How??? I didn't see any explanation in your post as to why exactly I am a 26 year old white male and not some random maggot crawling in the dirt.

Deeply flawed logic here.

If you were a maggot, you would not be posting on this board. The reason you are exactly the person you are is because if you weren't, you'd be someone else asking the same question.

If I shoot an arrow into the air, the fact that it landed exactly HERE instead of somewhere else isn't proof of god. It's the consequences of the actions that lead to the arrow being in the ground. This is the same idea used in many time travel stories. If you go back in time and kill your Grandpa when he's a child, you end up not existing.

When you are born, you become the latest in a series of people that are set down by the logical chain of consequences. I was born in Minot Air Force Base. The fact that you and I were both born on Air Force bases proves nothing--it's merely a coincidence and we were born on Air Force Bases because one or both of our parents were in the military. God has nothing to do with it.

How would we know this to be true? Perhaps if you travel back in time, extra matter is created (you, your clothing, and whatever else went with the time machine) in that state of the universe at some point in the past where the time machine went to and a parallel universe is in effect, created precisely at the moment you emerge from your time machine. When you kill your grandfather you continue existing, because you were created in an alternate universe where your grandfather wasn't killed by his grandchild.

Otherwise an absolute paradox results: if you end up dissapearing because you were never born due to your grandfather being murdered by yourself, then how is it possible for you to kill your grandfather when you were never born because of your grandfather's death and thus, could not travel in the time machine to begin with?

Anyway, you are right that God cannot be proven by my "argument". However, what possible explanation can you come up with as to why I am me and not anyone else? Give me a detailed scientific explanation why I can control only the lipids, carbohydrates and proteins (my 26 year old white male body)??? How did I gain control of my body specifically? Why didn't I gain control of a Russian Woman's body 234 years ago??? Why??? Anyway, what about my second argument??

and i never claimed to be providing one. i provided the names of some people who did (attempt, at least). you can certainly hit up wikipedia to learn a little more (though i've checked the wiki articles and they're medicore at best). the sociological school i'm especially thinking of is called symbolic interactionism. wikipedia also has a very brief article on this subject, and it's also pretty flat.

i would try to give a brief explanation, but in truth i'm not sure i'm up to the task. social scientific concepts are typically bogged down in jargon, especially sociology (my training). i spent five years getting my B.A. and still don't comprehend everything (not that i'm arrogant enough to think i ever will).

but in the spirit of things, i'll give it a try. Mead especially was concerned with explaining how the "self" comes to be, and in his view it's a product of early childhood socialization, and is especially tied to the symbolic nature of language. very young children are socialized to use words by matters of degree. a child barely developing language skills might be praised for calling an orange "ball" (it's close enough!) but a todler would be corrected (no dear, that's an orange; it's for eating, and balls are for playing). and eventually, this can develop into the difference between divans, ottomans and benches.

compare the level of language interaction with a dog. you can teach a dog to sit when you speak the word "sit." but you can't teach a dog irony. a boyfriend butting into his girlfriends conversation about cosmetics, though, might be greeted with a sharp "sit!" from his girl, but he knows she's not offering a biscuit in exchange for the behavior no matter how many times he's observed that transaction with Rover.

this distinction marks the symbolic nature of language. this notion of symbolism resembles the nature of Platonic idealism, but the platonically ideal chair doesn't exist in heaven but in our speech. the idea chair is the intellectual symbol that allows us to recognize a chair when we need one. "what is a chair?" seems like a straight-forward enough question, but when you add context it becomes much harder. if the particular chair's for the king, you'd better believe it's more than just any old surface capable of supporting a human butt.

remember now that symbols come to individuals through socialization. among those symbols is the "self." at the simplest level, you learn your identity through the ways other people act toward and in response to you. pre-lingual infants don't have a concept of 'self.' they don't think, "I'm hungry, so I will cry to get attention." crying, gurgling and other infant behaviors are, in this view, akin to breathing. Mead calls these 'insignificant gestures.' there is about as much intention (agency) involved in these behaviors as there typically is in breathing: none.

through the responses of other people, the child learns to consider "me" as another symbolic object. it is, of course, one of particular uniqueness, but it is still on par with other words. symbolic words are important because they allow the individual to imagine situations far-removed from their immediate surroundings, to envision action and consequences in such situations. "I" becomes one such symbol to be manipulated in imagined situations.

this is what i spent so much time talking about basic trust earlier. it's closely related to individual cosmology (world-view). because the ability to manipulate symbols in one's imagination is so important to how human beings proceed in the world, one's trust or faith in his or her cosmology is vital. what does your "self" matter if you can't paint an accurate portrait of the life surrouding it for yourself?

and to be sure, the development of "self" is a slow process involving discreet steps. among them includes distinction between self and other, distinction between other's view of self and self's view of itself, and distinction between a generalized other and particular reference groups. these all take place during the early formative years.

no, this doesn't answer the question, why are you Stanley Tarrant? but it lays down a general pattern that can be used to answer that question. you'd need to account for the particular details of your life to explain how you turned out to be who you are, but that doesn't require original idiosyncracy (that is, something to explain your uniqueness from birth, such as a soul).

in my humble opinion, this also doesn't detract from your value as an individual.

other subsequent theoriests have elaborated on the idea, explored particular "what if" scenarios, and looked at different aspects of self. identity formation is one of the largest areas of social science scholarship there is.

Goffman's main contributions were methods to attend to how we modify our "self" in different situations (The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life) and how we make sense of the situation we're in (Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Interpretation of Experience).

R.D. Laing, who was not a symbolic interactionist, developed the notion of ontological security (The Divided Self), which is essentially an examination of the psychological mechanisms that allow us to feel real, to feel that other people are real and human as we are, and the consequences of losing that sense of security. he also explored issues of early and abnormal socialization (Politics of the Family; Sanity, Madness and the Family; The Politics of Experience and the Bird of Paradise).

Harold Garfinkel, who styled himself an ethnomethodologist, conducted studies to examine the 'indexicality' of language, or how the meaning of words is emergent in the situation in which they are uttered, rather than any meaning inherent in the word (in other words, people talking with each other unconsciously agree that their words have similar-enough meaning to proceed talking; his experiments were a riot. he'd 'trap' people in elevators and ask them to define a word. sometimes he pretended to be learning english, other times he gave clear signs of his ability to speak it fluenty. he'd pick another word of the definition provided by the person, and ask him or her to define that word. lather, rinse, and repeat until the person went berzerk. he suggested that people don't like facing the fragility of their language.

Anthony Giddens is last on my list. his book, Modernity & Self-Identity, was major theoretical foundation of my honors thesis in sociology (which was about self-identity and body modification). he attempts to contextualize what aspects of self-identity are universal and what aspects are unique to modern times. in so doing, he also tries to synthesize nearly two centuries of thought on issues of self (prior to that work, his sociological bailewick was political economy). one of his major insights is that identity isn't simply the story you tell about yourself, nor is it the statements others make about you, but rathers it's your actual ability to tell a story about yourself and to keep telling it in spite of potentially contradictory counter-narratives.

* * *

of course, these are superficial descriptions of their ideas, which are more more detailed (taking whole books to explain). you can argue against this stuff and that's all well and good. my orignal point was that you said no one can explain how you came to be who and what you are without relying on the concept of a soul. if you're genuinely interested in some of these soul-less explanations, you'd do a much greater service to yourself to check some of their books out of the local library. Mead's Mind, Self and Society is in pretty good circulation.

you're assuming there's a "you" distinct from your body, that could inhabit another body and be essentially the same "you." the self that would emerge from that body wouldn't be "you." "you" are a result of your particular set of genes and the circumstances into which you were born and an autocatalytic cycle of self-reflection.

whatnow? autocatalysis is any process that feeds itself. once you "have" a "self" you reflect on that self, and that leads you to take possibly new actions, which gives you an updated sense of your self to reflect on, which gives you more actions to consider taking, which gives you an even newer self to reflect on... ad naseum.

so you don't even have an eternal "self" that's "in" your body-of-Stanley-Terrant. "you" changes subtley from moment to moment, obviously from year to year, and drastically from life-stage to life-stage. if there were a necessary relationship between "you" and the 26 year old white male body of Stanley Terrant, then what makes you think it's the same "you" that was "in" the 25 year old white male body of Stanley Terrant, or the white male body of Stanley Terrant with its baby teeth, or the white male body of Stanley Terrant that happens to be asleep...? "you" couldn't arise without a body, and you wouldn't arise each moment without your body.

The purpose of the universe most likely cannot be explained with modern science, if with science at all. The easiest way to find purpose is to look within yourself.

However, with some of the more recent findings in science and bizarre fields like quantum physics, it is being found that there is a good chance that all life on the planet, and possibly everything in the entire universe, is as intricately as the human brain (one neuron (brain cell) can communicate with any other neuron without having to go through more than three other nuerons. There are more connections in the human brain than known stars). At this point my knowledge on the subject ends.

There is also the interesting fact that there is nothing in the human brain. Nobody is home. It has also been discovered that memory does not reside in any one part of the brain. The general theory now (among the major neurologists (the real ones, not those TV "impostors)) is that conciousness and memory are most likely the result of the electrical storms in the brain creating a "field" that is, essentially us. However, new theories are emerging that the brain is an "amplifier", though what it amplifies is still open to debate. However, it is important to remember, these are theories, and the theories can be proven invalid. It is also important to remember that the universe changes at different levels. If you were to go to the level of galaxies, this universe would seem fundamentaly different, and highly predictable. If you go to the quantum level, it is completely irrational relative to our perception of the universe.

At the moment, god appears to be a merely delusional construct of humanity in the current eyes of science. Strangely, however, humans all over the planet developed similar ideas about a "divinity" or "spirit" that is a supreme being, a personna. The nature of this "personna" varies greatly, but all ancient civilizations share this idea. Even more unusual is that in polytheistic religions the various "gods" have similar roles and purposes, and are divided similarly, generally with one "lord of the gods". In all of the religions on earth, there is the concept of a life after death. I have yet to hear of a religion depicting nothing but oblion when one dies. There is a common concept of a "paradise" and an "underworld". One is an ideal place that the worthy and just go to. The other is a place that is an eternal torment, created for those who knew nothing but evil in their life. The only other "after death" concept is reincarnation, in which a person's soul is given a new body, depending on the accomplishments of the previous life.

At our current stage in physcological development as a species, we cannot seem to come to an explanation about death, purpose of reality, and divinity, much less agree upon any of the ideas that have been proposed.

As far as I am concerned, there is no coincidence, not much fate, and only a little luck.

i don't remember the universe coming wrapped in a nice little package that said "for use with..." whether or not there is a purpose isn't a scientific question, because purpose presupposes creative design.

i read a recent Scientific American that was instructive about this stuff (unfortunately you have to pay for the article). Stanley, above, is dwelling on how and why he exists as he does and not as someone or something else. but, if the universe is infinately large and infinately full of matter, as some physicists now believe, and if consciousness is either a result of or necessarily concurrent with material bodies, then probability dictates there's another, exact Stanley Terrant somewhere out there asking the exact same questions in a GalCiv2 board exactly like this one on a planet shaped exactly like Earth and called Earth by speakers of a language called English, etc. however far away that might be, and however tiny the chance these Stanleys have of meeting, there's not only another one out there, but an infinity of them (and me: frightening thought, huh?).

of course, the two presumptions here are: whether the universe is infinitely spacious and infinitely full of matter and energy, a question physicists are now trying to answer, and whether or not the human self is more than the sum of its material parts, a question human beings have been trying to answer for eons. i'm not saying either of these assumptions are true or false, but i can learn and grow just as much from possibilities as i can mundane facts.

Seriously, why isn't Dystopic Global Emperor? I am generally distrustful of anyone who says they are an atheist since they tend to have a "this is stupid" outlook on all religious and spiritual topics but you are constantly making informed, emotionally detached, relevant posts!! So riddle me this Emperor Dystopic: Are the natural laws of the universe indicative of a design and therefore a creator or is it just humanities tendency to see patterns where there are none that make us think there are laws at all?

If its the first than there is some kind of divinity, and if its the second than science is useful but flawed since the patterns are imposed by us and therefor will constantly outlive their usefulness as we gain a broader view and impose new patterns on that view.
I don't expect you to "know" the answer but I would like your opinion anyway.

I

I agree, but my atheism has me curious, and I think it an important question to ask for my own self.

I guess this is a little pompous, but ok. I've just started reading the threads.

I am hoping to see some arguments that give me some insight into my own thoughts one way or the other.

I admit, I am ignorant on this subject.

Marcus

Generally, you would be correct.

Don't get me wrong,

I think that when the people who believe in any god they chose, do so without interruption, I have ultimate respect for their belief and any method they practice.
It would be nice though, if those some of the same religious ppl could have the same respect for my counter view.

Marcus

I tend to agree. I read a book last year ... I don't remember the title and etc. (apologies)

It was about men and the various 'new' stresses they face in modern society, and how to cope and adjust more effectively. I do remember this part well ... the author advised a man to seek solitude - rent a cabin by a lake for a month, for instance, and avoid all human contact. No phone, no books, no computers, no nothing - just be alone with himself, and think about things.

I tended to agree with his projections in the book, which were that a guy would emerge a much happier and stress-free person, mostly because I had already done what he advised myself. Several times, in fact, over a period of 10 years or so. I did it not from advice but from instinct or a hunch. Wish I'd read that book when I was a lot younger, would have saved a lot of trouble.

The thing is, it does work. I don't know how many times people I've met have commented on my "self-possession" or "presence" ... but then in today's society (in the U.S.), just being secure enough to know what you want makes you stand out like a sore-thumb. (imho) A lot of it I put down to simply learning to rely on myself, and to trust my feelings. It's difficult to achieve that in contact with others because they just can't stop intruding, so to speak. It would be difficult for me to explain any changes I went through, but mostly I prefer to keep it to myself. My "secret weapon."

I can only imagine what the result would have been if I were 'Emperor Material' like dystopic!  probably would have turned into another Einstein!

Of course this universe has a creative design, because, according to theories on quantum physics (I remind you once more, theories) the universe is a result of our perception of it. If, all of a sudden, everybody in the world decided (not just thought, but truly and fully believed, just like they believe in gravity as fact) that I don't exist, then according to science, I cease to exist. It has to do with interference patterns and wave packets, and at this point my knowledge on this sebject becomes hazy, thus, it is unreliable and cannot be trusted on anything further than what I stated above on that subject. In summary though, we give the universe purpose.

Going by the above stated, and also bringing into play what I said much earlier about a total connectivity in the universe, it is not unlikely that there is a "God" type sentience. Considering how the brain is made up of adaptable, replaceable, uniform processors without purpose, and should, for all intents and purposes, not work, then humans, if interconnected at a subconcious level, could theoretically create a concious entity through their brain-like connection. Further, this, for lack of a better word, "God" could manipulate humans (they being parts of the whole) and thus manipulate reality (through the theories that allow us to construct our own reality) to whatever end product "God" wanted.

If you add in the universe to that concept, what you end up with (going by what you stated about infinite universe) is an infinite entity that is everything, and through everything it is inevitably nothing as well; something that is infinitely intelligent, but through the laws of physics, ultimately stupid; something that is whole, but only the sum of it's parts; something that cannot be understood, though contrarily, have it's nature grasped by one of it's parts.

Thus, there is, scientifically, the remote possibility of a "God" if you follow all of that through. However, what you would ultimately end up with is a paradox, much like a human. Going by all of the opposites colliding, you end up with something that cannot exist, yet is perfect, and thus cannot be measured, though it can be examined and, to some degree, understood. What all of this also means is that when a human is attempting to understand the universe, they are the universe trying to understand itself.

Now, from here, I could attempt to support the atheistic view using the same reasoning I just have. However, I am tired as I have just gotten back from Taekwondo, and my muscles are aching, as is my brain from all of that thinking (that was improvising by the way, very thought intensive). So, I will come back to that tomorrow... If I feel like it.   Night folks!

PS: I am amazed this thread hasn't been locked... Most forums ban religious threads of any kind...

The astrophysicist in me demands that I step in here and clear something up. The universe is finite, that's pretty well a known fact due to the observable behavior of the system. We have a sense of its age, size, the amount of matter in it, it's rate of expansion, and can even make some fairly compelling guesses as to it's general behavior and future. The point here is that under no interpretation of the data I'm aware of is it possible that the universe is infinite in the sense you describe. What the article may be talking about (and I don't have a Sci Am subscription anymore so sadly I can't check) is the multiple universes interpretation of quantum mechanics, which holds that while this universe is finite there may be an infinite number of other universes, at which point your meditations on the nature of infinity may continue without further interruption.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled philosophical/religious discussion.

Well that killed my idea... I'll use this tomorrow in my counter hypothesis (I nearly spelled that kypothesis... Yeah, I'm exhausted...).

Or not, there's something else here that needs some clarification/correction:



That's not what quantum physics says. The QM idea you're referring to here is the one which states that you cannot observe something without impacting it. This is most noticable on a quantum level, where in order to measure the location of, say, a particle, you must bounce another particle off of it thus moving it and changing the very location you sought to measure. I'm not aware of any legitimate interpretation of quantum physics that has anything to do with belief. If everyone on Earth decided that you didn't exist, quantum mechanics says nothing about you ceasing to exist.

If you know some calculus I recommend Griffith's Introduction to Quantum Mechanics as a reasonably accessible introduction to the subject. If you don't, I recommend Gilmore's Alice in Quantumland as a reasonable layman's introduction to the basic ideas behind quantum physics.

There's something of a new agist trend to assign to QM any notion that sounds "spacey," since most people don't really know much about it. The best counter to that, then, is to learn something about what it really says.

Oh and Gandron, the "god is universe" idea you're formulating is typically termed "pantheism" or sometimes "scientific pantheism" these days. It's an interesting branch of philosophy, you might find the writings of a chap called "Spinoza" interesting.

religion states that the universe is infinite but we are to humble to behold.

We can never look upon Gods creation and understand its true majesty.

But what if we do, does that negate God?

Some ppl think if we look before the "Big Bang" we will have "touched the hand of god"

I disagree

Even as an Atheist I believe the universe is far too convoluted for us as humans to fathom its nature as yet.

Does that make me think of God?

No. it makes me think that we haven't learned enough about the nature of our existence that we can unthrone Gods quiet omnipotence quite yet.

But we surely will.

Marcus

Are you, or do you just think you are? How do you know you're not Emily Brown, a 22 year old Scottish Housewife who is simply dreaming that she is in fact Stanley Tarrant?

You've asked a multitude of questions there, I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to, but I'll give it a go.
Firstly, you aren't Stanley Tarrant, you simply think you are. You're conscience identifies itself as Stanley Tarrant. However, I or any other independent observer would not necessarily identify you as such. Even your parent's definition of the entity known as Stanley Tarrant will differ in key ways from your own.

No. Your consciousness is a product of your brain. There's the whole field of sociology, psychology and similar devoted to what makes your personality. Suffice it to say that the reason you are uniqu (to yourself at least) is partly because you cannot experience anyone else's conscience (we could all be Stanley Tarrant, but you'll never be any of us to find out) and partly because your own experiences from birth are unique to you.
To give an example, assume you had an identical twin which was exact in every detail. If this twin had had the exact same experiences as you yourself from birth, then that twin too would be Stanley Tarrant. If we seperated you at birth and sent your twin to Poland, then it would be very different to the Stanley Tarrant you are currently.
You can see it yourself. Think back to when you were eight. Is the eight year old Stanley Tarrant the exact same Stanley Tarrant you are at twenty six, or are their differences between the you then and the you now?

Unless you have incredibly strange parents, it's biologically impossible for their offspring to be a bird or a maggot. Hence you would be human. You don't know though that there isn't some maggot sitting somewhere asking why it's a two month old maggot and not some 26 year old human called Stanley Tarrant

No, you didn't exist. Assuming you followed the average development for a human, Stanley Tarrant wouldn't begin to exist until three or four months after he was born, and even then he wouldn't be aware of himself. Two years after his birth Stanley would be beginning to realise that he existed as an individual, conscious being. The rest of his life would see a constant re-evaluation and evolution of Stanley Tarrant.
Look at it this way, unless you've been in a coma since typing your post, the Stanley Tarrant which wrote it no longer exists. The Stanley Tarrant reading this is very similar, but not the exact same Stanley Tarrant. When you're 46 years old, the Stanley Tarrant you are then will be greatly different from the one you are now (or you could even be the 46 year old white female Stacy Tarrant, you never know). At 86, the 26 year old Stanley Tarrant will likely be nothing but a memory of the Stanley Tarrant of that time, although certain key parts of 26 year old Stanley may still be there, the majority will be incredibly different.

No it doesn't. Stanley Tarrant is a creation of that body, you did not come into that body and inhabit it like some parasite or Invasion of the Bodysnatchers style alien. You came from part of that body, an incredibly complex information processing unit called the brain, and without it you wouldn't exist. Your parents will have observed you develop alongside the physical development of the brain in the first few years of your life, and your parents, friends and colleagues will observe further developments in Stanley Tarrant as his brain collates, collects and processes new information and experiences. When you reach old age, then those same friends and colleagues will witness further changes in Stanley Tarrant as parts of the brain become impaired or shut down with the advance of age. Eventually, they will see Stanley Tarrant cease to exist as the brain finally shuts down for the last time. One thing we can state for a fact - they will never see Stanley Tarrant without his brain, or his brain without Stanley Tarrant (even if he ends up misplacing a few limbs or other organs )

How would you exist without such a body? Death as we know it is not caused because your personality ends (look at those in a vegetative state or coma) but because the body does. Your body didn't come from nowhere, it came through the combination of cells from your parents.

If you were to live a new life again though, you wouldn't be Stanley Tarrant.

Theoretically, if the universe is infinite and therefore allows for infinite probability, then there's every chance you might pop back into existence at some point. Wouldn't be the kind of afterlife I think you'd be after though.

Because another body wouldn't necessarily generate the exact same electrical activity in the brain which creates you, nor would it undergo the precise and required experiences which give you your sense of self and personality. Without either, you cannot exist as Stanley Tarrant. To put it another way, every human alive at this moment in time generates similar electrical activity in the brain, and many will undergo similar experiences. Only one of them is Stanley Tarrant though.


The problem is no scientific law is inviolate or absolute, many can be and are broken by various phenomena (especially when we start getting to quantum level). It's more a case of us developing loose patterns which prove true regularly enough to be useful.

You do know this is a statement of faith, right? You are just looking for a different kind of messiah.

Well, as I said before, my knowledge on the subject is very hazy. It's second hand knowledge (I heard it from somebody who read it, so I guess that would make it third hand... creepy). I was not implying that this is what I believe. I was just thinking out... well, loud. Playing around with a concept.

It's more a philosophical issue than a scientific one.

If you can no longer affect the world around you in any way, then depending on how you define existence you could well cease to exist. It doesn't mean you disappear in a puff of logic, merely that your existence or not no longer has any validity. The counter-argument would be the standard "I think therefore I am".

Has anyone got any thoughts of their own.
Or are we merely to be guided by the ideas of others.

This seems to be a debate on customary and accepted theology.

What is the point of arguing some other thoughts that aren't yours.

Should i quote "good will hunting" or do the theologists alone still beg eager for answers

Marcus

If a thought is truly original there are no words yet created to describe it.

If that were true then what is our purpose of living?
I think we are such as in life, God is in essence destined to create an order of man that challenges God
In that we must become all that God gave us life for.

I think that I might learn, My race learns and knows the nature of the universe
is is a trick, is is a fantasy of God that we can only learn so much.
or are we destined to be one with the universe and god
Know all things.
if not, why grant us the ability to learn

If this is so, then we are destined to be all knowing, understanding all things, at one with creation.
One with god, the answer to all our prayers.

If we were made in Gods image then surely we can rise to Gods equal.

Marcus

Understood. If you're interested in the subject, though, Alice in Quantumland really is a pretty good way of learning about it.

As to the immediate topic at hand, as others have said, it's more a philosophical question than a scientific one.