Hahahah…no shit Sherlock…
I really want to “see” that basement.
Edit obscenities
Ok so firstly agnosticism is simply the belief nothing is known or can be known about god.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief, as you say, so I’m not clear why you think it need answer any questions? Does your lack of belief in unicorns answer any questions?
I’m not sure why you think the existence of human consciousness is in question, what is it you imagine we’re using right now to examine these ideas?
Science is simply a method for examining and trying to better understand the physical world and universe. It is not a magic box we can use to conjure knowledge of things we currently don’t understand.
2 Likes
Again, atheism is the lack or absence of theistic belief, you seem to be suggesting theism is required to explain human consciousness. So offer that explanation, not having a contrary explanation or evidence lends no credence to anything, this is obviously an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
2 Likes
Wait, what? EVERYTHING? how in the fucking hell could you possibly have checked everything? Uh… did you check for magnetic anomalies? What about vibrational distortions introduced by the aging furnace in the corner? What else are you concealing from your poor scared wife? How about that unexplained hammer laying beside the door to the “twilight zone” basement of nothingness of yours…
Edit rats
Indeed, the only flaw with not believing anything, is that it is supported by sufficient objective evidence. Otherwise disbelief is the only rational position.
As you pointed out, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.
1 Like
You’d need to find a gnostic atheist, else you’re simply arguing a quite common straw man fallacy theists use.
The last sentence is simply wrong, but then assumptions are always likely to be. A person can believe in all manner of woo woo that isn’t compatible with materialism, and still be an atheist. I disbelieve in claims when they unsupported by sufficient objective evidence, this is the case with deities, for which I have yet to see any objective evidence demonstrated, as for materialism, I will believe in the existence of something beyond the material physical universe when sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated to support the idea, I will of course remain an atheist until the same is demonstrated for any deity.
The deities I have seen imagined, explain nothing, since they all ultimately use appeals to mystery, and have no explanatory power at all.
1 Like
Well which is? You either find it to be the case, or you can’t explain it, you seem to be wanting to have your imaginary cake and eat it.
So what? Nothing at all can be explained by invoking unevidenced imaginary deities. It is the very definition of appeals to mystery.
2 Likes
That would violate several known laws. Conservation of energy for starters. Presumably you would have X total energy before the creation of the strudel, and have X + y total energy after the creation of the strudel from nothing (where y is the energy contained in the strudel from E=mc^2). Making ΔE (the change in the energy during this time period) non-zero (which is forbidden in the current physics regime).
How are we defining this nothingf? Which nothing are we talking about… Certainly not the Christian version of Nothing. More like the Krauss version of nothing. Christians insist when they speak of Nothing they are not referencing the “Scientific” version of nothing. Nothing means "nothing.’
Make sense to you? It is a lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, you seem to be trying to portray it as something, rather than the absence of something. What about theism do you find compelling and why, if you can’t answer that up front, then your statements make little sense.
I didn’t reject atheism, I reject the gnostic atheism.
As do nearly all the atheists I have encountered, again this just seems like an easy straw man you’re offering so you can knock it over.
because you can never be certain 100% that something does not exist, we can go only as far as to say, we don’t believe in the existence of something.
Well no, I don’t think it is epistemologically possible to be 100% certain of anything, yet we have irrefutable objective facts, they can and should still remain tentative, no matter how unlikely it is we will discover the earth is really flat and at the centre of the universe after all, being 100% certain it won’t is just claiming to be closed minded.
we can go only as far as to say, we don’t believe in the existence of something.
Indeed, but then that is precisely what atheism is defined as. You seem to be making a quite common error many theists make, and assuming knowledge can only be 100% certain. I am certain that all living things have evolved from common ancestors, because all the objective evidence supports this idea, it is an irrefutable scientific fact, but it must still remain tentative in the light of new evidence, as must all scientific ideas,
Paradoxically I have never seen anyone demonstrate that any deity is even possible.
1 Like
Consistent with what? My world view encompasses my atheism, not the other way around. My world view is consistent because my criteria for belief is the same for all claims, thus my lack of belief in deities is based on the same rationale as my lack of belief in all else.
I find that claim pretty dubious, how could you even know what science has as yet failed to explain? Also what has this to do with believing or not believing in deities people have imagined to be real?
It exists no? Physical processes exist no? Have you ever heard of Occam’s razor? Why would you be asking for an explanation of the origins of human consciousness from atheists? Especially after stating science as yet cannot fully explain this?
Well that seems like a subjective unevidenced opinion, but even so, the obvious answer seems to be so what?
Do they? I am extremely dubious to be honest, they make unsupported claims and assumptions, and appeals to mystery, these in my experience have no explanatory powers.
Why would you assume my lack of belief in any deity, would provide any answers to the origins of human consciousness? You already stated that science as yet doesn’t fully understand it. Atheism isn’t a world view, it has no doctrinal teachings or dogma. I don’t look at not believing in a god for answers, rather I disbelieve claims that are unsupported by sufficient objective evidence, and this includes theism. Consciousness is pretty obviously a derivation of a functioning human brain, there is ample objective evidence for this, and our brains evolved.
Well of course you are completely mistaken…
Your presumption of the available energy for the creation of said strudel is ignoring the extant energy harnessed by my heretofore un-evidenced mental processes by which I am able to produce the required additional energies, seemingly from nothing. Arguable there would exist, somewhere in the known universe, an energy deficit created by my acquisition of apparently non-observable energy ostensibly for my breakfast preparatory ritual… again, no violation…in no way is it to be construed that my abracadabra is producing something from nothing. Considering the proprietary nature of my skills, I cannot reveal any technical information regarding the nature of such. That would be in violation of several known laws…
Edit legal terminological rambling
I suggest you completely dump any theistic views and explanations and start from a blank sheet of paper.
As soon as you reference religion, you have entered a maze that leads to only one thing, the conclusion a god exists. Although philosophy is a wonderful tool that can lead us to ask interesting questions, philosophy from a scientific perspective is flawed because it has led us to incorrect conclusions.
I will explain my methodology. It may be imperfect and flawed, but it works for me. Also, it may not work for you.
I simplify as much as possible. Thus to me, consciousness is self-awareness. That is all, no baggage attached.
I avoid philosophy and anything theistic, I lean on just valid observations and the scientific method.
And if I can not find an answer, I am OK with that. It is much better to admit “I do not know” than invent stuff to later discover I was wrong and full of shit.
1 Like
Energy disappearing from one place and appearing at a remote location violates the principle of relativity, since it would be rather easy to construct inertial observers who would double count the energy stored in the food (for example: yourself). Since you would measure the food in front of you, and the light coming from the remote location of the universe where the energy came from (you would still see it since it would take some time for it to disappear), you would be double counting. You would conclude that energy isn’t conserved.
Bold un-evidenced assumptions.
I am surprised, considering your affinity for quantum arguments, that you can overlook such obvious allowances for my clearly substantial and apparently viable dalliances with reality…of course, not knowing the stability of my mental state, you cannot, in any good conscience, presume to know what I would or would not conclude, regardless of the self-aggrandizing nature of any proposed argument contrary to the flawless elucidations previously provided by me.
Edit wormhole
Look, you two pin-heads, I never said my basement isn’t there. I simply said I saw nothing in there that made the noise. I’ll type slowly so you can understand: Nothing… made… the… noise… my… wife… heard. This shit ain’t complicated. So if nothing does not exist, then how did my wife hear that noise if nothing wasn’t there to make it? As for the contents of my basement, there are plenty of things. However, aside from my tools, the cobwebs, the box of squirrel mummies, the overflowing roach motels, and that thing I found on the side of the road, there is NOTHING else. Meaning, if nothing did not exist, there would be SOMETHING else. Dear god! It’s like I’m talking to a couple of dunce students. 
(Edited for laxative control.)
1 Like
Well, OF COURSE I did! Duh! And guess what… My sensors detected NOTHING. So THERE! Checkmate.
LOL… Exactly the one Theists are not talking about.
" But I have a bone to pick with Dr. Krauss about his latest book, A Universe from Nothing, which has the subtitle Why there is something rather than nothing? Those having taken an intro to philosophy class will recognize that Krauss’ subtitle is a rendition of the most basic philosophical question of existence, which has been attributed to truth-seekers such as Gottfried Leibniz who asked, “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?”
You would think that by the title of Krauss’ book he answers the question that Leibniz posed, but he doesn’t. Instead, he redefines what ‘nothing’ is. ‘Nothing’ to Dr. Krauss would be empty space or the quantum vacuum. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who is an astrophysicist at the American Museum of Natural History, says in his brief review of the book: “Nothing is not nothing. Nothing is something. That’s how a cosmos can be spawned from the void–a profound idea conveyed in A Universe From Nothing that unsettles some yet enlightens others. Meanwhile, it’s just another day on the job for physicist Lawrence Krauss.”
Dictionary.com defines ‘nothing’ as:
- no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing.
- no part, share, or trace (usually followed by of ): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence.
- something that is nonexistent.
- nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing.
But, I think the best definition of ‘nothing’ is Aristotle’s: “Nothing is what rocks dream about.”
Why does Krauss attempt to redefine ‘nothing’? Because Krauss is an atheist and a fairly acerbic one at that. He not only doesn’t believe in God but also doesn’t like God. Here is the problem Krauss faces: If nothing is really nothing and we have something (the universe) from a real nothing, then it points to the universe having a beginning. And as Stephen Hawking has observed, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”
https://carm.org/atheism/lawrence-krauss-and-the-atheist-definition-of-nothing/
I got to a lot of effort to try to only post accurate information here. It seems you are wasting my time, on purpose.