness is not a perception, because a perception in this sense is not able to perceive another perception.

But that's just me, and what I explored of my mind in meditation and other exercises.

 

[wil]

https://www.reddit.com/r/blackmagic..._is_the_same_photo_side_by_side_they_are_not/

 

[Cino]

There's a good explanation of the hard problem of consciousness in the video below.

Thanks, and I'll find time to watch this over the weekend.

(Yech, google, the corporation which quietly struck its erstwhile slogan "don't be evil" from its charter and continues to snare a lot of well-meaning talented people into burning their life-time up for it. A bit off-putting. But not a real detractor.)

 

[RJM]

Same problem, to my understanding, as "outside" requires space to be meaningful.

I'm not hair-splitting here, though this kind of discussion often descends to that level. To me, arguments like the kalaam are not debunked by the conditions of the big bang, but rather not applicable at all. With no before or outside, there is no meaningful way to refer to a cause for the big bang.

Oh no - just pointing out how difficult (maybe impossible) it is to express or even understand existence as the singularity - how much more difficult is it to understand what may have “caused” it or be the source of it ? And could that source or cause possibly be proven or disproven ?

I guess it could be said that space and time did exist at the singularity - all space as one place and all time as one moment - infinite now or something.

I am a theist, but it is a belief - not based on scientific fact and I feel the same about atheism.

I think the only thing in this regard that science proves is that we don’t know about the source of existence or if existence has a source. Scientifically speaking - we just don’t know.

So I guess maybe agnosticism is a scientific fact.

Perhaps if we substitute the word 'nature' for the word universe? As nature came into existence 13.8 billion years ago, did nature have a natural cause'?

Or not?

We do not have to be able to understand or conceptualize it. It's impossible to conceptualize 4-dimensional time/space, or the electron, or a singularity -- or, or, or ...

We are not required to even try to conceptualize a nowhen/nowhere 'precededing' the BB. Ok?

But the fact we cannot conceptualize it, does not -- what's the word ... gainsay -- the Kalam Argument?

Nowhere/nowhen = 'nothing' as far as nature is concerned? Anyway it is clearly a state outside of nature?

ie: supernatural.

Or did nature come into existence from nothing?

EDIT:

Same problem, to my understanding, as "outside" requires space to be meaningful.

How can space not be meaningful?
You see, the whole problem with the BB is that it gives a very precise timing? For the origin.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

This is very interesting, but I'm having trouble following the discussion.

Ok, the Kalam Argument does not prove a divine force. But to disprove a divine force, the Kalam Argument must first be disproved.

No-one's done so yet. Because no-one can prove that nothing ever comes from nothing.

In what context is the Kalam Argument made? Just pure logic? If the argument doesn't prove anything, what is it actually doing?
I can't prove that something came from nothing, but doe's that prove that everything come from something?
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Again, I'm just trying to follow along!

 

[Arif Ghamiq]

All proof-less

 

[wil]

It is said....

For some no proof is required, for others no proof is enough.

But that works both ways.

 

[Cino]

In what context is the Kalam Argument made? Just pure logic? If the argument doesn't prove anything, what is it actually doing?

Like all logical arguments, it rests on premises. I think the premises are not meaningful in the context of the big bang.

That's all.

 

[RJM]

can't prove that something came from nothing, but doe's that prove that everything come from something?

Pretty much. Yes. Nothing comes from nothing. Therefore everything/nature comes from something. I don't have trouble following it?

 

[wil]

I don't have trouble following it?

It fits your paradigm.

Maybe if you kept pointing at the moon.

 

[powessy]

I am only aware of five distinct dimensions and perhaps hundreds of timelines could be possible. Timelines can be universes inside of universes that are so far inside of themselves that they would appear to be dimensions. Timelines are all around us moving through us all the time, we just do not have the ability to find time in them unless you can find time all the time. Once you find time in a timeline you can revisit that timeline to find more timelines this allows you to see even more things and observe things from the very small to the gigantic.

This universe is most likely not the only universe from my perspective, we are three universes inside of themselves of five to become ourselves here. The first massive something pushed into nothing to become itself here creating the first big bang and forming the first universe. Each star in this universe in the end of it's life would collapse also pushing into nothing again to form the second layer of universes in another timeline inside of nothing. A galaxy in one universe is a universe within itself. Every galaxy in this universe is a universe inside of itself. I would say smaller galaxies have larger universes within them and larger galaxies have smaller universes within them, I would bet that this could be calculated and proven to be true. This then can be applied to the things I am being taught that we are something inside of nothing, nothing inside of something inside of nothing figuring ourselves out. This might also be used to understand the idea that we came from nothing to become something here.

Powessy

 

[RJM]

It fits your paradigm.

Maybe if you kept pointing at the moon.

There you go again.

Perhaps if you'd address the point instead of the person. So, yes, although its as obvious as the moon in the sky, I'll obviously have to point it out to you again:

Nothing comes from nothing. Therefore everything/nature comes from something ...

Do you have trouble following that? Do you perhaps have an intelligent response to that?

(Let me help a little bit. I suggest that just for the moment we do not bother ourselves with trying to conceptualize what the something might be)

 

[RJM]

1) The angles of any triangle add up to 180deg

2) One of the angles in a right-angle triangle is 90deg

3) Therefore the sum of the other two angles must be 90deg

(Simples, Sergei ...)

 

[wil]

Intelligent enough? Hell no, I am unintelligent enough to not follow it.

To me it is a game you are playing because the house of cards built by 66 books plus the removed apocrypha is crumbling. Belief in the supernatural had its hey day but one after another premises which were the rock we built this church on, the very foundation is crumbling. And now the environmental is late are even trying to outlaw straws, what will be left to grasp at.

We disagree, I am OK with that. We are thousands of miles away, don't let it upset you.

 

[wil]

environmental is late

environmentalists

Someday I'll be allowed to edit

Or proofread, lol

 

[RJM]

Intelligent enough? Hell no, I am unintelligent enough to not follow it.

To me it is a game you are playing because the house of cards built by 66 books plus the removed apocrypha is crumbling. Belief in the supernatural had its hey day but one after another premises which were the rock we built this church on, the very foundation is crumbling. And now the environmental is late are even trying to outlaw straws, what will be left to grasp at.

We disagree, I am OK with that. We are thousands of miles away, don't let it upset you.

I'm not upset. I keep asking you to address the argument. You don't like the conclusion, that's not my fault.

The Kalam Argument rests on the same logic as the triangle argument above. To disprove the argument, you must disprove one of the three points.

You keep going off about you don't like preachers and religions. As if I'm trying to push religion at you. I couldn't care less. However I am entitled to defend myself against your personal remarks..

You've got a bee in your bonnet, my friend, and it makes you just as intellectually dishonest as those televangelist etc, that you love to hate.

Impossible to have a proper conversation with someone who won't be honest. You keep diverting the subject with knee-jerk emotion.

I'm tired of it.

 

[RJM]

The subject is now exhausted, imo.
Toodles, Alexandrei ...

 

[Cino]

1) The angles of any triangle add up to 180deg

2) One of the angles in a right-angle triangle is 90deg

3) Therefore the sum of the other two angles must be 90deg

(Simples, Sergei ...)

Only in Euclidean geometry.

Gravity and acceleration, however, require non-Euclidean geometry to describe them sufficiently.

I'll shut up now.