No such thing as God because there's no such thing as God!

[Flappycat]

Flappycat: If the universe had a creator, based on your observations of the world around you and your observations of yourself and how you as a created mechanism or being function, what would the creator be like? (Assuming one can discover something about an artist's personality by examining her art).

First of all, thank you for understanding one of my key points. As to your question, I would have to say that it is a product of growth and erosion. Even the development of our bodies is a result of the timed death or partial incapacitation of cells. We are more of a marble sculpture than a clay model, for we could not live without the death or crippling of millions of cells over the course of several years. Is that what you are looking for?

 

[!Fluffy!]

First of all, thank you for understanding one of my key points.

My pleasure, you are quite articulate.

Flappycat: If the universe had a creator, based on your observations of the world around you and your observations of yourself and how you as a created mechanism or being function, what would the creator be like? (Assuming one can discover something about an artist's personality by examining her art).

As to your question, I would have to say that it is a product of growth and erosion. Even the development of our bodies is a result of the timed death or partial incapacitation of cells. We are more of a marble sculpture than a clay model, for we could not live without the death or crippling of millions of cells over the course of several years. Is that what you are looking for?

Hmm, maybe we can start there though that is just a small part of what I was after. I think we can make some assumptions: we can just assume we share the same reality, for example and that our observations of the universe and our own internal workings are quite similar.

If it is then assumed (just for a what-if) that some distinct entity created the living marble sculpture, can any insight into that entity's motivation, personality, intelligence level, etc. be gained by observing the sculpture? IOW, if we assume the artist is completely anonymous, does the art reveal anything of the artist's nature?

I have fun with these kinds of mental exercises all the time. And to tell the truth, I think of us humans as more a kind of colorful graffiti on the wall of nature than a marble statue. Or maybe a living signature on three dimensional, always-evolving holographic piece of art. Or the supporting characters in the longest movie ever made. If there is a producer, has he placed himself somewhere in there, a little cameo role maybe like Alfred Hitchcock or Stephen King? Or could he have left more subtle clues in everything? Is there a 'theme' or a plot or a discernible signature?

If, like C.S. Lewis as a child, you created an elaborate world peopled with made up species and orchestrated their elaborate interactions, wouldn't your fondest wish be to visit there?

If we were to stumble upon the anonymous maps, dictionaries and dioramas created by the Lewis brothers when they were little, would they offer clues to their young psyches, personalities, peculiarities?

BTW, your suppositions about C.S. Lewis' atheism may be closer to the truth than not. He himself admitted one of the things that drove him to investigate the various religions was discovering a deeply buried animosity toward a God who would kill a little boy's mother, when as a little boy he had so strongly believed that his loving Father would answer his prayers to spare her. So his personal quest began by answering the question, what kind of hypocrite would hate a God who he says doesn't exist? Even so, I love him for that kind of honesty and rationality. He was never afraid to confront any failure of his own or anyone else's logic. He was in fact my author-mentor and in a sense (and oh how I hate using these words, but they are descriptive enough) "led me to Christ", he and George MacDonald.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I doubt you mean to say that you can view the universe objectively from your subjective perception of it.

You're right. I wrote that rather awkwardly. Let me try again.

1. I see the world through a subjective mind.
2. I see the world around my subjective mind (including my body) as being seperate from my subjective mind (objective).
________________
________________
Therefore, my existence is twofold: subjective and objective.

And yes, in a way I could be in two places at once: physically and mentally. My imagination, as part of my subjective mind, allows me to do this.

But, let me define some things.

By subjective, I mean consiousness and self-awareness (the ego). By objective, I mean the physical world that isn't a part of the subjective self. Or, put another way, the deterministic forces that influence the subjective self.

As for the clone example, I was attempting a form of the philosophical zombie thought experiment in order to argue against physicalism. I'm going to abandon it and try something else.

Another way I could show that we do not see the world through our physicality, but through a consciousness that is somehow seperate is through dissociative disorders. In people who suffer from dissociative identity disorder (multiple personality disorder), there appear to be multiple subjective minds in one physical body. In depersonalization disorder, a person experiences a sense of loss over the control of their actions (it is often described as seeing their body move in a dreamlike way, as if they are apart from it). This seems to show a seperation of the subjective self and physical body.

I'm still doubtful that there is a scientific agreement on consciousness. My own research has shown some contention between the different scientific branches. I like your computer analogy, though, and would say that each theory is valid as a piece of the whole. I still wish to argue the seperation of consciousness and physicality on the basis of the previous examples of dissociation.

If you continue to hold onto beliefs that you know are implausible, then, no matter how much you may attempt to lionize such behavior, you are living a lie.

I still disagree. While a person may accept the logical impossibility of, let's say, the Christian God, it is no reason why they should not accept the ideal (by ideal I mean something percieved through imagination) of the Christian God. As humans, we do this all the time. It is logically impossible for beauty to exist, yet we hold it as an ideal. The human experience is not built on logic alone. This is not lionizing illogical behaviour, it is accepting the truth. I have experienced this myself: despite all philosophical arguments against the existence of God, I can not honestly say that I disbelieve in It. Why? I can still understand God as a symbolic Spirit of Life. It is not logical, it is simply the way I percieve things.

That is not to say that I discourage the attempt to question God. As Moon Woman stated, believers should confront doubts. Simply accepting religious belief is dangerous. I do not support using religious dogma to force belief or views of the world on others.

 

[Flappycat]

You're right. I wrote that rather awkwardly. Let me try again.

1. I see the world through a subjective mind.
2. I see the world around my subjective mind (including my body) as being seperate from my subjective mind (objective).
________________
________________
Therefore, my existence is twofold: subjective and objective.

It's definitely a category-mistake, then. You are your subjective mind.

And yes, in a way I could be in two places at once: physically and mentally. My imagination, as part of my subjective mind, allows me to do this.

Your imagination allows you give yourself the illusion of being elsewhere. You're only in one.

By subjective, I mean consiousness and self-awareness (the ego). By objective, I mean the physical world that isn't a part of the subjective self. Or, put another way, the deterministic forces that influence the subjective self.

You are part of the physical world, though, man. Otherwise, you couldn't exist. Even sight is of a physical nature: as a result of the bombardment of millions of photons exciting the electrons of the photosensitive cells of your retina, they become hyperpolarized and release neurotransmitters, and your eye sends electro-chemical signals to your lateral geniculate nucleus and, from there, to your visual cortex. Your thought processes can be described in the same terms. Knowing what makes the magic possible doesn't make it less magical, of course. It's really quite an impressive tribute to millions of years of evolution and a lot of pure, dumb luck.

Another way I could show that we do not see the world through our physicality, but through a consciousness that is somehow seperate is through dissociative disorders. In people who suffer from dissociative identity disorder (multiple personality disorder), there appear to be multiple subjective minds in one physical body. In depersonalization disorder, a person experiences a sense of loss over the control of their actions (it is often described as seeing their body move in a dreamlike way, as if they are apart from it). This seems to show a seperation of the subjective self and physical body.

You mean such conditions that leave you unstrung, as if your very existence is in question. You suddenly realize you're one object among many in the universe, a few molecules strung together into an arrogant mechanism that estimates itself to be the center of the universe. Then it's as if you are the universe, contemplating your body, and your entire being is objectified. You are an equation, a product. You feel your existence spinning off into space, and, after a moment, you return. You wish yourself a happy homecoming, and you return to your day, your existence reestablished, thou empire of millions of neurons working together to form a common sense of purpose and unity. Trippy, but it's just a glitch in the gears.

I'm still doubtful that there is a scientific agreement on consciousness. My own research has shown some contention between the different scientific branches. I like your computer analogy, though, and would say that each theory is valid as a piece of the whole. I still wish to argue the seperation of consciousness and physicality on the basis of the previous examples of dissociation.

Nope. It still leaves you with the fact that the numbers your synapses produce are still just a lot of neurotransmitters zooming about, though "just" is a bit of a silly word for something so immense.

I still disagree. While a person may accept the logical impossibility of, let's say, the Christian God, it is no reason why they should not accept the ideal (by ideal I mean something percieved through imagination) of the Christian God. As humans, we do this all the time. It is logically impossible for beauty to exist, yet we hold it as an ideal. The human experience is not built on logic alone. This is not lionizing illogical behaviour, it is accepting the truth. I have experienced this myself: despite all philosophical arguments against the existence of God, I can not honestly say that I disbelieve in It. Why? I can still understand God as a symbolic Spirit of Life. It is not logical, it is simply the way I percieve things.

In other words, you accept that "god" makes no logical sense whatsoever and simply doesn't exist outside of your imagination. In other words, it does not compute with your empirical mind. It doesn't add up. In essence, God
Is
A
Bug! A glitch! An error! A malfunction! In short, a whole lot of nothing!

That is not to say that I discourage the attempt to question God. As Moon Woman stated, believers should confront doubts. Simply accepting religious belief is dangerous. I do not support using religious dogma to force belief or views of the world on others.

Yes, and the reason for this is that it leaves you with a feeling of dissociation. You need to feel that everything comes together as it should, that you are one.

 

[Flappycat]

If it is then assumed (just for a what-if) that some distinct entity created the living marble sculpture, can any insight into that entity's motivation, personality, intelligence level, etc. be gained by observing the sculpture? IOW, if we assume the artist is completely anonymous, does the art reveal anything of the artist's nature?

Well, as far as I can tell, we're the product of millions of years of evolution. I see it going everywhere and nowhere in particular. Time grinds on, we live, we die, we reproduce in between if we choose. Simple.

If, like C.S. Lewis as a child, you created an elaborate world peopled with made up species and orchestrated their elaborate interactions, wouldn't your fondest wish be to visit there?

No. I'd prefer punching a colossal hole in the fabric of space and travelling through it by the seat of my boxers with not the faintest clue where I'm going or what I'm going to do when I get there. There's an adventure for you.

BTW, your suppositions about C.S. Lewis' atheism may be closer to the truth than not. He himself admitted one of the things that drove him to investigate the various religions was discovering a deeply buried animosity toward a God who would kill a little boy's mother, when as a little boy he had so strongly believed that his loving Father would answer his prayers to spare her. So his personal quest began by answering the question, what kind of hypocrite would hate a God who he says doesn't exist?

Yes, he was ridiculous. Again, I don't think that he was so much an atheist as a disgruntled Christian.

Even so, I love him for that kind of honesty and rationality.

That hate-puking apologist? You've got the wrong guy, ma'am. From what I can tell, he's inflammatory, crude, anti-intellectual, puerile, and generally noxious.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Well, as far as I can tell, we're the product of millions of years of evolution. I see it going everywhere and nowhere in particular. Time grinds on, we live, we die, we reproduce in between if we choose. Simple.

No. I'd prefer punching a colossal hole in the fabric of space and travelling through it by the seat of my boxers with not the faintest clue where I'm going or what I'm going to do when I get there. There's an adventure for you.

Yes, he was ridiculous. Again, I don't think that he was so much an atheist as a disgruntled Christian.

That hate-puking apologist? You've got the wrong guy, ma'am. From what I can tell, he's inflammatory, crude, anti-intellectual, puerile, and generally noxious.

Sheesh, sounds like you two would get along great! (only teasing)

*wiping tears of laughter* So would you care to elaborate? What did he say to raise your hackles Flappycat.

 

[Hacker]

Just wanted to reply, I want this to be under my subscribed threads in the cp, this is a good one, but don't have time to read all of it through right now.

 

[Random]

I notice that, in response to Flappy's highly petulant and unreasonable "No Such Thing As God Because There's No Such Thing As God" thread, no-one has had the stones to start an equally stubborn and dubious "God Exists Because God Exists" thread. Any takers?

 

[!Fluffy!]

I notice that, in response to Flappy's highly petulant and unreasonable "No Such Thing As God Because There's No Such Thing As God" thread, no-one has had the stones to start an equally stubborn and dubious "God Exists Because God Exists" thread. Any takers?

Speaking for myself only Godlike, it has less to do with stones than that the whole topic is getting a little thin and ragged after having posted and seen so many similar...but go right ahead!

:angel2:

 

[Random]

Speaking for myself only Godlike, it has less to do with stones than that the whole topic is getting a little thin and ragged after having posted and seen so many similar...but go right ahead!

You're right, but I'm not going to start such a thread: it wouldn't go anywhere constructive, I think. It's amazing how many people love Flappy's reverse, though. There's something about denying God that's currently transcending mere popularity and entering the realm of religious expression itself. Oh well, I just don't care enough to try and convince anybody otherwise, y'see...

 

[!Fluffy!]

Well, as far as I can tell, we're the product of millions of years of evolution. I see it going everywhere and nowhere in particular. Time grinds on, we live, we die, we reproduce in between if we choose. Simple.

And of course that has nothing to do with what I asked you.

At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Believing there was simply a miscommunication, I tried to clarify.

Well after several attempts to get you to answer a straightforward question I get another outright evasion. It's a simple what-if scenario. An exercise in creativity. A totally hypothetical situation. No one is asking you to change your mind about anything, just to have fun exploring a possibility.

This response of yours is a classic example of begging the question. It's an okay debate tactic but doesn't do much to further mutual understanding or respect.

So now you have revealed yourself, Flappycat. You refuse to even entertain the possibility of a creator, even in a non-threatening hypothetical sense. The doors are shut, sealed, nailed over and impenetrable.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Your imagination allows you give yourself the illusion of being elsewhere. You're only in one.

Physically, I'm in one. Mentally, I'm in another.

You are part of the physical world, though, man. Otherwise, you couldn't exist. Even sight is of a physical nature: as a result of the bombardment of millions of photons exciting the electrons of the photosensitive cells of your retina, they become hyperpolarized and release neurotransmitters, and your eye sends electro-chemical signals to your lateral geniculate nucleus and, from there, to your visual cortex. Your thought processes can be described in the same terms. Knowing what makes the magic possible doesn't make it less magical, of course. It's really quite an impressive tribute to millions of years of evolution and a lot of pure, dumb luck.

I agree. But I'm not sure what that has to do with what you quoted from me: "By subjective, I mean consiousness and self-awareness (the ego). By objective, I mean the physical world that isn't a part of the subjective self. Or, put another way, the deterministic forces that influence the subjective self." Forgive me, but I think I need some elaboration.

You mean such conditions that leave you unstrung, as if your very existence is in question. You suddenly realize you're one object among many in the universe, a few molecules strung together into an arrogant mechanism that estimates itself to be the center of the universe. Then it's as if you are the universe, contemplating your body, and your entire being is objectified. You are an equation, a product. You feel your existence spinning off into space, and, after a moment, you return. You wish yourself a happy homecoming, and you return to your day, your existence reestablished, thou empire of millions of neurons working together to form a common sense of purpose and unity. Trippy, but it's just a glitch in the gears.

This sounds a bit more like existential malaise than D.I.D. Well written, though! Your description still shows a seperation between the subjective mind and the physical body.

Nope. It still leaves you with the fact that the numbers your synapses produce are still just a lot of neurotransmitters zooming about, though "just" is a bit of a silly word for something so immense.

Also unsure about how this fits.

In other words, you accept that "god" makes no logical sense whatsoever and simply doesn't exist outside of your imagination. In other words, it does not compute with your empirical mind. It doesn't add up. In essence, God
Is
A
Bug! A glitch! An error! A malfunction! In short, a whole lot of nothing!

Actually, is there a logical argument against a general belief in God? Or are most arguments against specific kinds of Gods?

Assuming that God logically doesn't exist, however...

Then yes, God is a whole lot of nothing! I guess the difference between viewpoints here has to do where value is assigned. I place intrinsic value in what subjectively can exist, since, as you put it, I am my subjective mind. If God is nothing in the objective world, It can still be something in the subjective mind. Even if It's only a symbol. To go back to my example of beauty, logically it is also a whole lot of nothing. Yet its power over us is tremendous! And it's only because we subjectively see something as beautiful. The physical response is there; mmm...hormones and endorphins--gotta love 'em! But what is beautiful is still primarily subjective. (Even if the subjective idea of beauty is based on determinism, it still holds that it is the subjective mind experiencing the result of it all--but that's getting into free will!).

To place value on what is only physically existent is to ignore a major part of our experience.

 

[Flappycat]

Physically, I'm in one. Mentally, I'm in another.

And what I'm saying is that your mental state doesn't put you in another place.

This sounds a bit more like existential malaise than D.I.D. Well written, though! Your description still shows a seperation between the subjective mind and the physical body.

I was pretty accurately describing the experience of depersonalization. I've had experience with it, and it's nothing but a glitch in the temporal lobe.

Actually, is there a logical argument against a general belief in God? Or are most arguments against specific kinds of Gods?

Which brings me back to my original point. The flaws in Roman Catholicism and the flaws in Gnosticism are completely different species. If a specific belief doesn't hold up under scrutiny, it's sunk, and, if that was your belief, you'd best be in the market for a new one.

To go back to my example of beauty, logically it is also a whole lot of nothing.

Nope. Even that's just in the hardware. The frontomedian cortex is the main partner in reckoning aesthetics, I believe, though other areas of the brain are tied up in this as well.

To place value on what is only physically existent is to ignore a major part of our experience.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just looking at it more closely.

 

[Flappycat]

Well after several attempts to get you to answer a straightforward question I get another outright evasion. It's a simple what-if scenario. An exercise in creativity. A totally hypothetical situation. No one is asking you to change your mind about anything, just to have fun exploring a possibility.

You asked me a question, and I answered it. What did you want?

This response of yours is a classic example of begging the question. It's an okay debate tactic but doesn't do much to further mutual understanding or respect.

It wasn't intended as a debate tactic, though. I gave the only answer to the question that I can think of. That's what it looks like.

So now you have revealed yourself, Flappycat. You refuse to even entertain the possibility of a creator, even in a non-threatening hypothetical sense. The doors are shut, sealed, nailed over and impenetrable.

Well, I wasn't given much to go on. Where's the hypothesis?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

And what I'm saying is that your mental state doesn't put you in another place.

And what I'm saying is that while I'm physically only in one place, my mind is elsewhere. No, my body is still right where it will always be, but my subjective self could be anywhere.

I was pretty accurately describing the experience of depersonalization. I've had experience with it, and it's nothing but a glitch in the temporal lobe.

I'm can't be sure if it is or not. I believe I have experienced what you have during times of intense meditation, but depersonalization disorder is a rather scary, ongoing mental disorder brought about by extreme stress. Though, it could be that some are prone to small attacks of it now and then.

My experience of it was a little different. It comes about as a sudden feeling of being "new" to my body, as if all the memories I hold, and the sense of place I have are someone else's or I've been watching it from afar and am just suddenly experiencing it. It's scary, yes, but I take it as a temporary release from the habits of living.

I don't know if I would call it a glitch. Psychologists see this sort of thing as a mental defense mechanism to protect it from the damage of extreme stress.

Which brings me back to my original point. The flaws in Roman Catholicism and the flaws in Gnosticism are completely different species. If a specific belief doesn't hold up under scrutiny, it's sunk, and, if that was your belief, you'd best be in the market for a new one.

Is there a logical argument specifically against the Gnostic God(s)? I'm curious about that now...

Being aware of logical arguments against the Christian God (problem of evil, etc.) doesn't simply make the God go away in a devout believer. I think a believer is being truly honest when he or she states that they are aware of the logical impossibility, yet still believe. It may not be logical to do so, but it is human.

Nope. Even that's just in the hardware. The frontomedian cortex is the main partner in reckoning aesthetics, I believe, though other areas of the brain are tied up in this as well.

That still doesn't make beauty physically existent. It only shows that we are physically able to appreciate it. Beauty is still subjective.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just looking at it more closely.

Which is great. But still, reducing experience to its basic hardware is removing the value of the experience itself.

 

[Flappycat]

And what I'm saying is that while I'm physically only in one place, my mind is elsewhere. No, my body is still right where it will always be, but my subjective self could be anywhere.

No. It cannot. Your subjective self is the product of processes that take place within the safe confines of your brain.

I'm can't be sure if it is or not. I believe I have experienced what you have during times of intense meditation, but depersonalization disorder is a rather scary, ongoing mental disorder brought about by extreme stress. Though, it could be that some are prone to small attacks of it now and then.

You can get it just by going without sleep for a while and being under a great deal of stress. The disorder is merely getting these things chronically. Anyone can experience it under some circumstances, some more easily than others.

My experience of it was a little different. It comes about as a sudden feeling of being "new" to my body, as if all the memories I hold, and the sense of place I have are someone else's or I've been watching it from afar and am just suddenly experiencing it. It's scary, yes, but I take it as a temporary release from the habits of living.

Just drink some water, and lay down for a while. It's nothing. Just don't overextend yourself anymore, crazy.

I don't know if I would call it a glitch. Psychologists see this sort of thing as a mental defense mechanism to protect it from the damage of extreme stress.

Yeah, something of a surge protecter. That makes sense. The temporal lobe is an important part of the brain, and it wouldn't be very pleasant for the thing to end up getting fried.

Being aware of logical arguments against the Christian God (problem of evil, etc.) doesn't simply make the God go away in a devout believer. I think a believer is being truly honest when he or she states that they are aware of the logical impossibility, yet still believe. It may not be logical to do so, but it is human.

It's intellectual suicide, man. Bad stuff.

That still doesn't make beauty physically existent. It only shows that we are physically able to appreciate it. Beauty is still subjective.

Incorrect. Images that make the right parts of our brain light up do physically exist. If our synapses retain the memory of it to be recalled later, this is also physical.

Which is great. But still, reducing experience to its basic hardware is removing the value of the experience itself.

Not at all. It's really pretty cool how this stuff works.