Is it irrational to believe that no God or god(s) exist?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 128
Topic's author
#61
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Things "as they seem" should be accepted at face value until shown otherwise. It seems like we are not just our brains, like we have an immaterial aspect to ourselves. A general audience would agree with these premises because it's intuitive. So it's less obvious to argue from the standpoint that we are just our brains than to argue that we are more than just our brains. You may disagree, but as I mentioned earlier, it's a basic intuition that people share.

#62
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
What is the observable physical evidence that we are more than our brains? Or is this more speculation based on anecdotal evidence?
Topic's author
#63
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no observable physical evidence that we are more than our brains nor is there observable physical evidence that we are only our brains. The only thing we have observable physical evidence of is our brain and the effects that changes in the brain have on consciousness. If you start tinkering with the wires in your TV you might start messing up the transmission of the signal but the TV isn't generating the signal. 

There's not a dichotomy between "observable physical evidence" and speculation. There's a broad continuum of evidence. Inference to the best explanation is left out, for instance. I covered reasons indicating our consciousness isn't generated by the brain in 57.
#64
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I dispute that we have any evidence to suggest that conciousness can or does exist in the absence of physical organic brains...
Its called degrees of consciousness.

Mininmal consciousness = twoness ergo otherness ergo awareness and that can exist because of line-of-relationship{s} between any two finite integrities, entities etc

1} .....(O)(O)....scenario 1 where the line-of-relationship is geodesic Space associated with positive shaped gravity (  ) and negative shaped dark energy )(,

2} .....O---O..... scenario 2 where the line-of-relationship is line representing a vector.

Is a plant conscious of sunlight. Duhh yeah it is.

Is a fungus  aware of having a 1000s of sexes and the act of sexual process? Is it exciting, stimulating etc for the fungus?
#65
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I covered reasons indicating our consciousness isn't generated by the brain in 57.
#57
Well consciousness being the only plausible candidate for something causally efficacious and non-physical to have caused the singularity is evidence that consciousness can exist without a physical brain.
I do not accept your first premise until you logically justify this leap from some cause to some conciousness. We observe cause and effect all around us and if it is guided by some conciousness it is not a conciousness that we can observe. Cause and effect does not appear to require a conciousness and so I'm not sure what logic you are uaing to justify a necessary consciousness rather than a possible conciousness. Unless there is some way to assess the actual probabilities involved we cannot determine which cause is more rational to believe (if indeed a singularity in which the normal laws of physics break down requires a cause at all). Please address this issue.
Prima facie, people perceive themselves to have souls that are independent from their brain. 
Any argument about what people percieve or accept is simply an argument from popularity. People are perfectly capable of accepting untruths as axioms. Please address this issue.
Out of body experiences and near death experiences where the person leaves their body and has "realer than real" experiences.
Physical phenomena often repeats itself with some predictability. That is the basis for the scientific method. If one of the physical side effects of near death is a delusion that generally follows a similar pattern how would they be differentiated from a genuine experience? Unless we can determine the difference it may be impossible to justify a belief in NDR accounts especially fron an outside perspective. Please address this issue
Qualia. 
Qualia by definition cannot be measured and is completely subjective. Only quanta can be said to be "true" or a "fact" but quanta is merely cold hard logical facts. It is intrinsically meaningless unless we assign it meaning. You do not need to address this qualia is irrelevant to truth and facts regardless of your prefered definition.
The irreducibility of consciousness to physical components.
Only one feature need be added or lost from an organism at a time in order for it to progress through forms. Complex irreducability is not a concern in evolutionary science only to pseudoscientists attempting to prove some form of ID or another. You do not need to address this issue though I would do a Google search for the proposed stages of brain development put forward by various independent studies by biologists, geneticists, zoologists and paleontologists.
The fundamentality of consciousness is indicated through recent breakthroughs in quantum mechanics.
That the physical universe reacts (sometimes in a way that suggests nonlinear causation) to being observed does not necessitate a non physical conciousness it merely precludes an omniscient one. I am not trying to construct a straw man here and I understand that you are not necessarily suggesting any omniscient being but we can only illuminate some possibilities with the findings that have to date been generated about quantum mechanics. Please address this issue.
#66
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Its called Synergy in concert with degrees of consciousness. Whatever can occur ---ex biological life--   will occur given enough time.

Minimal consciousness = twoness ergo otherness ergo awareness and that can exist because of line-of-relationship{s} between any two finite integrities, entities etc

1} .....(O)(O)....scenario 1 where the line-of-relationship is geodesic Space associated with positive shaped gravity (  ) and negative shaped dark energy )(,

2} .....O---O..... scenario 2 where the line-of-relationship is straight line representitve a 3D vector.

Is a plant conscious of sunlight. Duhh yeah it is.

Is a fungus  aware of having a 1000s of sexes and the act of sexual process? Is it exciting, stimulating etc for the fungus?

Topic's author
#67
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Here is the reasoning.

The singularity was a point of infinite density. Anything that has 0 volume, like a point of infinite density, wouldn't have been comprised of anything physical at that point. That's a mathematical object. Accordingly, it makes no sense to posit something physical as the cause of the singularity.

So which things are plausibly non-physical? Abstract concepts and consciousness. Since abstract concepts are causally inert, consciousness is the best explanation. 

#68
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
The only abstract concepts I am aware of are assignations by humans. They would appear to be brainstates not objects/things unto themselves.

Put another way they appear to be merely electrical energy and chemical reactions within an organic brain and are physical to that extent. 

Please logically justify the leap from humans have created abstract concepts in order to discuss qualia to an abstract concept necessarily must be a prime mover and further please logically justify that this concept must be conciousness rather than some other abstract concept (such as the number 42 for example).

#69
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Well consciousness being the only plausible candidate for something causally efficacious and non-physical to have caused the singularity is evidence that consciousness can exist without a physical brain.
I do not accept your first premise until you logically justify this leap from some cause to some conciousness. We observe cause and effect all around us and if it is guided by some conciousness it is not a conciousness that we can observe. Cause and effect does not appear to require a conciousness and so I'm not sure what logic you are uaing to justify a necessary consciousness rather than a possible conciousness. Unless there is some way to assess the actual probabilities involved we cannot determine which cause is more rational to believe (if indeed a singularity in which the normal laws of physics break down requires a cause at all). Please address this issue.


#70
WyseGui
WyseGui's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
WyseGui's avatar
WyseGui
0
0
4
-->
@Fallaneze
I think if we apply pure unbiased logic, it is not rational. But logic can be subjective, so some may say it is rational. Much more rational to say we do not know. Since there is no pure unbiased evidence to suggest it either way.
Topic's author
#71
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If abstract concepts are just brainstates then why is there a difference between brainstates and an abstract concept? You are making abstract concepts = to brainstates when abstract concepts =/= brainstates. Brainstates are just brainstates. 

There's a conceptual difference between electrical energy and chemical reactions versus abstract concepts. If abstract concepts were just electrical energy and chemical reactions then when we refer to an abstract concept all we'd be able to refer to is electrical energy and chemical reactions. Clearly we don't.

I'm saying that an abstract concepts is NOT a good candidate for whatever brought the singularity into being because abstract concepts are causally inert. I'm saying consciousness is the best candidate.

Topic's author
#72
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Again, I don't feel the need to justify the premise that consciousness is plausibly non-physical. It's prima facie true. The  burden of proof should be on the person claiming that consciousness is not plausibly non-physical.
#73
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
The singularity was a point of infinite density.
Use of word "singularity" is a misleading  misomer, at best. At worst it irrational illogical lack of common sense.

density inherently infers 2D area or 3D volume.

Anything that has 0 volume, like a point of infinite density, wouldn't have been comprised of anything physical at that point. That's a mathematical object.
Another irrational, illogical lack of common sense false statement.

Here is link to Fullers contraction of af finite, 3D tetra{4}hedron contracting to zero volume while maintaining its four finite 2D  areas. LINK

At zero volume the tetra{4}hedron becomes a finite, 3D cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron that has 12, finite, 2D areas extending { radiating } from its event horizon { outer surface }. Each set of three extended triangles may infold to create four external and finite tetra{4}hedra and then we can see the zero-volume process repeating itself in four new locations.

This process creates complicated set of interference with the central/nuclear cubo-octahedron.

Fuller..."we have interfering and non-interfering patterns operating in pure principle"

Accordingly, it makes no sense to posit something physical as the cause of the singularity.
Agreed, and that is why most of your comments lack rational, logical,  common sense much less truth.

Abstract concepts and consciousness. Since abstract concepts are causally inert, consciousness is the best explanation.
1 } Metaphysical-1mind/intellect/concepts exist in complement to 3D occupied space and NOT  a as result of 3D occupied space.  You do not seem to grasp this fact.

2} Both eternally exist as complements to each other along with macro-infinite non-occupied space.

3} consciousness may result in access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts or consciousness may not lead to such access. The access is mostly unique to humans.  Other animals may have access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts, yet it is so much less access.

I can only hope that you, Fallanese will try to follow rational, logical common sense henceforth forward. We all can only hope.

I could add in faith/trust, however, our experience shows that many humans do not exhibit rational, logical common sense. Go figure.






#74
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Then again I point out to you that every observable conciousness (provided conciousness even exists) would appear to be emergent of physical processes and that any argument about what people accept prima facie is an argument from popularity so the burden of proof would seem to be on the one claiming conciousness can exist without an organic physical brain to maintain it not the one who is skeptical of nonphysical conciousness.
Topic's author
#75
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Changes in the physical brain has effects on consciousness. That's all we know. This does not mean that the physical brain generates consciousness. I will again point out the example of how making changes to your TV has effects on how the signal displays. The TV is not generating the signal.

And we actually have no observable evidence of consciousness. What you're really using is your intuition. 

#76
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Changes in the physical brain has effects on consciousness. That's all we know. 
So if all we know is that there is correlation between the physical brain and conciousness how do you justify claiming more than That? 
I will again point out the example of how making changes to your TV has effects on how the signal displays.
And I will again point out that any direct comparison between this and how a brain functions is pure conjecture on your part.
Topic's author
#77
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Because there shouldn't be a correlation between two things if those two things are the same.

"Brain works like a radio receiver"

#78
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Your source states and I quote "Brain circuits can tune into the frequency of other brain parts" this in no way indicates an outside source but only communication between the various parts of the brain.
#79
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
This does not mean that the physical brain generates consciousness
  Brain exhibits { expresses } various degrees of consciousness with humans expressing the most complex consciousness.

A lot of this is due to recall { memory } abilities ergo feedback to self.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 } Metaphysical-1mind/intellect/concepts exist in complement to 3D occupied space and NOT  a as result of 3D occupied space.  You do not seem to grasp this fact.

2} Both eternally exist as complements to each other along with macro-infinite non-occupied space.

3} consciousness may result in access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts or consciousness may not lead to such access. The access is mostly unique to humans.  Other animals may have access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts, yet it is so much less access.

Topic's author
#80
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Here is the larger context:

"Animals (and humans alike) have a mental map of the surrounding environment, consisting of place cells. These cells correspond with places in the physical space and fire when the animal reaches the place or remembers it. The mental map is fed by two sorts of information: with memories from earlier experiences, and with sensory information. But how does the mental map upload this information?

Direct measurements in the brain of mice, looking for their way in a maze, show that memory information is sent with another frequency to the mental map than sensory information is. The brain area representing the mental map synchronizes with these frequencies like a radio receiver: it is only tuning into the information that is important at a given time, an international team of researchers led by Francesco Battaglia from the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour at Radboud University Nijmegen show. This research sheds light on the intriguing question how brain parts choose relevant information from the constant scattering of neurons going on in the brain."

The "radio signal" so to speak, is retrieved from the environment. The brain takes these signals and creates a mental map which it then selectively tunes to.




#81
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
You are making a category error driven by quote mining.the brain is "tuning in" to other parts of THE SAME BRAIN. That is in no way suggestive of an outside frequency. We are talking about levels of attentiveness to existing information not outside signals.

#82
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
We are talking about levels of attentiveness to existing information not outside signals.
True for the most part, however we cannot rule out gravitational Space and Dark Energy Space effects on our physiology. Most scientist say it is not enough to be of any significance. I'm not convinced.

And we cannot rule out ultra-low frequency EMRadiation effects on our physiology.

In both case I think there exist a resonance phenomena that I likened to entrainment.





#83
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
What precisely makes belief in god(s) more rational than a garage spirit? Just because you "think" they would have better things to do? Claerly they don't or my garage would fall over. Seems as rational as a belief in any entity/conciousness/being that we have no direct observable evidence of to me.
A person built your garage with precise measurements and engineering to keep it up... hmm... 
#84
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Outplayz
A person built your garage with precise measurements and engineering to keep it up... hmm... 

That is one thing needed to keep a garage standing.

The other is the perfect spirit of a garage which unbeknownst to the builders enters the garage upon completion. Can you disprove this or are you simply being skeptical of an unnecessary and unprovable hypothesis? In either case how is this different than believing that the universe (most of which seems to get on just fine without conciousness) requires a conciousness in order to exist?
#85
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@mustardness
We cannot rule out anything. We can only verify what is observable and withhold belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.
#86
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@mustardness
Excellent post by the way I understood every word. Thank you. Sincerely thank you.
#87
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
That is one thing needed to keep a garage standing.
Triangular stabilization. All structure is stabilized by triangulation otherwise it will not remain a structure and certainly no a safe structure.

Structure = triangulation.

Fermionic spirit is based on trinary sets of three, 6,9 12, 18 -- 36

Same goes for bosonic spirit tho a little more complicated to grasp.
#88
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
The other is the perfect spirit of a garage which unbeknownst to the builders enters the garage upon completion. Can you disprove this or are you simply being skeptical of an unnecessary and unprovable hypothesis?
Okay, so i can say this spirit has a plan for you. Maybe it's suppose to hold your garage up for awhile bc if it didn't... something in your experience would change. In a deterministic way, maybe you wanted this spirit or the spirit knows your path and must hold the garage up for a certain period of time in order for something to happen that should happen. In any of these cases, we don't know. Maybe there is a guiding hand to your experience, maybe there isn't... that's what it comes down to if we clean up your example that's just meant as a red herring of sorts. But at least we know how your garage was made. 

In either case how is this different than believing that the universe (most of which seems to get on just fine without conciousness) requires a conciousness in order to exist?
I'd ask how you know this? How do you know there isn't a guiding hand in this scenario too? How do you know the universe gets along fine without consciousness? If everything is a manifestation of this type of source, even the logical stuff we know today that we think is just existing bc of rules could be set up by this source. It really comes down to things we just don't know. We know very little about the universe as it is, we know nothing about the before... But we do know a garage needs a builder. To say the universe 'may' need some kind of builder isn't an illogical assumption to make. It starts getting illogical once we try to define the builder, bc then we're getting into the whole garage spirit assumptions that anyone can just make up. There may be truth to it, but it's just one persons story in trying to define things. As little as we know, i think both explanations of the universe not needing a builder or it having one are both likely scenarios... it's not illogical to suspect either or. 


#89
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Fallaneze
No. Most don't choose to believe or not. You either do or don't. Your reasons for or against may be weird but not necessarily irrational. 
#90
WyseGui
WyseGui's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
WyseGui's avatar
WyseGui
0
0
4
Any beliefs unfounded by a sound premise is technically irrational. But I think that is the thing with religion. Faith is believing in things that don't make sense. Even a christian should be able to admit that.