Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, those are not examples of what I'm talking about.
Then you are under a confirmation bias.
Second, on what basis do you claim that I'm the one with a confirmation bias and not yourself?
141–150 of 376 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, those are not examples of what I'm talking about.
Then you are under a confirmation bias.
Second, on what basis do you claim that I'm the one with a confirmation bias and not yourself?
I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it This seems like quite a leap. Parts of the earth are conscious, so is the earth conscious? Parts of the universe are alive, so is the universe alive? Every member of my family is conscious*, but I wouldn't say that "my family" is conscious. *Solipsism notwithstanding
The natural problem is drawing the line between which parts of you are conscious and which parts of you are merely the portion that surrounds the consciousness. Is merely your brain¹ conscious? The whole body? The brain+(not-brain body) system is conscious but the distinction isn't all that different from the brain+(not-brain body)+(not-you Earth) system being conscious. I have to say I started with thinking that cle…
Do this long enough and you’ll experience episodes on non-verbal communication with whatever is at the helm. For me it occurs when I get stuck in thought and my body sort of involuntarily feints an act to remind me what I was doing before my mind wandered. It’s only happened to her three times in my life, probably many times before I realized it the first time. It’s subtle, but really weird. And probably just a product of my imagination, but that’s been my experience.
I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…
It’s really interesting how many assumptions get baked into beliefs like this. Existence had a beginning, it was formed by something, that thing didn’t need to be formed by anything, it’s existence doesn’t count as having existed before existence, that thing had the capacity to act, that things actions resulted in the reality we see today etc. Having convinced yourself of all of these things it then feels natural to…
I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…
Is there a name for this line of thought? I’ve run into it a few times and find it compelling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does it mean for consciousness to be an illusion?
We as a species may lack the mental faculties to truly understand the mechanisms by which life evolved the ability to analyze and reason about its surroundings and itself. We lack the scientific tools to properly differentiate or falsify "consciousness" from any other sufficiently complex phenomenon. We can't tell whether it's an emergent phenomenon arising out of a particular arrangement of energy and matter, or whe…
My pet theory in high school was that Spinoza lived in a time when being an atheist could get you arrested and killed, so he came up with this Deus sive natura thing, which is a good cover and in practice is not too far from atheism.
I'm not sure it's explicitly a cover. I'm not sure he would have actually said "there is no God"; such a phrase might have been actually very difficult for someone to compose in that era, not just because it was shocking but it would be hard to think. Especially one raised in a devout Jewish community (from which he was expelled)
(I spent many years studying Spinoza, both in school and in private.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is simply a God of the gaps argument [0]. Just because we don't (yet) know how the universe was created does not mean that we must attribute it to some deity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
This. It's ridiculous how can people support these infantile and crude beliefs in order to understand the universe. Do these people think HN stays online by prayings instead of the hard work of the sysadmins?
The community thrives by following guidelines, among them:
* be kind
* do not sneer
* do not call names
* respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize
it"s pretty much "scared atheist's" apology for a god
I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…
This is simply a God of the gaps argument [0]. Just because we don't (yet) know how the universe was created does not mean that we must attribute it to some deity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
I certainly have faith in physics...