[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Complexity implies moving parts, how the gears mesh.

I don't follow...

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I don't know what god is but I know what god is not ie a machine or physical object.

Really? God couldn't be a machine or physical object in a universe separate from ours? You know this?

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

To objectify the designer with words like "complex" or "simple" is not to grasp the concept of a designer.

What's the concept of a designer, in your words?

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I simply meant that you cannot completely explain what I am through the theory of evolution alone.

No, but that's not the point of the theory of evolution. It explains how you came to have your biological attributes. So the lack of a complete materialistic theory of consciousness at this moment means we agree on this point. No, we can't completely explain ourselves. Yet.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Consistency does not equal validity.

Not in absolute terms, but in terms of utility and predictability, consistency is far superior to inconsistency. And in terms of explanation, an explanation which is consistent with observations of the thing being explained is a valid explanation. It may not be true or complete, but it is valid.

But to be clear, I'm not saying dreams should be ignored because they're usually not consistent. They're just generally an inferior way of attempting to understand what we observe while awake.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Two sheets of paper arguing whether what they are seeing is spiritual or scientific is ridiculous; someone diving into a pool could be considered both or neither even from a 3-d perspective, let alone in 2-d. They don't even know what they're seeing.

Agreed, that's ridiculous. But arguing about what it is they actually see, in order to understand it and perhaps even benefit it (or from it, more likely)? That's not so ridiculous is it?

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

Conclusions:
1. A consciousness was randomly created and randomly created the universe. or
2. Randomness created a flix flax flux (interesting note: flax is a synonym for "luck" in Sweden, hehe ) and Big Bang was initiated.
If someone have an alternative to these conclusions or see a fault in the premises and arguments then please tell me so. Otherwise we should be able to agree that either of these should have happened, no? (without bringing in the Astral World, please)

I actually agree with what seems to be your general position, that seemingly random events could produce the universe and everything in it, including consciousness, but there's a few points along the way where we disagree.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

There was nothing, no time and no space. There's no way anything "complex" can be performed in this "nothingness". There is no foundation even for something "simple" to happen, afterall there is no time and no space.

Basically, that's unknown. As Tyler pointed out, if we go back in time far enough our models break down. We don't truly know what there was before the big bang. Therefore we can't conclude that there was nothing. At some point there was something, but we so far we only have speculation about what came before.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

But... think about this. One thing and one thing only could happen, it requires no time, and it requires no space, no complexity, nothing to be initiated. It isn't anything "simple" or of the sort, it is not a concept or a thought - it just happens. Randomness (note: not coincidence). It requires nothing, in this sense it surely is rather illogical and works against what can be measured in our human sense - but seen at this level it is also the most simple, yet fundamental and obvious solution.

It's not that simple because it doesn't explain how that randomness occurs. As you said, in effect it's the same as the God argument; it obfuscates rather than explaining. Neither argument contributes to our understanding.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

The constants of nature are so fine-tuned that a slight deviation (and I mean ridiculously slight) would make life impossible in the universe.

Only life as we know it.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Concerning your problem of "who created god" argument. The first cause, that of creation (the big bang scientists believe) probably didn't happen by itself. If it didn't just cause itself then the "first cause" emerged outside of space-time as we know it. Only within the context of space and time does "who created god" sound like a good argument. It just isn't.

Right. But regardless it still requires explanation, or at the very least verification, which of course is impossible unless we can take ourselves outside of space-time to where that "first cause" exists, and do so in a way which is verifiable.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Consciousness is not a mechanism.

Is this your belief, or a fact you expect me to accept? (see below)

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I also do not concede that consciousness (or gods consciousness) needs to be "explained" implying a physical object. We don't know what consciousness is so concluding that I need to somehow show you a mechanism by which god works is illogical.

You don't need to explain anything if you're simply stating your belief. But you're not, you're claiming specific facts as true. Do you except others to accept that those facts are true? If that's the case, explanation is required. If you don't care what we think then that's fine, we can move on.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Next you assume consciousness needs a brain. Why? There is no evidence backing that up. I on the other hand have evidence for consciousness being separate from body. That is the phenomenon of NDEs, ESP, PK, spontaneous remembrance of past lives in children etc. but I'll just quickly go over NDEs, which haven't been explained (as of yet) by physical means. As i mentioned in another post, some of NDEs occur when there is no detectable brain-functioning, casting doubt that the brain created the experience (in some cases like Pam Reynolds it was impossible).

Hmm... You pointed out that we don't know what consciousness is. Therefore the evidence that you have cannot be of consciousness, but rather of some phenomenon which you (and others) have labeled as consciousness. Likewise neuroscientists have done a lot of research of various aspects of what they have labeled consciousness.

Originally Posted by Tynan

As for virtual particle pairs - this is why they are PAIRs. The two halves balance each other in every way (charge, etc). Once again nature avoids breaking conservation laws. Otherwise space itself would glow with new energy all the time.

Hmm... One other important point is that the existence of virtual particles is questionable. They're mainly used to describe processes and may not exist in any observable sense.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly.

I'm pretty sure he means that the laws exist regardless of the life forms which obey them. Tynan can confirm

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

That is one theory yes. Is it easier to believe in a trillion useless universe just for the sake of refuting the fine-tuning argument or to accept it?

Neither is easier. Neither tell us what is actually going on. They're both just ideas. We should go and find out if they're right, or accept that they both could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I think you would like to think that it would be easier to explain them away as hallucinations but in many cases the "consciousness creates the experience" hypothesis doesn't fit the bill. Based on the evidence it is far easier to believe consciousness can exist outside the brain.

Easier? How so?

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

How so? If we are following occams razor the insane amount of cosmic coincidence it would take to be an atheist is a little extreme in my opinion.

It's very difficult to grasp at a holistic level, but just as with natural evolution, if you break down the entire explanation to smaller, more easily understood chunks, the whole makes much more sense. It's not necessarily right, but it's neither extreme nor insane.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

"But when do I get to meet God?"

Still the best answer in my book, atheist or not.
Know thyself.

Hmmm... Are you saying to forget proof of God and focus on understanding yourself? That I can agree with. But the suggestion that we are God... No... But that doesn't stop me from doing what you suggest, so it's irrelevant, right?