Why Did You Choose Atheism?

I like that. The same can be said for our layered brains which were evolved over ions of creatures trying to survive through their day to day, eat, rest, stay healthy, procreate, live, seek, learn to survive. That imperative starts at the beginnings of complexity within biological systems.

What’s wrong with recognizing consciousness is the result of our body’s functioning biology and sensory inputs from the world we happen to find ourselves.

Opposed to what you are say, there are a number neuroscientists pointing out that our consciousness is basically the inside reflection of our biological bodies dealing with life.

That outlook feels consistent with the experience of my own day to days. I’m aware of the evolutionary heritage that lies behind my body, and the impulses that drive it and help it survive. All of it makes sense from this Earth Centrist perspective, down to my strengths and weaknesses.

You offer universal consciousness, others offer the geometry of consciousness, yet others offer us the end of space and time altogether - how any of it relates to our actual human lives I still can’t fathom, though I’m trying.

Evolution and having a general appreciation for the strands that make me, myself and I, along with where they originated, having a glimpse of the huge spectrum of creatures this Earth provided a home for, and that made me possible. Life and drama on the grandest scale. That stuff positively informs my days and makes a real difference in my appreciate and dealing with the storm und drang of my own days.

Other than entertaining a possibility, something I do and scientists do, FYI, how do you figure your idea is one that anyone else should bother with? I heard no evidence above, just whining about no one listening to you. I heard nothing that points to what you say, other than our mere existence. An existence that lacks a complete description, a complete path back to it’s earliest origin. So, yes, some door is left open a crack for you to claim whatever you want.

But, why should I pursue your claim?

How will my life change if I follow evidence instead of speculation? My mind is open to possibilities either way.

And here is where your argument fails…

The evidence shows that there is 99.99999999999999% probability that evolution has happened and can be considered axiomatic, both theoretical and factual.

OTOH, the existence of a biblical God has no evidence of any kind other that a book written by various “unknown” people. Even if you can claim a 0.0000000000000001 % possibility that such a being exists, who’re you gonna call for advice, Darwin or God?

There is no equal probability. In fact, claiming such thing is a category error.

Evolution is established science. Belief in a Motivated Creator Agency that requires adoration is “wishful thinking”.

[quote=“michaelmckinney1951, post:111, topic:8245”]

Two lines of thought support this view in my opinion; one is the phenomenon of “Evolved Emergent Complexity” which is clearly observed in the universe

Agreed 100%.

and the other is the idea of “universal consciousness” which is more speculative.

That concept is not “required” at all. A mathematical universe needs not be “conscious” to be a functional “guiding equation” of change.

And again, there is overwhelming proof of mathematical function .

Hence, the concept of God is superfluous and Nature ( the abstract property of the universe) does not deal in superfluous concepts. That is the domain of humans.

[quote=“michaelmckinney1951, post:87, topic:8245”]

We know the story as told and objectively verified by science about how everything in the universe began from the Big Bang onward.

CDT does not argue against the BB. It argues for the fractal nature of expanding space after the BB.

Slight adjustment. : -)

Evolution is established by scientific evidence.

Now if only we really let that lesson soak in, as we think about who and what we are.

As for God, I would suggest that the evidence points to God being the product of our minds, the self. And where did that come from you ask?

We people, every one of us who was nurtured through an umbilical cord and born from a woman, carry hundreds of millions, actually billions of years worth of biological tricks and tools and such within ourselves. Our body hears the echos of millions and hundreds of thousands of years worth of hominid, then human generations, we are the sum total of their collective journey. It’s not some abstract notion, our DNA is proof of that much.

Each of us has grand parents of grand parents reaching back to the dim dawn of evolution.

If God be anywhere, why shouldn’t she/he be found within ourselves, and the echos of deep time that resonate within each of our bodies?

I keep wondering, how do people justify constantly looking for God, out there?

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:117, topic:8245”]

How do people justify constantly looking for God, out there?

Wishful thinking ? The assumption of a spritiual existence in the heaven of God.

The end has no end, but is a new beginning apart from physical existence and if you have been a good boy it is for an eternity of bliss.
Actually it is just an extension of the same evolved impetus that drives us to stay alive.

Ants don’t have don’t have religion or try to stay alive individually. They will unquestioningly give their lives for the hive. (Hellstrom Chronicle)

p.s. Anyone who has not see this movie, should watch it and consider it’s implication.

It’s not that I was calling for cognitive dissonance -
it’s the idea of holding two impossible thoughts at the same time.
Dreams of working on human travel to Mars, with an awareness of what’s happening to the resource base (Earth) that those dreams depend on.

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:119, topic:8245”]

Dreams of working on human travel to Mars, with an awareness of what’s happening to the resource base (Earth) that those dreams depend on.

I agree completely. The notion of terraforming inhospitable planets millions of miles in outer space, while we are busy destroying the most hospitable we know of, is incomprehensible to me.

The logic of this entire scenario borders on insanity.

It reminds me of a George Carlin skit about acquiring “stuff”.

[quote=“write4u, post:118, topic:8245”]

Guess you have something there.

Though that still doesn’t make it correct.

You miss the point. It’s about acknowledging somethings simply are out of our ability to observe, measure, and assess.
Humans some how seem incapable of that and feel it’s noble to pretend we can understand, simply because we can imagine colorful possibilities.

I think it has something to do with keeping our eye on the ball.

It’s like claiming one acknowledges physical reality, but then tries to lecture about how the atom is supposedly all empty space, simply because one mathematical description, with limited application, says so?

Why not instead talk about the energy shells surrounding an atom’s nucleus that are more solid than granite?

You should apologize for that groundless remark.

You should understand that you are on a forum that accepts and expects evidence for any and all claims. If I missed the evidence you provided, please point it out. You have repeated many times that the lack of evidence for all details of how this universe came to be, is somehow counted as evidence for something immaterial, “ultramundane” was the word you used.

The lack of evidence is not evidence. You said there is no such evidence. You believe something “infers” “a transcendent agent”. That’s a belief, nothing more.

You are the one who should apologize for saying, “The rigid posture of those opposed to entertaining any thought of the mere possibility…” Because entertaining possibilities is the business of science. It was the rigid and dogmatic Catholic Church that held back science for a thousand years by not allowing curiosity and exploration. Once their power was reduced, we figured out how the planets move and eventually how to “slip the surly bonds of Earth”.

We shouldn’t label it a deity though.

Why not? Sounds good to me.

Mind you we were discussing the question of what happened on the other side of the Big Bang,
and why I believe it’s silly to call conjure about what happened before time began science.

Science is about measuring, observing, figuring out how things operate within this Physical Reality.

Now we just need to convince the talking heads.
Oh but it’s so difficult to kill a sensational story that sells.

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:126, topic:8245”]

Now we just need to convince the talking heads.

You talk about the density within atoms. I talk about the density and patterns of atoms .

Same thing, different perspective.

Why do we need to bring David Bryne into this?

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was and look where my hand was
Time isn’t holding up, time isn’t after us

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was


Won’t happen. They may even say that idea is wrong.

There’s a considerable difference when a general comment is made about the way people may dismiss an idea arbitrarily because it doesn’t fit or challenges their world view, which is what I did. That’s something very different from saying as you did that a person is “whining” because he’s not getting enough attention. One comment is general and not directed at any one specifically. To allege someone is “whining” which is regarded as a character fault is specific and personal. I am not a whiner as you suggest Mr. Lausten and never was one. It’s one thing to criticize someone’s ideas, quite another to criticize someone’s character.
I would think that you as a moderator would know this.
I thank all who’ve added their thoughts to this discussion whether in opposition or agreement but when personal invective enters the dialogue it’s time to withdraw.

No, it’s a very slim difference. If I had used a more vulgar term, or repetitively used any term, that would be different. You have been persistent about the lack of open-mindedness you find in this discussion. There are only a handful of people in this discussion, so your comments about it being “general” do not pass the test of reasonableness. Who else are you speaking to?

Even if you are referring to the entire scientific community, or science minded people in general, that has also been responded to by me and the other people in this thread, several times. You are close to violating the rule about repetitive posting, aka “trolling”. You are not responding to the comments about what science is or providing anything other than worn-out statements about how if something can’t be proven, then speculation is as good as a complete scientific theory.

If you were to refer to or use more sophisticated language, like say, Alvin Plantinga, I might acknowledge your points. As of now, I find no reason to do anything but skim your posts.

This is my personal as well as official comment.