Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
As far as I can tell this is the recipe:
Now I might have it very wrong; since what has been presented is terribly vague.
those entities => the fundamental entities posited in current physics theories.
those equations => the equations of the current physics theories.
Though you seem to have had a problem understanding the first part, did you manage to understand the second part:
---
For a simple example though, consider a robot with Build A that passes the Turing Test, how were you thinking you could tell if it were experiencing? Perhaps consider how you would expect Build A to behave if it was experiencing vs. how you would expect Build A to behave if it wasn't. The answer presumably is that you would expect Build A to follow the known laws of physics in either case, so there could be no experiment to tell, as the expected behaviour for the hypothesis it was experiencing, would be the same as the expected behaviour for the hypothesis that it wasn't. Thus you can see that whether it was experiencing or not would be considered to be an epiphenomenal property.
---
If you did then was I correct that you would expect Build A to follow the same known laws of physics regardless of whether it was experiencing or not, such that the expected behaviour for the hypothesis it was experiencing, would be the same as the expected behaviour for the hypothesis that it wasn't? Or have I misunderstood, and that you have decided to take the position that you do not know what is meant by experiencing?
I think Someone does not speak English and is translating from some other, very different language.
Someone will make a really ignorant reply to this post as well and nobody will be paying attention.
So having asserted the universe is designed he can offer no objective evidence to support his claim.
All has done is assert it's designed, pointed to it, then asserted it is fine tuned, again no evidence. Then finally tried to prop these assertions up with a the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, by insisting consciousness (he keeps calling it experience) can only be explained by asserting a deity caused it with magic, and again asserting in contradiction of masses of evidence that natural processes couldn't produce consciousness.
Evolution produced it. What evidence can he demonstrate comparable to that weight of objective evidence, for a deity or anything supernatural?
I gave the evidence; the experience. And the experience is objective, as long as I am not the only one in this "room" that is experiencing in the sense that it does not what my experience is like. People can agree that their experience of the result of scientific experiments is the same at least to the degree that they can agree on the result. How slow can you be in getting a basic point? Oh and other people by the way have effectively agreed that reality is one in which at least some subsection is experiencing. And what evidence did they have for that other than the experience? Certain irony with your Sheldon picture.
No, you claimed the experience was evidence of design, I can claim noodles are evidence for unicorns it doesn't make it so.
"People can agree that their experience of the result of scientific experiments is the same at least to the degree that they can agree on the result."
Except as I have explained already, the result is objectively true whether we experience it or not, or even if our experience makes us believe something contrary, as an example the world was never at the centre of the universe is an objective fact supported by objective evidence, but this was true even when every human thought otherwise. Thus human experiential evidence is fallible, but objective evidence by comparison is far more likely to indicate the validity of an idea or claim.
"How slow can you be in getting a basic point? "
How slow can you be in understanding I disagree with your "basic" point because you're conflating objective facts and objective evidence with subjective experience, just because we have to experience those facts and evidence in order to be aware of them, but they are objectively true whether we are aware of them or not.
You seem to not grasp that experience is not a generically true or generically false. Why you are failing to grasp this is not clear. If experience can lead us to believe things that are false and things that are true then how do we determine which experiences are valid and which not? Come on now, you can do this, I have even given you the answer ffs. Or do you prefer to continue as you started with ad hominem fallacies?
Here's a clue for you, I don't care what your or anyone else's perception of my intellectual capacity is. This seems to be your hangup judging from your posts from the start, not mine. So pare us the nonsense about heavy hitters and calling people slow just because they won't accept your claims are properly evidenced when you insist they are.
@ Someone
Whether or not a god(s) exists or not, or whether the universe was created or not, we would all be sitting here in this planet sharing the very same experience.
its hopeless dave, ...he's not listening anyway..nor doesn't wanna accept the fact.
here's "someone"....saying "blah blah blah..i'm right and you're all wrong.."
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Bravo, 10/10, that's a cigar and bottle of champagne right there.
If the universe were not by design then argument (1) indicates that we would not be expected to be having the experience that we currently have. It seems fine tuned. Consider a burglar opening a 10 digit combination lock on the first try. Sure there could be the theory that it was just a lucky guess competing with the theory that the burglar knew the combination. But it couldn't be said that with the lucky guess theory that we would have expected the burglar to have opened it on the first try.
The argument (2) points out that how is it that we can use our experience as evidence. For example my experience allows me to know that at least some section of reality experiences. How can you explain being able to react to the experience? Without an explanation, your position (that the universe is undesigned) is analogous going to a two horse race, where one horse doesn't qualify and so is no longer in the race, but you bet on it anyway, because you were unable to comprehend why it didn't qualify.
"If the universe were not by design then argument (1) indicates that we would not be expected to be having the experience that we currently have."
So you keep asserting, but as yet you have offered no evidence for the assertion beyond logical fallacies like argumentum ad ingorantiam.
"It seems fine tuned."
No it doesn't.
"The argument (2) points out that how is it that we can use our experience as evidence."
We still can't as it is still fallible, as you are told each item you assert this, for something to be objectively true it must be supported by sufficient objective evidence. Things are objectively true independent of human experience, the sun is at the centre of our solar system, and this was objectively true even when all of human experience thought otherwise. Not sure how many times this must be explained before you stop making this erroneous assertion.
"How can you explain being able to react to the experience? "
Assuming we can never explain this, it still does't evidence anything at all. Claiming it does is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.
"Without an explanation, your position (that the universe is undesigned)"
Now you're back to trying to reverse the burden of proof, I have never claimed the universe is not designed, only pointed out that no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for the claim, so I don't believe it. I don't need to assert a contrary claim, and have no burden of proof. The physical universe exists, conscious organic life exists, we know for an objective fact that life like all life evolved, nowhere in all that objective evidence is there any objective evidence for a designer or a deity.
Your horse analogy demonstrates precisely that you are using argumentum ad ignorantiam, you have made a claim, i disbelieve your claim as you can't evidence it, I need not make any alternative claim, I can not know something, but still disbelieve your unevidenced claim that you do. Insisting we limited to just two answers is fallacious as well, but insisting your explanation must be right because no one else has one is the very definition of argumentum ad ignorantiam, a vast amount of religious apologetics uses this fallacy as well. Which is why i am always on the alert for it, as any argument containing logical fallacies(s) cannot rationally be asserted as true.
Please stop with the analogies, I know religious apologists love them, but I find them tedious and unnecessary. Atheism is not a claim that no deity exists, it is not believing the claim that a deity exists, this is epistemologically sound, I don't know why theists (mostly in the US) don't understand this.
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=3...
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=3...
This a classic appeal to ignorance fallacy, read through your arguments and they repeatedly insist (as you have done from the start) that not having an explanation for human consciousness validates your (unevidenced) claim it is designed.
"If the universe were not by design then argument (1) indicates that we would not be expected to be having the experience that we currently have."
And you know this how? How many universes did you test this claim on? It's also fallacious to insist that your (stop saying our) expectation is human consciousness must require design, as you have done here again, that is what you need to evidence.
" It seems fine tuned"
A magician seems to be doing magic, and even after we know they can't. How something seems proves nothing. This is why your denial of the validity of objective evidence is helping you fulfil your desire to believe in a deity without any objective evidence.
"Consider a burglar opening a 10 digit combination lock on the first try. Sure there could be the theory that it was just a lucky guess competing with the theory that the burglar knew the combination. But it couldn't be said that with the lucky guess theory that we would have expected the burglar to have opened it on the first try."
That is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, the third option is we don't or even can't know how the bugler opened it, this doesn't validate any claims anyone makes about how it was done. It' also a poor analogy for universes and fine tuning arguments always make this mistake as for all we know only one type of universe is possible, so we can make no assumptions as you are doing, imagine your scenario where safes all have only one combination, that's why it is a poor analogy.
"How can you explain being able to react to the experience? "
Another argument from ignorance fallacy, and again people who refuse to believe your claims not having an explanation, doesn't validate your claims or arguments.
"Without an explanation, your position (that the universe is undesigned)"
And another argument from ignorance fallacy, you have claimed the evidence is designed, no need offer any explanation for an alternative or contrary claim, Hitchens's razor would apply here. Though of course you keep claiming your arguments are evidence, but they're not, certainly not objective evidence.
"People can agree that their experience of the result of scientific experiments is the same at least to the degree that they can agree on the result."
Could this possibly be because the result is objectively evidence, fuck me are you being this obtuse deliberately? If someone has no experience of a scientific fact it remains a scientific fact, the same cannot be rationally asserted for all experiences can it?
"Oh and other people by the way have effectively agreed that reality is one in which at least some subsection is experiencing."
So fucking what? Experiencing wet feet doesn't necessarily validate the claim you have pissed your pants does it. So again I ask how do we determine a claim or idea is valid or not, it clearly isn't with experience as we have now demonstrated repeatedly?
Here's a clue, objective fucking evidence makes a claim or idea far more likely to be true, and this is true independently of whether anyone experiences either the claim, idea or the evidence. How can we know this, well is it likely do you think that phenomena like gravity and evolution sprang neatly into existence at the point we discovered they were true with objective evidence, or that they were in fact true independent of our experience of then?
Do take your time here...
The picture in my avatar was intended to be ironic you halfwit, both by the authors of the programme and by myself. Funny how your experience didn't deduce the truth there?
You quoted:
---
People can agree that their experience of the result of scientific experiments is the same at least to the degree that they can agree on the result.
---
You wrote:
---
Could this possibly be because the result is objectively evidence, fuck me are you being this obtuse deliberately?
---
It is only evidence to the people if they experience it. All evidence that people are aware of is evidence that they have in some way experienced (whether they experienced observing the result, or reading about it, or however else they may have experienced it).
I had explained the difference between subjective and objective evidence http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design#commen... . But to avoid any difference in understand because of considering a different ontological framework, just consider the that all the evidence we are aware of is the evidence we have experience.
You also quote:
---
Oh and other people by the way have effectively agreed that reality is one in which at least some subsection is experiencing.
---
And you responded:
---
So fucking what?
---
Had you forgotten that you had agreed to a statement that effectively states that personal experience proves nothing. (http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design#commen...). All the second argument relies is you realise you can tell from your experience that at least some of reality is experiencing. So your personal experience would be a proof of that, and therefore a proof that I was right and you were wrong. If you disagree that it does prove that then explain how you know that at least some of reality is experiencing, or are you going to deny that you do?
The first argument is just a fine tuning argument. So far you seem not to have grasped that, but then you don't seem to have yet understood the second argument. To help you understand the first argument consider a universe physically different from the one you imagine ours to be like. Let's call it Universe X.
Imagine that in Universe X the things which *don't* experience follow the same known laws of physics as things which don't experience in ours seem to follow.
Imagine also that in Universe X the things that *do* experience also seem to follow those same known laws of physics.
Imagine there is a physical difference between these two imagined universes though: That in Universe X the experience that would correlate to the Neural Correlate of Consciousness would not be like ours but instead a flash of light every time a neuron fired.
In what way would you expect the evolution in Universe X to be different?
Given how the conversation has gone so far, I imagine you will manage not to comprehend what I have written, but I thought I would try to help nevertheless.
"It is only evidence to the people if they experience it."
Yes, but it remains objective evidence and objectively true regardless. How may times, one more then. The earth was never at the centre of the universe even when all humans were unaware of the objective evidence that demonstrated this fact.
Ipso facto objective facts exist independently of our experience of them.
-----------------------
Experience is evidence, but it is subjective evidence, it can be wrong, hence we need a method to test evidence using an objective method that removes our subjective perception of it, which is what science is and does, and it does this whether we accept it or not.
---------------------------
"Had you forgotten that you had agreed to a statement that effectively states that personal experience proves nothing."
Sigh, NOT ON ITS OWN. You do see that proof and evidence are not the same, and that personal experience on it's own can easily be wrong? This does not mean all personal experience is wrong all the time, good grief this is painful.
------------------------------------
"In what way would you expect the evolution in Universe X to be different?"
I don't care to make assertions based on hypothetical universes in order to examine your claim when you can't objectively evidence it.
We have one universe to examine, it exists, it is material, and no objective evidence can be demonstrated for anything immaterial, organic life exists in that universe, that life has been fine tuned for its environment by natural selection and evolution, and has evolved a brain(s) capable of consciousness.
Why would I care to examine cryptic theories about alternative universe, if you can't demonstrate any evidence for a designer or deity I am not going to believe the claim.
The problem is not a lack of comprehension, though some of your posts are incomprehensible enough, it is that you are setting an arbitrary subjective standard for belief, and dismissing the best objective method we have, using erroneous assertions about subjective experience, and logically fallacious arguments like your horse analogy, insisting your argument is validated by me not having an alternative. That is the very definition of an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.
You quoted:
---
Had you forgotten that you had agreed to a statement that effectively states that personal experience proves nothing.
---
and replied:
---
Sigh, NOT ON ITS OWN. You do see that proof and evidence are not the same, and that personal experience on it's own can easily be wrong? This does not mean all personal experience is wrong all the time, good grief this is painful.
---
I am slightly confused by your response, and I will try to explain why. The paragraph you quoted from from was:
---
Had you forgotten that you had agreed to a statement that effectively states that personal experience proves nothing. (http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design#commen...). All the second argument relies is you realise you can tell from your experience that at least some of reality is experiencing. So your personal experience would be a proof of that, and therefore a proof that I was right and you were wrong. If you disagree that it does prove that then explain how you know that at least some of reality is experiencing, or are you going to deny that you do?
---
And you didn't answer the question at the end. So I then wonder why you didn't. Was it that you did not disagree. Were you stating that you were of the mind that personal experience could be used to prove something. But if you were then the statement personal experience proves nothing is wrong, because it can be used to prove some things. Like the statement that at least some of reality is experiencing. But maybe you disagreed, but just didn't answer the question, and that you were not suggesting personal experience could ever be used to prove anything, but were just commenting that it was not always wrong. So perhaps you could make it clear, perhaps a "yes" or "no" to the question of whether you realise you can tell from your experience that at least some of reality is experiencing?
When you state "NOT ON ITS OWN", I am not sure what you mean. The reason is that you go onto say things like
---
...personal experience on it's own can easily be wrong? This does not mean all personal experience is wrong all the time, good grief this is painful.
---
But experiences such as sight, sound, smells, touch, taste are just as they are, they are not right or wrong. When you combined with thoughts such as reasoning, statements can be made to which a truth value can be applied. And so to apply a truth value as you seem to have done seems to suggest that the personal experiences you are referring to include experiences such as thoughts, and statements to which a truth value can be applied.
But then what did you mean "NOT ON ITS OWN"? Did you mean that it could act as proof in conjunction with some other evidence? The problem there is that you have already agreed that the only evidence we are aware of is what is personally experienced. Perhaps you were shifting your definition of personal experience, I do not know. Perhaps using it on the one hand to mean things like seeing, smelling, tasting, touching, and hearing, but not thoughts or reasoning, and then on the other meaning it to include thoughts which could have a truth statement applied to them.
Would be useful if you answered that question about whether you realise you can tell from your experience that at least some of reality is experiencing. I am finding conversing with you laborious, and am not looking for this to be drawn out into a long discussion where you repeatedly avoid answering on topic questions. Even when I point out that you have previously not answered. Obviously if I was to ask you questions off topic, you could explain why you thought they were and that would be ok (assuming the explanation made sense).
* turning green and breaking out in cold sweat*....Mommy, pleeeeease make them stop the merry-go-round!!! My tummy don't feel so very good!...*dry heaving*....
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=3...
"I am finding conversing with you laborious,"
Really, conversing with you is a delight. Has anyone else noticed how many theists seem to have had all sense of irony surgically removed?
"But experiences such as sight, sound, smells, touch, taste are just as they are, they are not right or wrong."
CAN FUCKING BE wrong I said, not always fucking wrong, it would be less laborious if you could understand plain English.
"The problem there is that you have already agreed that the only evidence we are aware of is what is personally experienced"
Another tautology, seriously are you trolling, I can't tell?
Is the experience of a magic show evidence that magic is real? I'll assume not, now since our experiences can deceive us, how do we separate experiential evidence that is valid from what is invalid? What method can we employ to test our ideas claims and experiences to remove subjectivity, and demonstrate only objective evidence.
It's science isn't it, and you started this discourse by claiming objective evidence was useless. So what are you suing to validate ideas, because it sounds to me like wild conjecture peppered with bare assertions, and grandiose claims for proof that never materialises.
I'm off to bed anyway.
I noticed you again avoided answering whether you realise you can tell from your experience that at least some of reality is experiencing. If it isn't a question you feel you have to avoid answering in order to avoid admitting that you were wrong regarding your claim that personal experience wasn't proof of anything (including that at least some of reality is experiencing), then perhaps answer it this time.
You also did not make clear in your reply what you had meant by personal experiences. Were you including thoughts etc.?
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=3...
I am not going to keep answering your questions just for you to lie and claim I haven't. I have explicitly explained the limitations of personal experience as evidence, so the fact you keep lying and misrepresenting what I said makes me wonder if it's worth my time to bother with anyone that dishonest.
You supplied a link, but that was one in which again you avoided answering the question I asked. You quoted a part from the following paragraph
---
Would be useful if you answered that question about whether you realise you can tell from your experience that at least some of reality is experiencing. I am finding conversing with you laborious, and am not looking for this to be drawn out into a long discussion where you repeatedly avoid answering on topic questions. Even when I point out that you have previously not answered. Obviously if I was to ask you questions off topic, you could explain why you thought they were and that would be ok (assuming the explanation made sense).
---
But you did not answer whether you realise you can tell from your experience that at least some of reality is experiencing. If you disagree, quote me from the post you linked to where you did. Don't be so disingenuous as to quote yourself replying to some other question.
I had written in the post you are replying to
---
I noticed you again avoided answering whether you realise you can tell from your experience that at least some of reality is experiencing. If it isn't a question you feel you have to avoid answering in order to avoid admitting that you were wrong regarding your claim that personal experience wasn't proof of anything (including that at least some of reality is experiencing), then perhaps answer it this time.
---
And again you avoided answering it.
After trying to read through this thread, it is apparent (to me, at least) that Someone is talking about some form of "reality" that Nobody seems to understand. Almost makes me wish Nobody was here to respond.
Woo-woo.
Woo-woo is a slang term used to describe those who believe in phenomena that lacks substantiated evidence to prove the claim of the phenomena. It can also refer to the explanations for the specific phenomena itself. It also describes the method a person uses to understand such phenomena, based on the subjective nature or their personal philosophy which can be neither proven nor disproved. In this sense, one could associate woo-woo with philosophy, religion, or any other branch of study concerning itself with knowledge that is open to interpretation or subjectivity.
The result is verbose cryptic verbiage that gives you a headache.
"that Someone is talking about some form of "reality" that Nobody seems to understand"
@t-man.....
*scratches chin and head* ......yeah tell me about it... *clueless face over load*
Perfect example of evolution and it's flaws the dodo
If experience is the evidence required to prove the claim of design, then theists are really setting the bar low.
And even if one was to be stupid enough to accept the premise, it would not imply a deity is responsible.
At best, all you could say is that humans experience, we do not know what else does likewise with certainty but its fairly safe
to assume that many creatures such as canines and our fellow primate cousins do likewise.
Either way, 'A being true' does not mean that 'B' must be the cause.
It could have been an intergalactic giant badger that caused it............
Pages