What would Atheists consider adequate proof of God?

[Danger]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

Okay...

http://www.anandavala.info/GaianEgo/naive_realism.html

[Zanick]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

Well, come to think of it, wasn't Plato also talking about something apart from our perceptions? The Forms were beyond sensual perception.

But anyway, I'm sure someone would have come along with some kind of similar idea eventually.

Yup, Plato was big on the 'physical senses are not reliable' deal, while his theory of forms kind of annoys the shit out of me. I can't figure out if it's meant to be a psychology or pure metaphysics. It makes a lot more sense to me when placed in the context of memes and the spreading of virtues, etc. But that doesn't work into absolute morality. I'd guess the latter, due to his gnostic tendencies. That still kind of annoys me actually.

[Danger]

interesting read :- )

Quantum Physics

“Scientific realism in classical (i.e. pre-quantum) physics has remained compatible with the naive realism of everyday thinking on the whole; whereas it has proven impossible to find any consistent way to visualize the world underlying quantum theory in terms of our pictures in the everyday world. The general conclusion is that in quantum theory naive realism, although necessary at the level of observations, fails at the microscopic level... what fails in quantum theory is naive realism at the level of observations itself.” [FR]

“[T]he theoretical objects of physics are ‘real’ not in the sense they can be shown to correspond to some aspects of the external world (this project is well-known to have definitively failed) but in the sense that once a theory’s predictions are verified, we treat its objects as real to the extent we can visualize them using ordinary language words (and associated space/time visualizations). It is easily seen that while this realism by analogy grew increasingly tenuous with the progress in physics, in quantum theory it failed completely. We cannot consistently use either particle or wave pictures (the only object pictures in everyday thinking so far available to us). We are forced to use one or the other to visualize the one and same quantum object, albeit under different and mutually exclusive experimental arrangements. We are faced with either an ontological contradiction or a limited phenomenal conception of the quantum world that changes with changing conditions of its observation. ” [FR]

Regarding quantum wave phenomena: “The more one examines the waves of quantum mechanics, the less they resemble waves in a medium. In the 1920s, Ernst (sic) Schrodinger set out a formula which could "describe" the wave-like behavior of all quantum units, be they light or objects... For a brief time, physicists sought to visualize these quantum waves as ordinary waves traveling through some kind of a medium (nobody knew what kind) which somehow carried the quantum properties of an object. Then Max Born pointed out something quite astonishing: the simple interference of these quantum waves did not describe the observed behaviors; instead, the waves had to be interfered and the mathematical results of the interference had to be further manipulated (by "squaring" them, i.e., by multiplying the results by themselves) in order to achieve the final probability characteristic of all quantum events. It is a two-step process, the end result of which requires mathematical manipulation. The process can not be duplicated by waves alone, but only by calculations based on numbers which cycled in the manner of waves” [FR]

“[W]e have to give up the idea of [naive] realism to a far greater extent than most physicists believe today." (Anton Zeilinger)... By realism, he means the idea that objects have specific features and properties — that a ball is red, that a book contains the works of Shakespeare, or that an electron has a particular spin... for objects governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, like photons and electrons, it may make no sense to think of them as having well defined characteristics. Instead, what we see may depend on how we look.” [FR]

Throughout the history of quantum physics naïve realists have generally claimed that quantum physics is only an abstract mathematical procedure that applies to the realm of fundamental particles and not at the 'everyday' scale of objects. It was then proposed that we cannot truly perceive the fundamental particles so they are possibly just abstract conceptualisations. Hence quantum physics had no relevance to the world that we experience as being 'real', i.e. the world of macroscopic objects, people, places and things. In this way the quantum weirdness could be ignored and a naïve realist world view could be maintained. However it has become increasingly the case that even macroscopic objects cannot be properly understood without quantum mechanics, therefore bringing its quantum weirdness into the realm of the everyday, and once and for all bringing an end to the supremacy of naïve realism.

“Quantum mechanics is increasingly applied to larger and larger objects. Even a one-ton bar proposed to detect gravity waves must be analysed quantum mechanically. In cosmology, a wavefunction for the whole universe is written to study the Big Bang. It gets harder today to nonchalantly accept the realm in which the quantum rules apply as somehow not being physically real... "Quantum mechanics forces us to abandon naive realism". And leave it at that.” [FR]

At the level of observations physicists conceive of objects about which observations can be made but in the reality implied by quantum physics there are no objects as such and therefore no relations between objects. There are only quantum wavefunctions, which are abstract non-physical phenomena that determine every aspect of the phenomenal universe that we experience. They determine not only the state of the observed objects but also the state of the observer. Hence from the perspective of the cosmic wavefunction the adverbial theories are the only possible way to conceive of the situation. There are no 'objects', 'subjects', 'signals' or “sense data”, but only the changing state of the cosmic wavefunction. Hence all experience is simply the changing state of the cosmic wavefunction.

[p6867]

ITT: faggotry.

[Danger]

"The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". (Jacob Burkhardt)

Originally Posted by p6867

ITT: faggotry.

ITT: ego defense mechanisms

[constantinople]

God is dead. We drove god naked through streets, like a feral whore.

[---Beany---]

Apparently God's an atheist.

[Duke Zion]

The arrival back of his son Jebes to the earth once again.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by Duke Zion

The arrival back of his son Jebes to the earth once again.

There's just one major problem with that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ed_to_be_Jesus

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by Duke Zion

The arrival back of his son Jebes to the earth once again.

"Higher consciousness, also called Super consciousness (Yoga), objective consciousness (Gurdjieff), Buddhic consciousness (Theosophy), Cosmic consciousness, God-consciousness (Sufism and Hinduism),Christ consciousness (New Thought) and are expressions used in various spiritual traditions to denote the consciousness of a human being who has reached a higher level of evolutionary development and who has come to know reality as it is."

[Duke Zion]

Originally Posted by Obbe

"Higher consciousness, also called Super consciousness (Yoga), objective consciousness (Gurdjieff), Buddhic consciousness (Theosophy), Cosmic consciousness, God-consciousness (Sufism and Hinduism),Christ consciousness (New Thought) and are expressions used in various spiritual traditions to denote the consciousness of a human being who has reached a higher level of evolutionary development and who has come to know reality as it is."

Well that's hard to believe

[Obbe]

Of course it is.

[p6867]

Originally Posted by Danger

"The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". (Jacob Burkhardt)



ITT: ego defense mechanisms

Please explain ego defense mechanisms.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by p6867

Please explain ego defense mechanisms.

It's something that people like Danger here can attribute to anyone who disagrees with him.

[Danger]

Originally Posted by p6867

Please explain ego defense mechanisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanism

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Freudian psychoanalytic theory, defence mechanisms (or defense mechanisms) are unconscious[1] psychological strategies brought into play by various entities to cope with reality and to maintain self-image. Healthy persons normally use different defences throughout life. An ego defense mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behaviour such that the physical and/or mental health of the individual is adversely affected. The purpose of ego defence mechanisms is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety and/or social sanctions and/or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope.[2]

Defence mechanisms are more accurately[citation needed] referred to as ego defence mechanisms, and can thus be categorized as occurring when the id impulses are in conflict with each other, when the id impulses conflict with super-ego values and beliefs, and when an external threat is posed to the ego.

The term "defence mechanism" is often thought[who?] to refer to a definitive singular term for personality traits which arise due to loss or traumatic experiences, but more accurately refers to several types of reactions which were identified during and after Sigmund Freud's daughter Anna's time.

Defence mechanisms are sometimes confused with coping strategies.[3]

One resource used to evaluate these mechanisms is the Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ-40)..............................[4][5]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

It's something that people like Danger here can attribute to anyone who disagrees with him.

[p6867]

Originally Posted by Danger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanism

I mainly meant in the context of what i posted.

[Danger]

Originally Posted by p6867

I mainly meant in the context of what i posted.

You can't bother to open your mind to what's being discussed here, so you dismiss it all as "faggotry" in order to preserve your pan-athiest self image.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by p6867

I mainly meant in the context of what i posted.

No matter what you say, if it is not consistent with his beliefs, he will accuse you of ego defense mechanisms.

You (and me, and many others) are, according to him, incapable of handling the anxiety of being wrong as atheists, and therefore everything we say will be a false development of the mind to try to assuage that anxiety.

[Danger]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

No matter what you say, if it is not consistent with his beliefs, he will accuse you of ego defense mechanisms.

You (and me, and many others) are, according to him, incapable of handling the anxiety of being wrong as atheists, and therefore everything we say will be a false development of the mind to try to assuage that anxiety.

Gadzooks dosn't understand the difference between keeping and open mind and blind faith..

Discussing something openly is a lot different then deciding someone's wrong before hearing them out.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by Danger

Gadzooks dosn't understand the difference between keeping and open mind and blind faith..

For fuck sakes I'm getting sick of debating this topic... But rather than explain it to you in terms I normally would, I'm going to have to resort to the lowest common denominator (i.e. you), and explain things as simply as possible:

First of all, answer me this: HOW AM I EXPRESSING BLIND FAITH?

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by Danger

Discussing something openly is a lot different then deciding someone's wrong before hearing them out.

That is exactly what you are doing when you accuse everyone of ego defense mechanisms.

FFS FFS FFS.

[PotRoastMuscles]

God is just another way of saying creator
A.K.A the Aliens that mixed our DNA with the ape to mine gold for them..
They got what they needed so we will more then likely never see them again..

[Danger]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

For fuck sakes I'm getting sick of debating this topic... But rather than explain it to you in terms I normally would, I'm going to have to resort to the lowest common denominator (i.e. you), and explain things as simply as possible:

First of all, answer me this: HOW AM I EXPRESSING BLIND FAITH?

I never said you were, silly gadzooks!

[Danger]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

That is exactly what you are doing when you accuse everyone of ego defense mechanisms.

FFS FFS FFS.

I didnt accuse everyone, I accused p6 when he dismissed the entire thread as "faggotry"...

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by Danger

I didnt accuse everyone, I accused p6 when he dismissed the entire thread as "faggotry"...

You did also toss a few accusations of DMs my way as well earlier, and I've seen you launch them at others.

My whole point is that they are nonfalsifiable, and hence essentially meaningless. I could accuse you of holding ego defense mechanisms and it would hold just as much weight as your accusations.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by Danger

I never said you were, silly gadzooks!

Well that's good then.

Because I'm not.

[Danger]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

You did also toss a few accusations of DMs my way as well earlier, and I've seen you launch them at others.

when/where?

Originally Posted by gadzooks

My whole point is that they are nonfalsifiable, and hence essentially meaningless. I could accuse you of holding ego defense mechanisms and it would hold just as much weight as your accusations.

everyone has & uses ego defence mechanisms, identifying them isn't an insult... it's a step in self-development..

I've caught myself using them plenty of times..

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by Danger

when/where?

It was actually TheSexyBeast821 it turns out...

You two post so similarly I must have mixed you up.

I apologize, my bad.

Originally Posted by Danger

everyone has & uses ego defence mechanisms, identifying them isn't an insult... it's a step in self-development..

I've caught myself using them plenty of times..

True, they can be a step in self-development, but it is important to somehow discern what is a legitimate defense mechanism and what isn't. And that's no easy task.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

It was actually TheSexyBeast821 it turns out...

You two post so similarly I must have mixed you up.

I apologize, my bad.



True, they can be a step in self-development, but it is important to somehow discern what is a legitimate defense mechanism and what isn't. And that's no easy task.

Letting ideas into your mind that aren't already proven scientific fact is a start toward correcting your atheist defense mechanisms. Like perhaps suspending your disbelief and attempting to believe your mind and soul are connected to something bigger than yourself in a non-abstract way.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Letting ideas into your mind that aren't already proven scientific fact is a start toward correcting your atheist defense mechanisms. Like perhaps suspending your disbelief and attempting to believe your mind and soul are connected to something bigger than yourself in a non-abstract way.

First of all, there technically isn't really such a thing as "proven" scientific fact.

Second of all, only once you suspend your disbelief and attempt to believe that you are actually a brain in a vat on the mantle in the dining room of an eight-armed dragon who smokes celery out of a corn-cob pipe and urinates rainbow-colored milk, then I will consider doing likewise.

Until then, we're both just setting up defense mechanisms.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

First of all, there technically isn't really such a thing as "proven" scientific fact.

Second of all, only once you suspend your disbelief and attempt to believe that you are actually a brain in a vat on the mantle in the dining room of an eight-armed dragon who smokes celery out of a corn-cob pipe and urinates rainbow-colored milk, then I will consider doing likewise.

Until then, we're both just setting up defense mechanisms.

I have no defense mechanism in place against such theories of existence, and as a result it was easy for me to change my frame of mind to fit your invented scenario, which essentially boils down to this universe being nothing but my own lucid dream. Considering that theory nullifies your existence as an authentic human being, there is really no reason this conversation should continue.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

I have no defense mechanism in place against such theories of existence, and as a result it was easy for me to change my frame of mind to fit your invented scenario, which essentially boils down to this universe being nothing but my own lucid dream. Considering that theory nullifies your existence as an authentic human being, there is really no reason this conversation should continue.

There's a difference between actually believing something to be the case and merely entertaining the possibility of other scenarios.

Now, do you actually believe in the existence of a God? Or are you only merely entertaining the possibility?

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

There's a difference between actually believing something to be the case and merely entertaining the possibility of other scenarios.

Now, do you actually believe in the existence of a God? Or are you only merely entertaining the possibility?

I actually believe in God, but I'm pretty sure it started as me merely entertaining the possibility of God. The abstract thought of the existence of God became an actual facet of reality.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

I actually believe in God, but I'm pretty sure it started as me merely entertaining the possibility of God. The abstract thought of the existence of God became an actual facet of reality.

Do you actually believe that you are actually a brain in a vat on the mantle in the dining room of an eight-armed dragon who smokes celery out of a corn-cob pipe and urinates rainbow-colored milk, then I will consider doing likewise?

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

Do you actually believe that you are actually a brain in a vat on the mantle in the dining room of an eight-armed dragon who smokes celery out of a corn-cob pipe and urinates rainbow-colored milk, then I will consider doing likewise?

The logic of that being the truth, if it were the truth, would still be consistent with my belief in God. What you are talking about is meta-meta-physics considering the actual consciousness of my brain in the vat would be the metaphysics of the physics of the universe I'm perceiving with my senses. My homunculus self (the one with the senses) is conscious, and can be considered part of the conscious self of the brain in the vat (which would appropriately and accurately assume the name of God) that is creating the entire universe for my homunculus.

Considering the most I could experience while in my homunculus self is union with the brain in the vat (God), asking questions about or asking me to believe anything pertaining to the state or location of the brain in the vat is completely superfluous.

Hence, the belief you are asking me to believe doesn't change anything about my current existence, while the belief I am asking you to believe can profoundly change you and your life.

[ReigN]

Originally Posted by The Pat-Man

a true atheist is one who will always deny the existence of god/gods/ so yes even if allah tea bagged them and didnt even give them a reacharound they would say it was a dopamine induced hallucination or some shit.

Muhammad likes 9 year old girls.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

The logic of that being the truth, if it were the truth, would still be consistent with my belief in God. What you are talking about is meta-meta-physics considering the actual consciousness of my brain in the vat would be the metaphysics of the physics of the universe I'm perceiving with my senses. My homunculus self (the one with the senses) is conscious, and can be considered part of the conscious self of the brain in the vat (which would appropriately and accurately assume the name of God) that is creating the entire universe for my homunculus.

Considering the most I could experience while in my homunculus self is union with the brain in the vat (God), asking questions about or asking me to believe anything pertaining to the state or location of the brain in the vat is completely superfluous.

Hence, the belief you are asking me to believe doesn't change anything about my current existence, while the belief I am asking you to believe can profoundly change you and your life.

Well why does the dragon urinate rainbow-colored milk?

Why isn't it white?

Or even clear with a yellowish hew, like actual urine?

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

Well why does the dragon urinate rainbow-colored milk?

Why isn't it white?

Or even clear with a yellowish hew, like actual urine?

Not relevant to my homunculus existence inside the brain in the vat, besides, you created the belief scenario not me.

Now it's time for you to believe that your mind can achieve union with something larger than your mind alone, even if it is simply another mind.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Not relevant to my homunculus existence inside the brain in the vat, besides, you created the belief scenario not me.

Now it's time for you to believe that your mind can achieve union with something larger than your mind alone, even if it is simply another mind.

It's also time for you to believe that your mind can achieve union with an eight-armed dragon that pisses rainbows.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

It's also time for you to believe that your mind can achieve union with an eight-armed dragon that pisses rainbows.

You've reached meta-meta-metaphysics. I think it's time you kept your end of the bargain and suspended your disbelief about my meta(singular)physics as I have suspended my disbelief about your proposed metaphysics, which ironically aren't incongruous.