Re: The (g)od That Exists

[Edward the Theist]

Stenger points out:

The key question is whether evidence should exist but does not. Elephants have never been seen roaming Yellowstone National Park. If they were, they would not have escaped notice. No matter how secretive, the presence of such huge animals would have been marked by ample physical signs -- droppings, crushed vegetation, bones of dead elephants. So we can safely conclude from the absence of evidence that elephants are absent from the park...
This absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It refutes the common assertion that science has nothing to say about God. In fact, science can say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that God â€" the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God â€" does not exist.

If you read the Gospels honestly and unbiased, I think you'll find Jesus didn't believe in that God either.

[Edward the Theist]

What's with the "(g)od" thing?

It's how I differentiate. (g)od is a primordial force. God, with a capital G, is the God you and I create in our minds to interpret (g)od. Actually, I think now that I look at it that (g)od could simply be written (g). I suppose that's the mathematical symbol I've been looking for for one of my models. Thanks for asking the question and helping me.

[Martin TK]

I'll try this in a different way just to be clear: What I'm trying to say is that even if I accept that there is a chance that something that you propose might exist, you still have a very long journey/adventure ahead of you, filled with exciting fact gathering, dangerously defining what it is, heart pounding hypothesis testing and thrilling battles against the mighty peer review process before I can rationally accept it as true.

I don't think I'm going to be submitting papers to the mathematical association of america, or to one of the Ivy league colleges (where someone else will put their name on top of mine on the paper so others will read it). I'm a street philosopher. I'm a self-taught mathematician. No one other than the general populous is ever going to be interested in my work. And, I'll be damned lucky if they are. But here's one thing I know: I know that if they are, then all the Ph.D's will clamour to write their books saying why mine isn't so (assuming I write a book or something).

That's you're scientists. That's experts for you. I'm not Van Gogh. I say that now humbly, that I am not Van Gogh. If I had been alive and knew Van Gogh I would have said that with derision. He was a loser then. He was insane. No one bought his work, and no one cared. Now Ph.D. students write dissertations about him. That may never be the case with me, or any of you for that matter, but we do what we can until we take our last breath. Right?

Dude, as a clinical psychologist, can I make ONE suggestion.  You need to talk to someone about these delusions of grandure you seem to be trapped in.  So far, all you've done is tell us how great your ideas are, how wonderful your mind is, how amazing your theories are going to be, and how people will be writing about you like Van Gogh.  This may not be the platform from which you would wish to launch your greatness.  Most people on this forum have remarkable BS meters, and right now mine, and I'm sure a LOT of other's, are pegging all the way out.  Just an idea, but in truth, I ain't seen the car, yet... so...

[pinkocommie]

Everyday I come back to this thread, ready to analyze some evidence for the existence of some not-God-god-thing, but all I keep coming back to is some guy talking about himself in the exact same way that I've heard other I'm-not-you're-average-theist theists talk about themselves.  I guess that's the irony here, Ed - you seem like a painfully average not-your-average-theist, delusions of original insight and all.  I just wish you would get to the evidence!  You're on an atheist board.  Few, if any of us are going to be even remotely impressed by some random person waxing on about Van Gogh and cosmology and consciousness when there is absolutely no reason to distinguish your ideas from the same lame ideas we've heard countless times from the multitude of not-your-average-theist-cuz-I-think-god-is-cosmic-consciousness people who have come before you.

At some point you alluded to having evidence for your position.

Is it possible to cut past the posturing and quasi clever retorts and get to the evidence, please?

[humblesmurph]

Edward The Theist,

I've read every post on this thread and every word on your blog, comments and all.  I'm an atheist.  I'm not your typical atheist.  I can't say what makes me different other than I tend to disagree atheists.  I never believed in any god, superstition, or fairy tale.  I'm just not wired for it.  My nuclear and extended family are all Christians with varying levels of commitment--it never even occurred to me follow their path.  The whole thing struck me as odd.

However, I try to be objective in all things.  You seem to require an audience that won't prejudge you and claim to know what you are going to say before you say it.  I don't speak for anybody else, but I have no idea where you are going with this.  I have no desire to refute your ideas.  I am genuinely curious.  As stated above, I'm not inclined towards faith, but I'll listen with an open mind.  

That said, I'll bite.  I concede that your god may exist.   Please tell me more.

[Sophus]

On your Consciousness paper- First I would like to ask: Does a computer have consciousness? Awareness of its existence? Assuming your answer is no - why is that? If consciousness can be found externally from a brain, throughout all the universe. A computer can be programmed to make choices but ironically those are, of course, not due to its own volition.

These single-cell creatures have only the basic structures of a cell yet propel themselves in water apparently
by choice using their cilia. When viewed through a microscope, one can watch these creatures swimming
around pieces of algae and feeding on them.
Remarkably, they feel their way through this or that piece of algae apparently in search of food, then swim
away at times, and then turn around and swim back to the algae to continue feeding. Their ability to change
their speed and direction by obvious volition is strong evidence for their consciousness.

Changing speed and direction of an entity does not necessarily denote volition. It could merely be responding to how it its inbred nature commands it to. It is a slave. For example:



 Starling birds seem to share a "consciousness" when moving with their flock as a whole. Their movement looks choreographed. Yet it has been proven that each bird is actually responding accordingly to what is directly around it. A computer screen saver, titled "Boids", was made that imitates these birds flying in a flock by programming one bird and then cloning it, with the occasional subtle changes to make it appear more naturally.

Single celled organisms are much less complicated than birds. They simply sense, or feel, their way around. In fact, when an embryo is being constructed, the proper nerve cells do not "know" where to go rather they, as Dawkins puts it, sniff out the correct area like a dog. A frog was able to have its belly and back axons reversed by swapping the skin while it was a tadpole!

It would be great to get Squid to read your paper and comment on it.

If you read the Gospels honestly and unbiased, I think you'll find Jesus didn't believe in that God either.

Including the uncanonized gospels? Either way I don't see how somebody could claim this with certainty since we don't really know who Jesus was, if he ever was.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, to be honest, I rarely pay much attention to street-corner preachers.

[McQ]

Please Read!

By attacking posters rather than discussing ideas, we all get away from useful discourse.

Everyone. Everyone. Everyone! Get back to discussion of ideas. I keep reading insults, veiled insults, clinical diagnoses, more insults, and yet in four pages so far, there has been very little discussion of the topic. More just about the OP.

By constantly baiting the OP, you FORCE HIM to talk about himself. Do you all not get that?

Move on, please. Don't attempt to justify things by saying "someone else did it first". Heard that countless times. Usually the one complaining the loudest about a behavior has also been engaging in the same behavior. Just get back on topic, please.

[joeactor]

(thanks McQ ;-)

Ok... here's the crux of it for me...

If someone is able to prove that (g)od exists, using science, repeatable experiments, testable, real-world-measurable-in-our-universe stuff... then (g)od is not (g)od, but just another part of the universe.  This leaves the atheists as atheists, because the concept that you have presented as (g)od is not truly god (ie. supernatural)

If there is not any real-world-measurable-in-our-universe stuff, repeatable experiments, etc., then (g)od is in the realm of the super-natural, and therefore not covered by science.  In this case, you have nothing available to convince an atheist that your concept of (g)od is real.  Again, atheists remain atheists because you have no proof of your concept.

See where I'm going with this?

There's no way to win.  You can't prove God, god, (g)od, gOdS, or whatever by logical means.  When you do, you remove the supernatural aspect, and therefore it cannot be (g)od (or God or god or gOdS).

(unless, that is, you're talking about Göd is a small town in Pest County, Hungary. - that you can prove),
JoeActor

[Cite134]

Yeah. Reading this, I've yet to see any evidence for this (g)od.

[Martin TK]

Please Read!

By attacking posters rather than discussing ideas, we all get away from useful discourse.

Everyone. Everyone. Everyone! Get back to discussion of ideas. I keep reading insults, veiled insults, clinical diagnoses, more insults, and yet in four pages so far, there has been very little discussion of the topic. More just about the OP.

By constantly baiting the OP, you FORCE HIM to talk about himself. Do you all not get that?

Move on, please. Don't attempt to justify things by saying "someone else did it first". Heard that countless times. Usually the one complaining the loudest about a behavior has also been engaging in the same behavior. Just get back on topic, please.

You are correct, then perhaps our OP could get on with the evidences, so we can address the ideas, pros and cons.

[Will]

I define god with a lower case (g) because the God with a capital G is the God in my mind, that which I call Father. My Father exists as a psychological construct, so there's no reason to argue the existence of that God, and what the Father is, in reality, is no concern to you, because everyone must have their own personal God--they can't have mine.

You've obviously never seen Inception.  

On the other hand, god, I will define for the sake of argument as follows:

A primordial conscious force. This force forms itself topologically into modalities of matter according to its necessary attributes. This force necessarily existed prior to the physical universe.

You're essentially saying "this force existed before existence", which is internally contradictory. That which has internal contradictions cannot exist. If you rectify the contradictions, it becomes something else.

[Edward the Theist]

Dude, as a clinical psychologist, can I make ONE suggestion.

No, in fact, you can't.

A. I don't believe you are one, because trust me, I'd know one if I saw one (e.g., any psychologist who starts off an assessment with "Dude" has serious problems.)
B. I hope you're not, because a. you can't tell a delusion of grandure from hopes and dreams; b. I've never said once how great my ideas were. In fact, people in here have asked me to elaborate on them. So, you might as well stop pretending now, or look for a different line of work.
C. I could be wrong, but unless you tell me your name and what state you practice in, forget it. You can e-mail me.

You need to talk to someone about these delusions of grandure you seem to be trapped in.  So far, all you've done is tell us how great your ideas are, how wonderful your mind is, how amazing your theories are going to be, and how people will be writing about you like Van Gogh.

A. I never said that. In fact, I've consistently said that I might be wrong, but I feel compelled to find out if I am. B. I'm not comparing myself to an artist. I'm giving myself some hope and using his life example as something to compare my life situation to. Know one is going to take me seriously, because I'm not part of the math community or the science community. So, perhaps I can write something popular to express my ideas. And yeah, I'd like to succeed at that. If you think that's a delusion of grandure, then so be it. At least I never had to come on line and pretend to be something other than what I am in order to get people to listen to what I have to say. Because I'd call that a loser, wouldn't you?

This may not be the platform from which you would wish to launch your greatness.

So, now you're calling me "great." Great. But don't come around later and say that I said it.  :drool

[Edward the Theist]

Edward The Theist,

I've read every post on this thread and every word on your blog, comments and all.  I'm an atheist.  I'm not your typical atheist.  I can't say what makes me different other than I tend to disagree atheists.

I appreciate you reading it. And, you disagree with atheists--apparently not about the non-existence of God, though. Right?

I never believed in any god, superstition, or fairy tale.  I'm just not wired for it.

Must have been a rather serious childhood.

My nuclear and extended family are all Christians with varying levels of commitment--it never even occurred to me follow their path.  The whole thing struck me as odd.

Okay.

However, I try to be objective in all things.  You seem to require an audience that won't prejudge you and claim to know what you are going to say before you say it.  I don't speak for anybody else, but I have no idea where you are going with this.  I have no desire to refute your ideas.  I am genuinely curious.  As stated above, I'm not inclined towards faith, but I'll listen with an open mind.  

That said, I'll bite.  I concede that your god may exist.   Please tell me more.

Great. Now we can have a discussion. And I'm not totally sure where this is going either, but it seems to me if consciousness is external to central nervous systems, then it must be like (and I stress the word "like" rather than "is)--it must be like a natural force. Like gravity is a natural force. Now there are many implications that would follow one way or the other, that is if consciousness is external to central nervous systems or if it is not.

What do you think about consciousness?

[Edward the Theist]

I'm sorry, I would truly like to respond to the rest of you, but I just don't have any time today. I really want to write a paper outlining my theory, but I can't do that and argue it in here at the same time. So, I'm going to back off for a bit and get that paper written. Otherwise, there's nothing really for me to present to you.

I did write a paper on why I believe consciousness is external to central nervous systems, so perhaps I could argue that first. After all, if it doesn't exist external to the CNS, then there's nothing to my theory at all.