Why I am not an Atheist

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9122
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby Kurieuo » Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:33 pm

Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Kenny, a question for you... since you do not believe math exists without humans.

  • Do you believe that objects we see are true in and of themselves, or
  • Are physical objects we see merely useful representations we construct of reality?
Second to that, do you know which one science tends to support today?


I believe what we see are true in and of themselves. If a scientist claimed everything is merely useful representations we construct of reality, he would have to present an awful good explanation for why he holds this view before I accept it because I wouldn't just take him at face value because he is a scientist. Which do you believe?

I believe there is more than meets the eye.

For example, the user interface of an operating system such as Windows, MacOS or a smartphone device. The icons on the screen, folders, files, applications and the like, when broken down are bits (1s and 0s), and then even ultimately based upon voltages. Yet, so we can easily and meaningfully perform certain tasks, whether such is sending an email or word processing, everything is represented to us in a certain usable way as intended by the developers of the operating system and/or software. We don't have to go adjusting voltages to produce 1s and 0s, if we did, we'd never get tasks done.

What I believe, and what physics seems to support, is that the universe contains a whole lot of information. Whether this is in the form of energy, waves, or something deepers, we interpret this information in meaningful ways, ways that make sense to us, ways that allow us to function and survive. For example, we experience colour, yet colours are ultimately different "colourless" wavelengths. It is our human "operating system" if you will, which interprets such in a meaningful manner to ourselves as colour. Yet, colour nowhere physically exists out there in reality apart from us.

If we take this further, quantum theory and scientific experiments support that particles behave as such when observed. For example, with the old the double-slit experiment (or a good alternative video here) - when electrons are left unobserved a wave pattern is the result, however when observed we see the behaviour of particles as the end result. This is highly suggestive that an objective material reality just isn't real in and of itself, but is rather dependant upon some sort of observation and consciousness as such. With other interesting results had in quantum physics and also adding in cognitive science, many believe that we experience and interpret the world around us with useful representative constructs that are beneficial to us living.


So how does this explain math having an actual existence outside of human though?

It shows that outside of thought, the material world we experience likely doesn't exist which is similar to your belief on the existence of math. That is, for you math requires a mind (I agree), and you take a very anthropomorphic-mind view to believe it didn't exist prior to humans (I disagree). Similarly, we know particles are influenced by an intelligence observing; we might take a very anthropomorphic-mind view to believe such too doesn't exist without human observation (which experiements support).

Perhaps YECs are correct, the universe has just been around as long as humans -- we just don't understand the fundamental nature of the quantum world and its relationship to us. ;) This is no more absurd to me than saying math or physics have been around for as long as humans have thunk it.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2837
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby Kenny » Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:55 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Kenny, a question for you... since you do not believe math exists without humans.

  • Do you believe that objects we see are true in and of themselves, or
  • Are physical objects we see merely useful representations we construct of reality?
Second to that, do you know which one science tends to support today?


I believe what we see are true in and of themselves. If a scientist claimed everything is merely useful representations we construct of reality, he would have to present an awful good explanation for why he holds this view before I accept it because I wouldn't just take him at face value because he is a scientist. Which do you believe?

I believe there is more than meets the eye.

For example, the user interface of an operating system such as Windows, MacOS or a smartphone device. The icons on the screen, folders, files, applications and the like, when broken down are bits (1s and 0s), and then even ultimately based upon voltages. Yet, so we can easily and meaningfully perform certain tasks, whether such is sending an email or word processing, everything is represented to us in a certain usable way as intended by the developers of the operating system and/or software. We don't have to go adjusting voltages to produce 1s and 0s, if we did, we'd never get tasks done.

What I believe, and what physics seems to support, is that the universe contains a whole lot of information. Whether this is in the form of energy, waves, or something deepers, we interpret this information in meaningful ways, ways that make sense to us, ways that allow us to function and survive. For example, we experience colour, yet colours are ultimately different "colourless" wavelengths. It is our human "operating system" if you will, which interprets such in a meaningful manner to ourselves as colour. Yet, colour nowhere physically exists out there in reality apart from us.

If we take this further, quantum theory and scientific experiments support that particles behave as such when observed. For example, with the old the double-slit experiment (or a good alternative video here) - when electrons are left unobserved a wave pattern is the result, however when observed we see the behaviour of particles as the end result. This is highly suggestive that an objective material reality just isn't real in and of itself, but is rather dependant upon some sort of observation and consciousness as such. With other interesting results had in quantum physics and also adding in cognitive science, many believe that we experience and interpret the world around us with useful representative constructs that are beneficial to us living.


So how does this explain math having an actual existence outside of human though?

It shows that outside of thought, the material world we experience likely doesn't exist which is similar to your belief on the existence of math. That is, for you math requires a mind (I agree), and you take a very anthropomorphic-mind view to believe it didn't exist prior to humans (I disagree). Similarly, we know particles are influenced by an intelligence observing; we might take a very anthropomorphic-mind view to believe such too doesn't exist without human observation (which experiements support).

I disagree. Besides, there is too much evidence that the material world is real and is not just a figment of human imagination. If the material world were limited to human thought, we would never learn anything new concerning the material world because the material world would be limited to what we already know. The fact that we are constantly learning new things about the material world to me is proof that the material world is real.

Ken

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9122
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby Kurieuo » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:52 pm

You can choose to believe the "material" world is real (i.e., Material Realism), and not a human construction, but the science is against you on this Kenny. Whether we look to quantum physics, evolutionary science or cognitive science -- they all do not support Material Realism. So, it is in a way, you have a kind of blind faith -- your choosing to believe your physical senses provide you with an objective perception of reality.

Don't respond to me here though, I'd much rather you become acquainted with modern discussions today. Like this very interesting TED talk given by Donald Hoffman.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2837
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby Kenny » Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:17 am

Kurieuo wrote:You can choose to believe the "material" world is real (i.e., Material Realism), and not a human construction, but the science is against you on this Kenny.



Kurieuo wrote:Whether we look to quantum physics, evolutionary science or cognitive science -- they all do not support Material Realism. So, it is in a way, you have a kind of blind faith -- your choosing to believe your physical senses provide you with an objective perception of reality.

Don't respond to me here though, I'd much rather you become acquainted with modern discussions today. Like this very interesting TED talk given by Donald Hoffman.



A Cognitive scientist? Really??? How about providing something from a science who actually studies the material world; rather than how people think. And if the material world were just a figment of imaginations, how do you explain the human ability to constantly learn new information about the material world?

Ken

thatkidakayoungguy
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 969
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby thatkidakayoungguy » Sat Sep 02, 2017 4:15 pm

I thought the bible agreed that the material world is real.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9122
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby Kurieuo » Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:22 pm

Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:You can choose to believe the "material" world is real (i.e., Material Realism), and not a human construction, but the science is against you on this Kenny.



Kurieuo wrote:Whether we look to quantum physics, evolutionary science or cognitive science -- they all do not support Material Realism. So, it is in a way, you have a kind of blind faith -- your choosing to believe your physical senses provide you with an objective perception of reality.

Don't respond to me here though, I'd much rather you become acquainted with modern discussions today. Like this very interesting TED talk given by Donald Hoffman.



A Cognitive scientist? Really??? How about providing something from a science who actually studies the material world; rather than how people think. And if the material world were just a figment of imaginations, how do you explain the human ability to constantly learn new information about the material world?

:roll: Your avoidance of all presented is obvious to me Kenny. Surely you must need to pull your head out of the sand to take a breath at some point.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9122
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby Kurieuo » Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:38 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:I thought the bible agreed that the material world is real.

My posts were to Kenny, the previous video linked to shouldn't be taken as a statement of my beliefs. Rather, Material Realism is too simple and doesn't match what science appears to reveal to us about reality.

The world is still real. In what way, or how though? God doesn't provide an extact ontology describing how reality is. Such isn't necessarily answered in the bible, except that it was via the Word of God, the Logos, the meaning of which leans toward a divine idealism of sorts and not materialism.

Check out this video kid.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Justhuman
Established Member
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:53 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: East in the Netherlands

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby Justhuman » Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:49 am

Kurieuo wrote:
Justhuman wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Justhuman wrote:To describe words and math and the like as immaterial is in my opinion wrong. Ghosts, spirit, soul, God, they are immaterial, and in their sense 'physically real'. Tangible, even in their immaterial form.
....
I do not like the term immaterial because math isn't immaterial.

Of course math is immaterial, for math is abstract. Therefore, given this, something abstract is by definition non-physicial, immaterial, etc.

Just because you subjectively associate the spiritual world with "immaterial", and so don't like the term being used to describe non-material realities, such just means you ought to reformulate what you understand as being immaterial.

It is more proper you redefine your understanding, rather than everyone else re-define their understanding to your own because you associate the immaterial with God, ghosts and spirits which you find distasteful.

I do have to agree to a lot you write Kurieuo, but not in this.
Immaterial refers to something not material: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immaterial
Math consists of formulas and equations. It is nothing in itself and doesn't do anything of itself. As such, it is the theory of math that can be implemented (by intelligent beings) to describe, explain and shape the world around.

Furthermore I do not distaste God or any of the immateriality. I am 'indifferent' in this.

Ok, but "immaterial" doesn't mean spirit, ghost, etc. In fact, many theists conceive of spirits as material bodies, conceive of God (wrongly) has being of a divine material. By such, I am using material to mean some tangible substance of sorts. You have bodies of physical material and than perhaps the oximoron of a immaterial "material" body.

The definition of "immaterial" at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immaterial supports math being immaterial. Math might be applied to the material world, but it is abstract and something that can be used without (provided a mind exists to apprehend it). I'm not sure I understand how you see math as material, or why you don't see it as immaterial. You'll have to explain further.


I know that 'immaterial' can refer to anything not material, and in that sense math is immaterial too, because math isn't material. But that is way too simplistic.

Immaterial is refered to as incorporeal or spiritual. The origin of that immaterial is as the opposite to material. But it consists of something.
The principle of math consists of just formulas and equations. I don't know how that could be immaterial of any kind. It might be some form of 'immaterial immateriality'?

It's like the difference between measuring the physical proportions of an apple to experiencing the blueness of the sky. The first is absolute, the second is abstract emotion. Both are part of the same material world, but utterly different.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2837
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby Kenny » Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:30 am

Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:You can choose to believe the "material" world is real (i.e., Material Realism), and not a human construction, but the science is against you on this Kenny.



Kurieuo wrote:Whether we look to quantum physics, evolutionary science or cognitive science -- they all do not support Material Realism. So, it is in a way, you have a kind of blind faith -- your choosing to believe your physical senses provide you with an objective perception of reality.

Don't respond to me here though, I'd much rather you become acquainted with modern discussions today. Like this very interesting TED talk given by Donald Hoffman.



A Cognitive scientist? Really??? How about providing something from a science who actually studies the material world; rather than how people think. And if the material world were just a figment of imaginations, how do you explain the human ability to constantly learn new information about the material world?

:roll: Your avoidance of all presented is obvious to me Kenny. Surely you must need to pull your head out of the sand to take a breath at some point.


Avoidance??? Bro! I don't agree with this "Cognitive scientist" and apparently neither do you; so I have no interest in listening to a half hour video of his absurd ideas unless I were able to refute his claims, with him defending them. Tell you what; how a'bout if you listen to his video, present his points to me then I will discuss his beliefs with you defending them. Fair enough?

Ken

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9122
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby Kurieuo » Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:34 am

JH, can you explain why would "incorporeal" and "spiritual" would be considered immaterial? ;)

Quite simply, if something isn't "material" than it is "immaterial". We could say math is non-physical, yet then, some might like to say math is part of the physical laws. Yet, I made an argument earlier, if one is a physicalist, and math forms part of that picture, then by necessity math must have exists without us humans thinking it.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9122
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby Kurieuo » Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:39 am

Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:You can choose to believe the "material" world is real (i.e., Material Realism), and not a human construction, but the science is against you on this Kenny.



Kurieuo wrote:Whether we look to quantum physics, evolutionary science or cognitive science -- they all do not support Material Realism. So, it is in a way, you have a kind of blind faith -- your choosing to believe your physical senses provide you with an objective perception of reality.

Don't respond to me here though, I'd much rather you become acquainted with modern discussions today. Like this very interesting TED talk given by Donald Hoffman.



A Cognitive scientist? Really??? How about providing something from a science who actually studies the material world; rather than how people think. And if the material world were just a figment of imaginations, how do you explain the human ability to constantly learn new information about the material world?

:roll: Your avoidance of all presented is obvious to me Kenny. Surely you must need to pull your head out of the sand to take a breath at some point.


Avoidance??? Bro! I don't agree with this "Cognitive scientist" and apparently neither do you; so I have no interest in listening to a half hour video of his absurd ideas unless I were able to refute his claims, with him defending them. Tell you what; how a'bout if you listen to his video, present his points to me then I will discuss his beliefs with you defending them. Fair enough?

Yes, avoidance. You can't just say I don't like it and so label something absurd. He makes good points. If I disagree then I must deal with it. He builds a lot upon evolutionary science, which as you know, I wouldn't give much credit -- and yet, within that paradigm he has very good arguments (even outside of).

Further, my previous posts are there, including introducing discussion of quantum physics and the like. I know you're not really interested. You just want to maintain what you do, and that is fine. So there is really no reason to discuss, even if that would be had because it feels rather one-sided.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2837
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby Kenny » Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:31 am

Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:You can choose to believe the "material" world is real (i.e., Material Realism), and not a human construction, but the science is against you on this Kenny.



Kurieuo wrote:Whether we look to quantum physics, evolutionary science or cognitive science -- they all do not support Material Realism. So, it is in a way, you have a kind of blind faith -- your choosing to believe your physical senses provide you with an objective perception of reality.

Don't respond to me here though, I'd much rather you become acquainted with modern discussions today. Like this very interesting TED talk given by Donald Hoffman.



A Cognitive scientist? Really??? How about providing something from a science who actually studies the material world; rather than how people think. And if the material world were just a figment of imaginations, how do you explain the human ability to constantly learn new information about the material world?

:roll: Your avoidance of all presented is obvious to me Kenny. Surely you must need to pull your head out of the sand to take a breath at some point.


Avoidance??? Bro! I don't agree with this "Cognitive scientist" and apparently neither do you; so I have no interest in listening to a half hour video of his absurd ideas unless I were able to refute his claims, with him defending them. Tell you what; how a'bout if you listen to his video, present his points to me then I will discuss his beliefs with you defending them. Fair enough?

Yes, avoidance. You can't just say I don't like it and so label something absurd. He makes good points. If I disagree then I must deal with it. He builds a lot upon evolutionary science, which as you know, I wouldn't give much credit -- and yet, within that paradigm he has very good arguments (even outside of).


I didn't say I didn't like it, I said I didn't listen to the video because it was too long. If a video is 3-5 minutes, that's one thing, but history has taught me when someone presents a lengthy video rather than articulate a response of their own, I usually disagree with the video and the person I am debating with is not in a position to defend all aspects of the video because they weren't his ideas to start with thus resulting in a big waste of time. Besides, I am on vacation and don't have access to my own computer, and the only computer I have access to is in a public quiet place without earphones so I don't have the option to listen to a video even if I wanted to. If you are able to listen to the video, why don't you listen to it then present the ideas that you agree with and we can discuss from there. Fair enough?

Ken

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2837
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby Kenny » Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:37 am

Kurieuo wrote:JH, can you explain why would "incorporeal" and "spiritual" would be considered immaterial? ;)

Quite simply, if something isn't "material" than it is "immaterial". We could say math is non-physical, yet then, some might like to say math is part of the physical laws. Yet, I made an argument earlier, if one is a physicalist, and math forms part of that picture, then by necessity math must have exists without us humans thinking it.


Just because the system of math is used by a "phsicalist", doesn't mean math is physical, or has an actual existence by itself

Ken

Justhuman
Established Member
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:53 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: East in the Netherlands

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby Justhuman » Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:19 am

Kurieuo wrote:JH, can you explain why would "incorporeal" and "spiritual" would be considered immaterial? ;)

Quite simply, if something isn't "material" than it is "immaterial". We could say math is non-physical, yet then, some might like to say math is part of the physical laws. Yet, I made an argument earlier, if one is a physicalist, and math forms part of that picture, then by necessity math must have exists without us humans thinking it.


Because 'incorporeal' and 'math' aren't on the same level to share them under common denominator.
They are totally different types of immateriality.

...Yet, I made an argument earlier, if one is a physicalist, and math forms part of that picture, then by necessity math must have exists without us humans thinking it.

Yes, ok, but math doesn't 'exist', it just is. It 'is' even if there wouldn't be no life whatsoever in the universe. It 'was' before the Big Bang and 'will be' when the universe dies, and after that.

Maybe, as I suggested earlier, we actually mean the same. We might be talking in parallel, just using different terminology.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9122
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Why I am not an Atheist

Postby Kurieuo » Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:21 pm

Justhuman wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:JH, can you explain why would "incorporeal" and "spiritual" would be considered immaterial? ;)

Quite simply, if something isn't "material" than it is "immaterial". We could say math is non-physical, yet then, some might like to say math is part of the physical laws. Yet, I made an argument earlier, if one is a physicalist, and math forms part of that picture, then by necessity math must have exists without us humans thinking it.


Because 'incorporeal' and 'math' aren't on the same level to share them under common denominator.
They are totally different types of immateriality.

I pointed out earlier that you attach "immaterial" with "incorporeal" and "spirits" however. Such is understandable, since it can be used for such. Yet, as I also said, it simply means not material. Technically speaking, "spirits" aren't considered "material" and therefore are classified as "immaterial." Similarly, "math" is also something not material, you can't find it as an object here and there, rather you must abstract it -- abstract things are therefore also "immaterial". Therefore, math by all qualifications is immaterial.

I don't mean this to sound condescening, though it'll now sound that way if it wasn't going to. But, you seem to be confused somewhere and drawing false inferences on par with: All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates which is an invalid inference. There correct categorical syllogism would be: All men are mortal. Socrates a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. But, I'm sure I don't have to point all this out, it's just predicate logic 101.

So then, we turn to "immaterial" to see what you are trying to have everyone agree with you on (or which you feel some like myself are trying to twist or rig the language used). Just because: All spirits are immaterial, if someone (PaulS, myself, others) claim "Math" is immaterial, we're by no means saying therefore all spirits are math, or math is on par with spirits.

There is really no valid reason I can see why you would resist using categorising math as "immaterial", except that you have come to closely associate the term (wrongly) with ONLY the incorporeal or spirits. And so, in your distaste for the spiritual realm, God, etc (which you claim you don't have), you resist math which you see as more clearly real, being placed into a same category you associate with realm of fantasy.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image


Return to “Questioning Non-belief”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest