Topic: The problem with atheism. - page 31. (Read 38470 times)

It can be extremely confusing.  These types of debates often go round and round because people typically aren't aware of when they shift the vantage point from where they attempt to base their argument.

There are two fundamental vantage points that one can take when attempting to discuss god: 1) from a lower vantage point, and 2) from a higher vantage point.  Speaking from a lower vantage point is like trying to talk about 4-dimensional spacetime from our 3rd-dimensional frame of reference through inference.  Speaking from a higher vantage point is like drawing a tesseract on a 2-dimensional plane and deducing its properties.  When speaking from a lower vantage point, infinite regressions result because of irreconcilable paradoxes.  When speaking from a higher vantage point, paradoxes become self-resolving.

And that's kind of my point that leads to the next question, if heaven is still about learning, overcoming struggle, and enjoying achievements and accomplishments, then how it is different from what we already have? The way I see it, heaven was dreamed up by people who had WAY more difficult lives than we have now (and there are some people who still have those difficult lives), full of disease, loss, death, and very hard dawn-to-dusk labor with no chance of ever getting out of it. So, they invented an idea that maybe, after all this hard work that they can't see any escape from, they will have some nice reward after they die. Problem is, many of us in the present already have nice rewards, means of changing our lives and work if we want to, and are often happy and generally satisfied with our lives, so heaven may seem unnecessary even.


Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the concept of technological singularity, which is a point at which our computers are able to think and process as quickly and efficiently as our own human brains, and the point at which we can create artificial intelligence as real as us (with thoughts, feelings, wants, dreams, etc), and when we can upload our own consciousness into the machines, this making us effectively immortal, and being able to learn, remember, and think way more than we can now, as well as feel much closer to others by being able to directly share their thoughts and experiences? This is an idea that people believe we will achieve within this century.

What do you mean by a "3rd-person" god?  Monotheistic gods, such as the Christian god, do not seem to be 3rd-person gods. "I am who am" in the Bible was God's definition of himself.  Are you referring to polytheistic gods?

Your concept of relationship in this discussion is different than mine.  Yes, I absolutely share a relationship with it if we share fundamental identities.  Yes, I absolutely share a relationship with the cells in my skin.  I share a relationship with any observable, identifiable phenomena through a subject-object relationship.  I (subject) perceive an event/thing (object).  I (subject) perceive my cells and skin (objects).  

The question "is it conscious or isn't it?" with respect to those 'structures' is, in my opinion, an inferior question when compared with, "is it consciousness dependent?"  Asking whether it's conscious or not invokes a false dichotomy and totally negates the ways in which things can and cannot be in a simultaneous state depending on your particular vantage point.  Specifically, it is a question posited from a lower level of logical syntax that attempts to explain something at a higher level of logical syntax.  Asking whether it is consciousness dependent is positing a question from a higher level of logical syntax to attempt to explain something at a lower level of logical syntax.  This is because the former question fails to assume the sameness-in-difference principle (i.e. simultaneous states) while the latter question allows this assumption.

Perhaps that is exactly what God Himself was thinking when He decided to create men.  What would be the point without people struggling to know Him because they really want too?  It is a thought.

I get your point.  I suppose that from our perspective Heaven could seem a bit unfulfilling.  I think we will all have the memories of the experiences we have had before death though.  Perhaps there will still be some "limits" or parameters on what we can and cannot do in heaven?  We will actually still have to work at things and we will need to still learn things there?  I imagine that not everyone will have the same talents and abilities, just like here on earth, so there will be an appreciation for each other and the accomplishments that others make.  I am not sure.  I have never been there. But I imagine we will be know more than we could ever know here.  We will be closer to everyone than we are here.  Just being able see God and know Him in a even deeper way will be amazing.  We need to leave behind the man-made ideas of fluffy clouds and harps.  If that was all heaven was I can see why people would not care to make it a goal to get there!

Sure, but how satisfying would it be if there is never any problems or difficulties with doing it? It'll be like, "Hey, let's learn pottery!"  *do a perfect job your first time, because otherwise it would be struggle and disappointment* "Well, pottery is done... " To me, the point of pursuing talents and dreams is to be able to achieve them and get good at them, but that inherently means struggle and lots and lots of overcoming failure. A life without that is not very interesting I don't think, since it would literally mean I can do whatever I can think of on my first try. Why bother to try if I know I will be able to by default?

Just because you share fundamental identities does not mean there is any form of relationship between you and it. Ex: Do you have a relationship with the cells in your skin?

Sure, the universe is an organism... Which means it will have organs. And we can even see some of the structures (solar systems, galaxies, etc)
It MIGHT have consciousness, but we really don't even know what consciousness is yet, so we can't just assume other things have it.
Maybe it has to consume things to survive (gas, minerals, etc)

But I mean, other than that, you and god aren't going to have much in common.

It's deduced (not inferred) through the sameness-in-difference principle that I would share a fundamental identity with god if he exists.  So, in certain contexts, I much prefer the phrase god because 1) i believe it more accurately reflects the dynamic relationship between mental and physical reality and 2) I don't equate god with the universe. 

All those "why/when/how" questions are much harder to answer, though I believe it's possible to deduce some of the answers from tautologies.  Regardless, they are irrelevant until the existence of god is established.

I think what you are mistaking for "god" is just the "universe". It is a giant organism of some sort, proof of its consciousness is US. Proof of its pulse are stars, etc.

But just because it exists, doesn't mean it knows or even cares about us... Or that it even has the capacity to do those things.
And it surely doesn't mean it created us, who knows if it knows how it started.

Observer participation, verifiable through experiments in quantum mechanics, demonstrates the interconnectedness between mental and physical reality.  The mathematical proof for the boundary of a boundary = 0 establishes the concept of sameness-in-difference and demonstrates the illusionary nature of separation. 


These concepts alone indicate the plausibility of god to the extent that it lays the foundation for a universal consciousness. Then, toss in the fact that the reality we study is the output of internal processes, and then you realize that it's impossible to explain any event or process without invoking some form of mental causation.

Personally, the more I study reality empirically, the more evidence I find that supports the existence of god.

Not true really. I do not call myself "Atheist" but I'm sure plenty of people would.

I don't believe in ANY god, I simply study culture, society, history and nature for a better understanding of the world.

You seem to still be seeking a god... Once you figure out "God doesn't exist", that is not when you start trying to apply that logic to everything. That is when you decide what DOES matter (family, being the change, introducing new people to new things, etc)

I like it [/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list]

I see where you're going with that... Let me try to help

Yes, bitcoin was foreseen in the Quran and the Bible.  For example Quran says:

This is clearly Satoshi Nakamoto.

According to the Bible
This is clearly thebitcoin itself, as I will convince you below. We have misinterpreted it as a physical man. But tell me, how could bitcoin function if it wasn't for the blessing of the holy spirit and the great lord himself.

The blockchain is visible to all!

http://www.listentobitcoin.com/

We have already been ressurected from the doomsday in April of 2013

This hasn't happened yet. But this is clearly telling us that the price of bitcoin will rise in a single event (coming of the 3rd generation asics?) where all of us will be taken into havens. The sky is the limit my friends!

The holy father and the great spirit, promises all the believers their place in their heavenly garden if they join the marching masses of the Messiah Satoshi Nakamoto and suffer the burdens of the blockchain.

Hallelujah!

Spread the message my friends.

Thanks for helping me see the light BitSister!

Well its not that there won't be any credit.
There just won't be any subsidized(tax payer backed) credit.
There won't be a fannie mae and freddie mac to subsidize housing loans.
There won't be a salllie mae to subsidize student loans.
And there won't be a federal reserve to subsidize government bonds.
edit:Well now that I think about if bitcoins are taxed there can still be government subsidized loans.
But I still wanted to point them out.

Well I think bitcoin could have and egde amongst muslims and maybe christians, because credit, which seems to be the preferred form of money in the world of central banking, possibly will be less prominent in a bitcoin world.

Well there was the passage of the bible in which Jesus kicked out the money changers out of the temple.
It was mostly about not profiting out of faith though.
The bible also says that usury is a sin, that is charging high enough interests than the debtor can afford to pay within a reasonable time frame.

I don't know about money in the bible and Christianity but in Islam credit and interest are forbidden. Of course that is totally ignored by today's so called islamic doctrines.

What does the bible tell us about money? I tried to search some time ago for some wisdom about money debasement, recommended PM's or other thing (cattle), but I couldn't find anything useful.

Yes, but I have physical and financial limitations to many of them.  Also, there is not enough time to do everything I want to do. 

you can still pursue your interests on this life...