God Doesn't Exist

[SteveII]

The problem with them defining their god as outside space and time also removes the possibility of miracles.  If something is outside our reality, then by acting within our reality, it would be provable.  It would become part of the real world and testable…there would be evidence.

Instead, their god does non testable miracles such as healings for conditions known to have spontaneous remissions but never heals an amputee.  It’s why the RCC never allows outsiders to test their bleeding hosts.  Everytime a miracle has been testable, it’s also shown to not be a miracle.

Your problem here is you are conflating 'reality' with the 'natural world.' If reality consists of both the natural world and the supernatural world, there is no conceptual problem. Miracles are supernatural and by definition cannot be tested by naturalistic means.

[brewerb]

The problem with them defining their god as outside space and time also removes the possibility of miracles.  If something is outside our reality, then by acting within our reality, it would be provable.  It would become part of the real world and testable…there would be evidence.

Instead, their god does non testable miracles such as healings for conditions known to have spontaneous remissions but never heals an amputee.  It’s why the RCC never allows outsiders to test their bleeding hosts.  Everytime a miracle has been testable, it’s also shown to not be a miracle.

Your problem here is you are conflating 'reality' with the 'natural world.'  If reality consists of both the natural world and the supernatural world, there is no conceptual problem. Miracles are supernatural and by definition cannot be tested by naturalistic means.

Supernatural, in your case, is only a fantasy product of the mind. You pick and choose what to believe are miracles. Any other supernatural phenomena are more than likely 'natural' that have yet to be explained.

You belief system is childish.

[Huggy Bear]

This is my favorite argument for why God doesn't exist:

Science has shown that consciousness is brain-dependent.  All sorts of studies and observations support this: dementia, brain injuries, localization of functions, the effects of drugs, how consciousness changes with brain development, sleep and dreaming, and so on.

That means that when the brain dies, consciousness disappears.  So there is no afterlife.

Without a brain, there is no consciousness.  Therefore an immaterial God with consciousness cannot exist.

*emphasis mine*

Post the peer reviewed article...

[no one]

There is no such thing as the "supernatural". Nothing is outside of nature's power to nature.

godiboi, in any and all varieties is pure poppycock.

[no one]

Got to love it when clowns like the bear and little stevieboi demand evidence, while never ever providing any of their own, other than the stupid huly buuk they so desperately cling to.

[Inkubus]

The problem with them defining their god as outside space and time also removes the possibility of miracles.  If something is outside our reality, then by acting within our reality, it would be provable.  It would become part of the real world and testable…there would be evidence.

Instead, their god does non testable miracles such as healings for conditions known to have spontaneous remissions but never heals an amputee.  It’s why the RCC never allows outsiders to test their bleeding hosts.  Everytime a miracle has been testable, it’s also shown to not be a miracle.

Your problem here is you are conflating 'reality' with the 'natural world.'  If reality consists of both the natural world and the supernatural world, there is no conceptual problem. Miracles are supernatural and by definition cannot be tested by naturalistic means.

Oh yes they can

If you’ve frequented this site, you’ll know that I disagree with this stand. I adamantly maintain that science can indeed test the supernatural—at least those claims about the supernatural that involve its interaction with the real world.  Indeed, you’ll be familiar with several claims about the supernatural that have already been tested, and refuted : the Genesis story of creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a 6,000-year-old earth, and the efficacy of intercessory prayer, as well as paranormal phenomena like near-death experiences, telepathy, and precognition.  If you invoke a form of the supernatural that claims to have real-world consequences, then those consequences necessarily fall within the ambit of science.  This means that any type of theistic faith involves hypotheses that are “scientific”. Dawkins was right to call the existence of God a “scientific hypothesis.”

[brewerb]

This is my favorite argument for why God doesn't exist:

Science has shown that consciousness is brain-dependent.  All sorts of studies and observations support this: dementia, brain injuries, localization of functions, the effects of drugs, how consciousness changes with brain development, sleep and dreaming, and so on.

That means that when the brain dies, consciousness disappears.  So there is no afterlife.

Without a brain, there is no consciousness.  Therefore an immaterial God with consciousness cannot exist.

*emphasis mine*

Post the peer reviewed article...

[Deesse23]

When you think about it, the grasping for the existence of an immaterial (and therefore COMPLETELY unknowable) dimension of the universe is itself an unwitting admission that the supernatural is sheer wishful fantasy.  Material evidence for whatever it is the theists think a god does has never been found - they have nowhere to go to support their belief so are forced to go beyond the material to the immaterial, which is, as a form of argument, immaterial.

but, but, but,................ it's outside of space and time.

Its outside of good reasoning too.

[brewerb]

but, but, but,................ it's outside of space and time.

Its outside of good reasoning too.

It's not our fault that you refuse to accept our flawed logic fantasy. We'll pray for you.

[Inkubus]

This is my favorite argument for why God doesn't exist:

Science has shown that consciousness is brain-dependent.  All sorts of studies and observations support this: dementia, brain injuries, localization of functions, the effects of drugs, how consciousness changes with brain development, sleep and dreaming, and so on.

That means that when the brain dies, consciousness disappears.  So there is no afterlife.

Without a brain, there is no consciousness.  Therefore an immaterial God with consciousness cannot exist.

*emphasis mine*

Post the peer reviewed article...

Here you go: The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood

You're welcome.

[Mathilda]

I had a more general thought about your favorite argument why God does not exist.

In a vastly improbable universe,
in an improbably solar system,
on a vastly improbably planet (necessary balance of elements, right size, distance from the sun, with a moon the right size)
where vastly improbably life supposedly sprung up from non-life,
where we eventually find a vastly improbably species of hominid with a brain that is probably the most complicated physical things in the entire universe and
finally this brain generated a sui generis emergent property: consciousness, with astounding abilities. Quite literally the most improbable thing that exists--and that's the most compelling reason you think God does not exist.

Interesting.

Except none of it is improbable.

What is improbable is that an environment capable of producing intelligent life doesn't exist somewhere in the universe.

[Dānu]

*emphasis mine*

Post the peer reviewed article...

Here you go: The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood

You're welcome.

From your cited article, "we don’t understand ... human consciousness..."

Your citation isn't peer-reviewed, either. Carroll's blog entry here appears to be an argument from incredulity.

[Inkubus]

[quote="Inkubus" pid='421280' dateline='1711982168']

Here you go: The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood

You're welcome.

From your cited article, "we don’t understand ... human consciousness..."

   
He then goes on to say:

But these are manifestations of the underlying laws, not signs that our understanding of the laws are incomplete

Your citation isn't peer-reviewed, either.   Carroll's blog entry here appears to be an argument from incredulity.

Isn't peer-reviewed? I doubt there is a theory that has been scrutinized more that the standard model of physics.

An argument from incredulity? Projecting much?

These are not Sean Carroll's personal musings this is Carroll explaining the rules by which the universe works. That 'you' don't understand what the physics is saying doesn't mean it can't be understood, it means 'you' don't understand. A little effort on your part could fix this.

[Dānu]

These are not Sean Carroll's personal musings this is Carroll explaining the rules by which the universe works. That 'you' don't understand what the physics is saying doesn't mean it can't be understood, it means 'you' don't understand. A little effort on your part could fix this.

Actually, those are his personal musings. They carry some additional weight given his expertise, but shouldn't simply be accepted uncritically. Regardless, neither you nor Carroll address Huggy's complaint.

[Deesse23]

In a vastly improbable universe....

Whats the probability of any other universe than ours?
How do you calculate probabilities of universes?

[Huggy Bear]

Got to love it when clowns like the bear and little stevieboi demand evidence, while never ever providing any of their own, other than the stupid huly buuk they so desperately cling to.

I guess we're just going to pretend as if I haven't been posting peer reviewed research this whole time.

[Mathilda]

What you need to do is demonstrate that brain activity is the only process that is needed to produce consciousness. For that, I suspect that our best bet isn't neural imaging but true AI. The theists are going to have a hissy fit when a chunk of metal starts arguing good reasons to believe that Patsor Bob doesn't have a soul.

Personally I think of consciousness in quite simple terms.

An agent (human, animal, robot, whatever) can sense its environment.

It can also sense its own body within that environment (e.g. pain receptors).

A conscious agent senses its own emotional and cognitive state on top of all this.

Consciousness is literally us sensing ourselves within our environment.

[Mathilda]

In a vastly improbable universe....

Whats the probability of any other universe than ours?  
How do you calculate probabilities of universes?  

I'm wondering what he thinks is improbable about our solar system.

[Minimalist]

Actually, those are his personal musings. They carry some additional weight given his expertise, but shouldn't simply be accepted uncritically. Regardless, neither you nor Carroll address Huggy's complaint.

Given that, for the sake of argument..... then why should anything in that fucking bible be given any credence at all?  Because primitive thinkers say so?  Don't make me laugh.

[Huggy Bear]

Actually, those are his personal musings. They carry some additional weight given his expertise, but shouldn't simply be accepted uncritically. Regardless, neither you nor Carroll address Huggy's complaint.

Given that, for the sake of argument..... then why should anything in that fucking bible be given any credence at all?  Because primitive thinkers say so?  Don't make me laugh.

Terrible argument, no one has made the claim that "Science has proved the existence of God", God's existence has always been a position of faith. If you want to make the claim that "Science has shown that consciousness is brain-dependent", then you should have no problem submitting the 'scientific' data.

[Minimalist]

And what people like Stevie can not understand is that "faith" means fuckall in this day and age.  It is not the 2d century anymore.  We don't need "gods" to explain anything.  In the hundreds of years of scientific advancement have they ever come back and said that some phenomenon or other must be the result of "god?"  They either know what caused it or they haven't figured it out yet.  But they will, eventually.

Huggy, do you really expect me to accept that primitive assholes living in hovels in the ancient mid-east had ALL the answers?  Get real, man.  If you want to believe nonsense that's fine.  You have that right.  But stop trying to convince modern, thinking humans that your ancient schmucks were right.  "Faith" is for the lazy.

[epronovost]

If you want to make the claim that "Science has shown that consciousness is brain-dependent", then you should have no problem submitting the 'scientific' data.

Isn't that pretty much a given? 

Consciousness is the ability to sense the environment and react to it, formulate thoughts, form memories and recall them, have desires and dreams, solve problems, analyze one's environment and own thinking process, emote and emotion regulations, speculate and imagine/create things.

All of these abilities are well understood to be completely brain dependent, more than that we even know which part of the brain regulates each of these activities and the neuro-chemical process behind them well enough to actually affect it through surgeries and medications. What is mysterious about consciousness is not so much if it's a product from the brain or not (of course it is), but how exactly we should define it or think about it, how it operates exactly since our mental processes are incredibly complex and how it's best described on physical level. These are the mysteries of consciousness, nobody is out there thinking consciousness can actually be immaterial and exist without brains since no consciousness have ever been observed without a complex neural network nor mechanism suggested for it to exist outside of such network. It's, from our understanding of reality, literally impossible to have a consciousness without a brain of some sort.

[Deesse23]

Whats the probability of any other universe than ours?  
How do you calculate probabilities of universes?  

I'm wondering what he thinks is improbable about our solar system.

Even if...so what?
Its very, very improbable to win the lottery, yet people do win the lottery, every week. When you have gazillions of planets out there, this "improbable" BS is being shown for what it is: A catch phrase of those who dont care a bit if their arguments are true, just like claiming that ancient slavery was a "safety net".

Disgustingly dishonest, thats all this is, and Steve is full of it....to the brim.

[no one]

This guy:
Got to love it when clowns like the bear and little stevieboi demand evidence, while never ever providing any of their own, other than the stupid huly buuk they so desperately cling to.

The Bear:
I guess we're just going to pretend as if I haven't been posting peer reviewed research this whole time.

You really are an idiot, huggy. You have a one track mind. You cannot think outside of that little box you've imprisoned yourself in.

[airportkid]

... Miracles are supernatural and by definition cannot be tested by naturalistic means ...

This means also that they can't be detected.  There'd be no phenomenon you could point to and say "that's a miracle" because you've just applied the naturalistic means of sensory experience to know what to point to.  The sensory experience could be as ineffable as a vague "spiritual" emotional resonance, it's still sensory.

When a lot younger (age 10 or so) and still believing a "god" existed in some form, I wondered why miracles had only happened in the distant past, and often, but were totally absent in modern times.  Today there's an answer to that conundrum:  our fund of knowledge is much more vast than it was.  A thousand years ago there were still many phenomena beyond explanation, so "miracle" was invoked to explain them.  Today phenomena beyond our understanding are much more rare - and we recognize from experience that the most likely explanation will be natural, once we figure it out.  "Miracle" is an archaic concept that functions as temporary "filler" rather than coherent knowledge.

"Miracle" has been been forced to be steadily narrowed in scope to a matter of probability.  The theist exclaims that so and so phenomenon is so improbable it had to be divine.

Improbable, not impossible.  So there's a line.  Improbable but probably natural, or improbable to the point of being impossible.  Where do the theists inscribe that line?  A trillion to 1?  A trillion trillion to 1?  A thousand to 1?  And how the hell would they know just what the actual probability is?  Determining that requires study, experiment, evaluation, science.  No theist brandishing a declaration of supernatural intervention has ever furnished so much as a notecard showing the data and calculations to back it up.

Worse, (and theists aren't the only transgressors), the dimension of time is absent in their assessments.  Such and such is improbable, but left out is the probability PER UNIT TIME.  A run of 12 sevens tossed in a row in a casino is improbable to the point of impossibility, but within a thousand casinos across a thousand years, the probability there'd be such a run approaches 1 to 1.  Likewise observable nature on Earth spans about 4 billion years.  Our minds cannot grasp the true magnitude of that span.  The improbability of a human mind emerging as a natural process seems astronomical - but not if given 4 billion years.  Then it approaches 1 to 1.