Religion

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)

113. No -- because then one has to adopt some more complex theory to account for consistency

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:11 PM

Dec 2011

It is simpler to say that mass, energy, and other characteristics of the physical universe are real because they are consistent for all observers. People can agree on what things like length mean and how to measure it. Observations are consistent for populations of conscious minds, unconscious organisms, and computerized automata.

To account for the physical universe as a construction of a mind which is processing observations would require complex mechanisms to achieve this consistency. Furthermore, there is no evidence that mental processes are able to alter the physical universe, which would reasonably be the case were it a product of the mind.

And yes, I'm aware of the theory that it is all most probably just a simulation game being run on a meta-computer by a child of a meta-race. But there is no way to tell whether that is the case.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

189 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

For the sake of clarity, and understanding, why don't we just all stand up and say [View all] MarkCharles Dec 2011 OP

gnostic atheist lazarus Dec 2011 #1

Also a gnostic atheist EvolveOrConvolve Dec 2011 #2

"If a deity is completely unknowable, then there's no point to having a god. " MarkCharles Dec 2011 #3

Frankly, I think this question is way too simplistic. cbayer Dec 2011 #4

we're pretty much already factioned lazarus Dec 2011 #5

Agree that there are some who clearly identify themselves as part of a distinct cbayer Dec 2011 #8

To me it seems tama Dec 2011 #59

Would you like us to put it in our signatures? darkstar3 Dec 2011 #6

Actually, I'd like having non-believers NOT subject to ridicule here MarkCharles Dec 2011 #7

Herein lies one of the biggest problems with this group, imo. cbayer Dec 2011 #9

I called no one that, but you took it personally, now why is that? MarkCharles Dec 2011 #11

I didn't take it personally at all. And my answer to all your questions here are no. cbayer Dec 2011 #15

Well, that's been the point all along skepticscott Dec 2011 #17

I have not really seen what you describe. cbayer Dec 2011 #19

Perhaps this forum needs to be split into Religion and Religion Slugfest. snagglepuss Dec 2011 #22

There are several theist only groups. Near ignored, but available. nt dmallind Dec 2011 #26

I wasn't thinking so much of a theist only group rather a group where profound disagreement about snagglepuss Dec 2011 #68

God would have had to have designed human nature intelligently for that to happen dmallind Dec 2011 #119

I think we already have that situation EvolveOrConvolve Dec 2011 #27

True dat. snagglepuss Dec 2011 #69

You assume incorrectly that it's only the atheists iris27 Dec 2011 #33

Why would Atheists be the only ones needed to be "on good behavior?" cleanhippie Dec 2011 #40

No different than my saying religious types should mind their p s and qs in the atheist forum. snagglepuss Dec 2011 #70

This isn't a safe haven group laconicsax Dec 2011 #71

SOP says discuss, it says nothing about hostile putdowns. I'm not even against venting hostility snagglepuss Dec 2011 #75

Gee, another attempt to cast doubt skepticscott Dec 2011 #34

What's with all the secrecy? I, for one, would LOVE to know what you believe in smile....xenu luvs u Dec 2011 #136

You are like one of the blue men trying to convince people you are green. So much humblebum Dec 2011 #45

Would this comment LARED Dec 2011 #36

Why not just ask a simple question instead of trying to make it into some kind of challenge? Leontius Dec 2011 #10

If you are not brave enough to step up to the plate with your beliefs, I can understand how MarkCharles Dec 2011 #12

You really don't get it do you, a simple question would have been enough to get some responses Leontius Dec 2011 #16

In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with G-d; and the Word was G-d. struggle4progress Dec 2011 #13

What is G-d? cleanhippie Dec 2011 #41

ummm... General Discussion, I think. TygrBright Dec 2011 #43

! struggle4progress Dec 2011 #66

So just what does G-d mean? cleanhippie Dec 2011 #96

Religious Jews (and possibly some other groups) consider it wrong to use the Deity's name in full LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #97

Ahh, you mean like in Harry Potter, where they can't bring themselves to say Voldemort's name? cleanhippie Dec 2011 #98

In Finnish language tama Dec 2011 #101

So just like Harry potter. Got it, thanks. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #106

You're wellcome! nt tama Dec 2011 #108

Not exactly; but I would guess the taboo on Voldemort's name is indeed based on actual religious LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #167

Isn't "G-d" equally a representation of the Lord's name as "God?" ChadwickHenryWard Dec 2011 #148

Not sure. Struggle4progress seems to not want to answer. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #172

Well, I know that speaking or writing the tetragrammaton is supposed to be blasphemous, ChadwickHenryWard Dec 2011 #175

Yeah, I know. The really, REALLY irrational beliefs are the hardest to defend. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #176

Well, it's not like he got in my face about it. ChadwickHenryWard Dec 2011 #177

I don't believe in the supernatural uriel1972 Dec 2011 #14

Well, I think most all humans (but me and some friends) are all idiots The Straight Story Dec 2011 #18

"humans are not special, just a bunch of chemicals walking around -very much like the sun and such." ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #52

Not fully meant as snark The Straight Story Dec 2011 #78

Well, if there is a cosmic "programmer"... LAGC Dec 2011 #156

Weeellllll, rrneck Dec 2011 #20

I'm practicing discarding all beliefs altogether. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #21

Can't beat a hole in water. nt rrneck Dec 2011 #28

True that. nt GliderGuider Dec 2011 #29

Even though you are attempting to discard all beliefs LARED Dec 2011 #73

Touch�... n/t GliderGuider Dec 2011 #74

OK FarCenter Dec 2011 #23

I'm a Agnostic Atheist Buddhist. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #24

Just to clarify Vehl Dec 2011 #77

Great post, thanks! Odin2005 Dec 2011 #87

you are welcome :) Vehl Dec 2011 #104

I just don't believe in anything that lacks evidence. dmallind Dec 2011 #25

What is this, the Take Your Side thread? iris27 Dec 2011 #30

It's a lot like choosing sides for dodgeball in seventh grade. nt rrneck Dec 2011 #31

Dammit,no-one ever picked me for their team back then either. nt GliderGuider Dec 2011 #32

I am Shinto~Buddhist. (Jodo Shinshu) AsahinaKimi Dec 2011 #35

beautiful! Thank you. tfsoccer Dec 2011 #37

This can not be the result of random chance! tfsoccer Dec 2011 #38

Thats an interesting view, but who actually thinks this is the result of "random chance?" cleanhippie Dec 2011 #42

Most aetheists? or people without a belief in a god-like force governing the universe? tfsoccer Dec 2011 #47

Maybe I should rephrase. Most PEOPLE with a basic understanding of biology, evolution, and the cleanhippie Dec 2011 #49

God does not throw dice? tama Dec 2011 #60

Most atheists do not believe that. Mariana Dec 2011 #57

You've wrapped two fallacies into one, here. darkstar3 Dec 2011 #61

How do you know everything that other people think?? Angry Dragon Dec 2011 #62

If you're referring to the statement I made about people and their belief in random chance, darkstar3 Dec 2011 #63

I do not know what everyone thinks so it is impossible Angry Dragon Dec 2011 #64

That's called an appeal to ignorance, and I'm not playing. darkstar3 Dec 2011 #65

There's 50-50 chance (or more) tama Dec 2011 #67

My questions indicate a POSSIBLE answer to a response to mine... tfsoccer Dec 2011 #76

Einstein on God tfsoccer Dec 2011 #188

Ray Comfort? Bananna man? THAT is your response? Seriously? cleanhippie Dec 2011 #189

Ok LARED Dec 2011 #39

Roman Catholic Pendrench Dec 2011 #44

I am an atheist. Iggo Dec 2011 #46

To be honest, I 'd have to identify with "angry atheist", mr blur Dec 2011 #48

+100000000 cleanhippie Dec 2011 #50

I am a second-generation Jewish atheist... LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #51

Someone with a devotion to Church/State separation, for the good of everyone. Adsos Letter Dec 2011 #53

It would take too long to describe what I believe. Short version: MH1 Dec 2011 #54

If there are gods they do not need an organized religion Angry Dragon Dec 2011 #55

Hindu Atheist. Vehl Dec 2011 #56

No religion tama Dec 2011 #58

Here is mine Meshuga Dec 2011 #72

My response Thats my opinion Dec 2011 #79

Did you really need to start your comment with an attack? laconicsax Dec 2011 #80

And that would be different from the past...how? darkstar3 Dec 2011 #81

And yet you fail to ask the same question of the original poster and his related comments Leontius Dec 2011 #82

The original poster isn't guilty of repeated attempts to chide or shut down the board darkstar3 Dec 2011 #83

And that is exactly what I just pointed out. Leontius Dec 2011 #84

So you think laconicsax is a hypocrite, and TMO is not, is that what you're saying? darkstar3 Dec 2011 #85

The energy for evolution has been supplied from the sun and from terrestrial radioactive decay FarCenter Dec 2011 #86

In contemporary science tama Dec 2011 #95

Information and energy are quite separable FarCenter Dec 2011 #100

Mass and energy tama Dec 2011 #103

Sounds good to me. rrneck Dec 2011 #88

Art is a window into the transcendent. Thats my opinion Dec 2011 #89

As an atheist I do not say your uriel1972 Dec 2011 #90

Is math 'Real'? tama Dec 2011 #94

Math is not "Real". FarCenter Dec 2011 #102

What else tama Dec 2011 #105

The observations are symbols, but the reality is not n/t FarCenter Dec 2011 #107

Wouldn't it be more simple tama Dec 2011 #109

No -- because then one has to adopt some more complex theory to account for consistency FarCenter Dec 2011 #113

Never mind nt tama Dec 2011 #116

Let's see tama Dec 2011 #123

Mental phenomena are the result of the consciousness app running on the unconscious OS on wetware FarCenter Dec 2011 #127

Very good of you tama Dec 2011 #135

Maths is no less real than any human creation. uriel1972 Dec 2011 #121

So what tama Dec 2011 #124

Maths is the language in which we describe those theories uriel1972 Dec 2011 #126

Interesting tama Dec 2011 #134

I wasn't saying maths exists outside the universe, uriel1972 Dec 2011 #138

Natural languages: GliderGuider Dec 2011 #144

No you weren't, but let's be carefull tama Dec 2011 #159

Are you saying that science drives creation? tfsoccer Dec 2011 #110

nope science observes that's it's job. uriel1972 Dec 2011 #120

Science also theorizes, proves and explains. tfsoccer Dec 2011 #137

Einstein tama Dec 2011 #160

thank you--'beautiful concept of God! tfsoccer Dec 2011 #164

Now you're attacking the same old straw man that all non-believers darkstar3 Dec 2011 #92

NOBODY said that atheists don't believe in love etc. Thats my opinion Dec 2011 #111

You said it right here: darkstar3 Dec 2011 #130

You can go out rrneck Dec 2011 #154

Sounds a lot like The Force to me. darkstar3 Dec 2011 #91

Here are a few--and this is just through the "Cs" Thats my opinion Dec 2011 #117

I haven't read those, but just to be clear: darkstar3 Dec 2011 #132

Try reading just a few instead of asking about things you have Thats my opinion Dec 2011 #145

Try engaging in discussion instead of thumbing your nose at the rest of us. darkstar3 Dec 2011 #153

The reason I posted the long list of books--for which you asked, Thats my opinion Dec 2011 #171

Looks to me like quite a few Process Theology folks in that truncated bibliography... Adsos Letter Dec 2011 #152

Doesn't sound anything like Christianity as practiced by: darkstar3 Dec 2011 #155

You would have been called an atheist tama Dec 2011 #161

Damned straight I attacked belief lazarus Dec 2011 #93

Or, "when did you stop beating your wife." Thats my opinion Dec 2011 #114

It's a serious question that you obviously haven't considered lazarus Dec 2011 #128

The poster asked people to define what they believed, Thats my opinion Dec 2011 #115

I said what I believe lazarus Dec 2011 #129

"I don't hate or attack (Ifill in your own named enemy) Thats my opinion Dec 2011 #180

I doubt I'm in the top 50, but for what it's worth. deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #99

Now there is an interesting bit of rational discussion nt Thats my opinion Dec 2011 #112

I am a Christian and liberal. Sal316 Dec 2011 #118

There. Was it so hard to admit that you cherry-pick? laconicsax Dec 2011 #122

Discernment isn't cherry picking. Sal316 Dec 2011 #125

So you construct elaborate arguments for why you do it. laconicsax Dec 2011 #131

+1 darkstar3 Dec 2011 #133

What liberal christians Dorian Gray Dec 2011 #139

I'm not aware of any. laconicsax Dec 2011 #141

I think with any philosophy Dorian Gray Dec 2011 #158

Here's the thing. Sal316 Dec 2011 #142

There are only 2 kinds of people uriel1972 Dec 2011 #143

I thought it was those with loaded guns and those who dig. laconicsax Dec 2011 #151

Neither reason nor motive change the action. laconicsax Dec 2011 #149

So, just for clarity.. Sal316 Dec 2011 #163

Sigh...no laconicsax Dec 2011 #165

Ok, then what wouldn't be cherry picking? Sal316 Dec 2011 #168

That's a subject where it's impossible not to. laconicsax Dec 2011 #174

Boy, that's a lame-assed copout. Sal316 Dec 2011 #178

You must not be a literature person. laconicsax Dec 2011 #179

if you equate cheery picking with careful scholarly investigation. Thats my opinion Dec 2011 #146

I don't equate the two. laconicsax Dec 2011 #150

The bottom line is skepticscott Dec 2011 #157

Same in philology tama Dec 2011 #162

And if there were people skepticscott Dec 2011 #170

To be fair... LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #169

I have a question about one of the beliefs you listed. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #147

I am Dorian Gray Dec 2011 #140

Not an adherent to any religion but still a form of theist. Nihil Dec 2011 #166

I hate labels. Quartermass Dec 2011 #173

No thanks. Brigid Dec 2011 #181

If you feel you have been personally attacked, I encourage you to alert on cbayer Dec 2011 #182

So by simply "FEELING" a personal attack, one has the right to... MarkCharles Dec 2011 #183

Of course. Anyone has the right to alert on any post cbayer Dec 2011 #184

Anybody has a right to alert on anything LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #187

If you mean the 'grinch' thread, the attacks were on Larry Taunton the writer of the article LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #185

Solitary Norse Heathen Tyrs WolfDaemon Dec 2011 #186