Sherlock: Puddle’s are incapable of thinking. If a puddle could think then it would be quite justified in thinking this though.A puddle existing 2000 years ago would be justified in thinking this. But would a puddle be justified in thinking this if it were educated with 20th century scientific knowledge?
A puddle existing 2000 years ago would be justified in thinking this. But would a puddle be justified in thinking this if it were educated with 20th century scientific knowledge?No, that is a poor example. A puddle does not retain memory, it's a liquid and does not retain any shape or pattern.
This may be of interest;
My four points stand. - I am Genus Homo
Let’s start with where we agree. “Religion is layered with custom, tradition and orthodoxy and those things are very worldly…”. Okay. I’m not sure if we agree about “spiritual awakening”, but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion. Let’s just say I’m open to what you MIGHT be saying. And, we basically agree that supernatural is something about not having empirical evidence. Then, your belief, well, you’re right, it’s your belief, so science can’t do anything about that except offer data and reasoning. But then you say science actually does offer evidence of “an unseen and transcendent reality” that we call God. And back to agreeing, that word God carries a lot of baggage and it’s confusing. So, ‘nother discussion #2.
Then your points, starting with the scientific explanation of the beginning of this physical universe. Something initiated it, outside of time. It’s gets difficult because something existed “before” but that “before” didn’t have time. You don’t say much about this, but there are theories, theories with mathematical explanations, not spiritual ones. Simply put, no god is required by these theories. They aren’t trying to prove the non-existence of God, they are just following the evidence to explain how space/time is created without there being any other space/time. This is a good source.
The above link includes a response to your second point; fine tuning is not “miraculous”. It may be extremely awesome and hard to grasp, but it also may be happening all over the place. Unfortunately we’ll never be able to interact with the other places in the universe (the universe of all universes, of which we are just one), but we can theorize, with evidence from physics, that they exist and have a range of properties. The really unbalanced ones just wigged out, long before consciousness evolved. Ours hung around, although that’s hard to grasp since we came from “no time”.
The third and fourth points are kind of one point. Since our universe formed out of one of the bubbles with the physical properties that we have, that led to the increasing complexities, from protons and neutrons forming hydrogen, to stars, to us. I don’t know where you got the idea that human consciousness exists outside, or formed before us and our brains merely experience it. It’s possible, but you offered no evidence for it. Then you immediately used that speculation to explain different “levels” of human abilities. You entered right back in to the pattern of a religion, claiming there are some people who are more in touch with God than others. That’s dangerous, and that’s when I get a bit testy.
Write4U: A puddle does not retain memory, it’s a liquid and does not retain any shape or pattern.Communicating online this is tough.
I’m almost certain that you know that I know that it’s only an analogy and is in no way meant to represent the existence sentient rainwater. But I don’t know for sure, so just in case you don’t know that I know, let me say it now: I do.
As I get to know people and people get to know me, misunderstandings like this will become fewer.
Write4U: No, that is a poor example.It's a fabulous example (but I'm sure you knew that). It demonstrates the position of IDers and Creationists beautifully.
It’s a fabulous example (but I’m sure you knew that). It demonstrates the position of IDers and Creationists beautifully.Never thought I'd see people needing to defend this. It's one of the most commonly quoted analogies about ID that I know of. Adams wrote some short, sometimes childless, sometimes poignant books that played around with a myriad of perspectives on who we are, what we are and where we're headed. He could have done about anything with his genius and he decided to give us humor.
If that’s not an extreme example of an anthropomorphic bias then the word and its meaning must have radically changed, but as Tee Bryan Peneguy correctly defined in a prior posting, the meaning of the word “anthropomorphism” hasn’t changed.Um. ... Well. Since you credited me (but didn't tag me), I need to respond.
You’ve got this entirely wrong.
There is a huge difference between: A] anthropomorphizing something, and B] using anthropomorphism as an analogy.
Examples:
A] “The rain stopped and the sun came out, just in time for my wedding! The sky knows how important today is for me!”
vs
B] “The rain stopped and the sun came out, just in time for my wedding! It’s as if the sky knows how important today is for me!”
Do you really, honestly not comprehend the difference between A and B?
Anyhow, if you understand the difference I explained above. …AS AN ANALOGY,
…the puddle is perfect.
It’s small, shallow, and fits perfectly in this little space.
It’s completely self-centered, because it’s unaware that anything else exists.
Therefore, it doesn’t know that it could NOT fit in any of ZILLIONS of OTHER places. It could not fit on a zebra’s head, in an elevator shaft, or under a cucumber. It could not fit in 99.999% of places. But since it fits in THIS space, it thinks the universe was made just for it.
It’s perfectly easy to understand.
Tee: It’s perfectly easy to understand.An analogy can convey complex concepts more clearly than a long-winded essay. But some pedantic person pretending to not understand the point ruins it.
Maybe if everyone made it the goal to understand rather than make debate points, we could make progress.
I’m an optimist, but my optimism is tempered by realism, so I’m not holding my breath.
(but didn’t tag me)Oh, oh. Please explain this rule for the uninitiated.
Yes, I understand the difference and I understand the intended logic behind the puddle analogy. The analogy is simply not convincing and I have no idea what a tag is.
If we are discussing something as complex as the question of whether or not God exists, how can you possibly explore such a complex subject without a logically detailed set of ideas. That’s not pedantic. It’s called rational and empirical analysis. I think that’s a better definition of progress. Don’t you?
I think they mean this:
@I am the Genus Homo, just like you
That was me trying to tag you. But for some reason it did not turn blue.
Oh it did.
In response to Mr Lausten,
Starting with your last point; you attributed to me the following statement “some people are more in touch with God then others.” I never said that. Please re-read what I said. I also did not say that human consciousness exists outside of ourselves though that also was attributed to me. What I said was it’s very likely that “universal consciousness” exists prior to the human capacity to experience that consciousness and every individual enters into this universal consciousness to varying degrees. A person who is introspective to a very subtle degree is a very different kind of person from one who is crude and thoughtless which is why we call such people thoughtless. You’ve heard the expression “he thought better of it.” It usually means that a person refrained from an unhealthy action because it would be damaging to himself or others. In other words; he reached ( and entered into) a higher level of universal consciousness. I firmly believe this to be true. Yes, it’s true that I can’t offer definitive proof that this is the case just as you can’t offer definitive proof that it’s not true. I didn’t originate this idea or simply make it up. If you google this question you’ll find a growing number of neuro-scientists share this belief.
As for models of how the universe was created; what you say is true about the existence of alternative theories that posit very different ways as to how it was brought into existence but they are only speculation. The dominant and overwhelmingly accepted model that’s accepted by most cosmologists is the “Big Bang” version of how creation began. Exotic theories of multiverses with 24 dimensions are speculative and peripheral to what most scientists currently believe. My first of four earlier stated points is an elaboration on the argument of “first cause” and it’s never really been successfully refuted by critics. Historically this argument relied only on intuitive logic but modern cosmology and astrophysics buttresses its main point by accurately describing the earliest known condition of the cosmos. That condition was an original singularity (black hole) of infinite mass and temperature existing in a state prior to the linear emergence of time. This is our starting point for the expanding universe. We are riding the blast wave initiated by the ultimate explosion of the Big Bang. This is the current and accurate model of how the universe was created. This picture is the product of rigorously empirical science and centuries of collective knowledge. I trust science. I also believe in a transcendent, supreme being. These ideas are compatible and complimentary in my opinion.
Is Sean Carroll right?
Okay, thanks for the corrections. I did use some different words than you. I hope I wasn’t too far off in getting your meaning. I’m not understanding where you are saying consciousness came from. What do you mean by “universal”.
We have different ideas on what proof is, that’s going to cause problems for us. Many things are “possible”, but that is very different from “probable”. We have no evidence of anything showing signs of consciousness unless it has some neural activity, for example. So the probability of consciousness existing without a brain is very low. Conversely, the theories of some of the best minds in the world are not “only speculation”. If you could take something Brian Greene said and make an argument against it and have other cosmologist say that’s a good argument, then you might be able to say that. But what other cosmologist say now is that these theories are still being worked on, but they have merit and reasons for being possibly true.
The “first cause” argument on the other hand, is not science at all, it’s philosophy. There are many objections to it. Although, in the end, you’re right, it is not disproved. Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
In response to Mr Lausten,
I just googled the subject of consciousness independent of the human brain and found page after page of listings that essentially say the same things I did on this forum that consciousness is not a localized phenomenon, despite your saying that the probability of consciousness existing outside the brain is very low. The probability of this is actually very high. What is absolutely dependent upon a functioning brain is the “experience” of consciousness, but that is something different. In the same way we say we experience life while knowing that life is independent of us and existed long before and long after our individual life span comes to an end. If the term “universal” consciousness is objectionable to you, then it can be referred to as “preexisting consciousness.” This is fast becoming the consensus of neuro-scientists though it was once regarded as questionable. Just google the question.
It’s interesting you mention Brian Greene. His “string theory” in no way displaces or even partially undermines the current and widely accepted model of the Big Bang version of creation. String theory is about quantum gravity and the interplay of sub-atomic weak and strong forces.
You also say that the argument of “First Cause” is not a scientific argument. That’s true, it’s a theological/philosophical argument but I never said it was a scientific argument. I said science buttresses the cogency of the First cause argument. In the same way the question "does God exist?’ is not a scientific question but science can and certainly does contribute to any attempt to answer this question.
Genus Homo: ...that consciousness is not a localized phenomenon.Make sure the sources didn't mean that consciousness is not localized at any particular location within the brain.
If your sources do explicitly state that consciousness can be found outside of a brain, please list some of them- I honestly have never heard anyone say that and it would be fascinating to see what they have to say.
Thank you Sherlock Holmes for stating that water puddles are not thinking, self reflective entities. If we can use such a flawed analogy to give us clues about how the universe works, then the next time I have a conversation with Mr. Ed the talking horse I’ll ask him if he thinks Elvis is really dead. Look for my report.
