The Theist Position

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So you must include Shiva and any other deity which is claimed to have created the universe.

Yes of course. But in the sense of Creating our reality, because this was only done once, we are talking about the same Deity that is given different names by different groups.

Oh, what a get-out-of-jail card!

Yes, there are other gods who are claimed to have created the universe and who can be said to be personal gods. But…there’s no need to investigate their claims because (wait for it) they are all the Christian God. Those pesky Hindus have used the wrong name!

Someone should tell them that that blue god they worship, part of a triumvirate no less, isn’t who they think it is.

Sheesh. End of conversation.

 

[abucs]

Thank you. I am sure you will give an intelligent explanation.

I am going out now but will read later. Just a couple of comments. You also have to demonstrate your postulation that reality exists in its own right.

Also, because it appears that consciousness evolved in our physical reality that does not preclude other forms of consciousness outside our physical reality.

ok, peace and bbl. Maybe tomorrow.

 

[Bradskii]

Thank you. I am sure you will give an intelligent explanation.

I am going out now but will read later. Just a couple of comments. You also have to demonstrate your postulation that reality exists in its own right.

Also, because it appears that consciousness evolved in our physical reality that does not preclude other forms of consciousness outside our physical reality.

ok, peace and bbl. Maybe tomorrow.

So lets just say that reality exists. Period.

It is apparent that consciousness has evolved to allow us to interact with it. As I said, there is an existing continuum from basic life forms to man to illustrate this.

If you want to claim that that is not the case because there are other forms of consciousness outside reality which does the same thing, then off you go.

 

[abucs]

Oh, what a get-out-of-jail card!

Yes, there are other gods who are claimed to have created the universe and who can be said to be personal gods. But…there’s no need to investigate their claims because (wait for it) they are all the Christian God. Those pesky Hindus have used the wrong name!

Someone should tell them that that blue god they worship, part of a triumvirate no less, isn’t who they think it is.

Sheesh. End of conversation.

No I said that this was the Christian conception of God as Creator. This does not mean that Jesus was incarnated 2000 years ago and rose from the dead. Whether He did or not is a separate question in exactly the same way as if Shiva is Blue is a separate question.

There is the one question of whether an intelligence created our reality.

There is the separate questions of the nature and workings of God.

I am not saying that these different concepts such as Shiva should not be investigated but like the Christian claims they are second order investigations to which science is not as equipped to answer the first order question of which these religions share - that an intelligence created our reality.

Sure, investigate whatever you want. But they are different investigations using different tools.

ok going now, bbl.

 

[abucs]

So lets just say that reality exists. Period.

By reality you mean an existence not created from intelligence.

This is analogous to saying that let’s just say a Creator exists. Period.

No. If we are going to investigate whether our reality derives from intelligence or non intelligence then we have to do better than picking one side and simply saying let’s accept it, period.

It is apparent that consciousness has evolved to allow us to interact with it. As I said, there is an existing continuum from basic life forms to man to illustrate this.

If you want to claim that that is not the case because there are other forms of consciousness outside reality which does the same thing, then off you go.

You have not demonstrated that because consciousness appears to have developed inside our reality that precludes any consciousness outside our reality. I am following on from your attempts to justify your world view. It seems that you can’t but want to retreat into saying I should make the attempt.

This is because the atheist position does not stand on solid ground intellectually and so quickly moves off from any attempts to justify itself.

Look I am quite accepting that I need to make a case but I am pointing out that so do you and that when you try and the best you have is let’s just accept it period and then give up after one post, wanting the other to justify his position then that’s not a very intellectual starting position. You have to do better if you want to argue our reality is from non intellectual processes.

ok so to make my case for consciousness. If consciousness is written into the laws of physics which I claim they are as per Eugene Wigner’s comment who formulated quantum law and from scientific experimentation then that has ramifications for our reality.

If consciousness is written into the laws of physics and if the laws of physics has been with us from the beginning, certainly from before the evolution of the consciousness that you mentioned, then this strongly implies there was a consciousness before the evolution you have referred to.

If consciousness is simply an accidental by product of evolution and stands alone as the only example of consciousness then it is incredulous that this accidental by product should have a special place in the working of the underlying laws of physics which existed before this evolution took place and which is said to completely explain consciousness in a non intelligent process.

It is as another physicist has mentioned, not a believer, Paul Davies from the UK/Australia,

He said it is as if the laws of physics saw us coming, or as if the laws of physics anticipated us.

This is much more complimentary to an intelligent conscious process rather than a non intelligent non conscious process.

 

[Bradskii]

Wigner really did believe that beings with a consciousness had a direct effect on quantum mechanics. He thought that consciousness and quantum mechanics - read reality, were inexorably linked. That consciousness was part of reality itself.

‘It follows that a being with consciousness must have a different role in quantum mechanics than the inanimate measuring device.’ http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/

You’ll have to download the pdf from that link and browse to page 180 for that quote.

That opinion (and it was written over half a century ago) is not now considered in any way a valid viewpoint. Consciousness is an emergent feature of reality. Whether that reality was divinely produced or occured naturally.

And, as I said, it has emerged via the process of evolution and can be seen in a continuum of examples ranging from that which could barely be descibed as life up to mankind. Consciousness has not always existed. We didn’t come along and make some mystic connection to an already existing feature of reality.

It’s an emergent feature of life itself.

 

[abucs]

Consciousness is an emergent feature of reality. Whether that reality was divinely produced or occured naturally.

Yes but I would just add the term ‘naturally’ doesn’t exclude God, if one considers God created (and underpins) nature. The precise language should be that a form of consciousness emerged as a feature of reality either from intelligent or non intelligent processes. This does not exclude a pre existing consciousness but on the contrary supports the view that it existed already since the notion of consciousness is already present in the pre existing laws of physics.

Wigner really did believe that beings with a consciousness had a direct effect on quantum mechanics. He thought that consciousness and quantum mechanics - read reality, were inexorably linked. That consciousness was part of reality itself.

Yes this is a fascinating discussion on how consciousness is involved with the laws of physics. That it is has little doubt. How consciousness is linked to the laws of physics and what it means has many proponents arguing many ideas.

The best way to discuss this is to look at the underlying scientific experiments and judge what they mean for our working assumptions about what our reality is. A viable assumption of our reality should be consistent with all of the quantum scientific findings.

That there is a pre existing consciousness that gave rise to, and also constantly underpins our reality is consistent with all the quantum scientific findings.

I am of the opinion it is the most rational explanation given the set of experimental results we have to date.