Free will is a messed up concept. Who exactly would be making the decision? A "person" is just a conveniently abstract way of describing a bunch of stuff stuck together. And not even the same stuff; it's constantly replacing itself with other bits.

The brain is similarly a massive complex machine. There is no one part in charge, the whole thing decides together. The idea of a "self" is another illusion, in my opinion.

(February 8, 2016 at 6:53 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: I'm pretty sure claiming "consciousness, therefore god" is an argument from ignorance, but I'm not sure that's the best way to respond. I know there must be a proper name for this argument but I either can't remember what that name is, or I've not heard the name used before. I've personally mainly been tackling the biological and psychical (e.g. astronomy/cosmology) arguments against religion. I find biology and physics more interesting and, as a result, I feel as though I've neglected the psychological side of things.

A religionist may say "How did we get from clumps of sub-atomic particles/atoms/cells to being conscious?" That would be where the "argument from ignorance" comes in. But I think that's too simplistic an answer. Or maybe I'm over thinking this.

Perhaps it is just best to say "I don't know" in relation to consciousness. Just like the only honest answer to the creation of our universe is "I don't know" (because it's arrogant to claim otherwise). I'll be interested to see how consciousness affects the many-worlds interpretation (if it is proven), but that's something we're far away from learning about right now.

Some context:

I needed a good laugh to cheer me up, so I went looking for more "I'm totally not an Islamist but I used to be a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir and I'm reluctant to condemn them" Hamza Tzortis - something I do from time to time (though less often now). His newest video, "I Am an Atheist" proves God!, was very confusing and incoherent but it at least got me thinking about consciousness. The video was full of jargon and doublespeak (which I am sure his cheer-squad don't understand either, even though they may pretend otherwise) and it made very little sense to me as a result - so I suggest not watching it. N.B. Hamza claims this argument is not "god of the gaps" but I'm pretty sure it is because it relies on us not fully understanding consciousness.

This is a late reply, but hamza says that if we knew everything about the brain we would still not know what it's like for you to have a conscious experience, and we would not know why consciousness emerges from physical processes.

I actually laughed at the next bit when his friend says "So this is not a god of the gaps fallacy" and before he can even finish saying that Hamza says "It is NOT a god of the gaps fallacy."

It is a god of the gaps fallacy.  You can't really say with much certainty what you would discover if you knew everything about the human brain because we don't know about the human brain, so I don't get how he knows we wouldn't discover why consciousness emerges from physical processes if we did know about the brain. 

It seems to me that evidence points towards consciousness coming from the brain, so if we knew everything about the brain I don't see why it's outside the realms of possibility that we would know at least something about consciousness.

I really do not see how anyone can argue for god without using the "god of the gaps" fallacy. God has no form, no description, and no measurable qualities, it's just a believers panacea for the unexplained. If you think about every time you ask a believer how they know god exists they always give reference to a feeling or experience they cant explain and attribute it to god.

If I go to grab a fish, and the fish dodges my grasp, what is it that makes the fish do so? Does the fish have at least some of the same awareness as us, however much simpler?

If not, what causes it to move? God? Why would He / She / It personally intervene to decide that you don't get a fish for supper? Is he testing your faith? How would your faith in Him / Her / It be strengthened by not having a fish?

paulpablo, thank you for your detailed reply, albeit a late one. His friend is called Sabour Ahmed in case you were wondering; when Hamza is too afraid to debate a particular person (like in the case EscenceofThought) he puts forward either Sabour Ahmed or Imran Hussain so that they take the hit instead of him.

Anyhow, I have to agree with your post. I hope we do come to fully understand consciousness, and not just because it will make Hamza appear even more stupid than he already is. I do wonder though: Is there a better way of phrasing "argument from ignorance"? If I use that term, the Theist might feel that I've just insulted them (called them ignorant), especially if they don't understand the term. Perhaps there is a way I can dance around the term but still get my point across?

God of the gaps I have no problem with I guess, but it might cause them to be defensive nonetheless. Maybe I'm being too paranoid though, and I shouldn't actually shy away from using such terms. I realize that some people will never be convinced, not matter what you tell them, but I certainly don't want to get them defensive.

(February 14, 2016 at 4:53 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: paulpablo, thank you for your detailed reply, albeit a late one. His friend is called Sabour Ahmed in case you were wondering; when Hamza is too afraid to debate a particular person (like in the case EscenceofThought) he puts forward either Sabour Ahmed or Imran Hussain so that they take the hit instead of him.

Anyhow, I have to agree with your post. I hope we do come to fully understand consciousness, and not just because it will make Hamza appear even more stupid than he already is. I do wonder though: Is there a better way of phrasing "argument from ignorance"? If I use that term, the Theist might feel that I've just insulted them (called them ignorant), especially if they don't understand the term. Perhaps there is a way I can dance around the term but still get my point across?

God of the gaps I have no problem with I guess, but it might cause them to be defensive nonetheless. Maybe I'm being too paranoid though, and I shouldn't actually shy away from using such terms. I realize that some people will never be convinced, not matter what you tell them, but I certainly don't want to get them defensive.

The thing about the god of the gaps argument is that it is old, atheists do often bring it up, it is a cliché.  I hate using it.  I shy away from using those terms but that is what it is.  He's making an argument about something he has no reasonable knowledge about.

On the subject of Hamza having no knowledge, funny story: I once had a dream that he made an appearance on my favourite TV quiz show and he could not answer a single question because of how dumb he is. Wahaabis are like that though. It's rare to find a Wahaabi with an average or above IQ because they spend too much time trying to become Hafiz and what not. Their lexicon is usually limited to Tasbih too.

I ask them to define the traits of this "god". If they can understand that simple notion and that without the brain there is no "you" I have a fighting chance to dispell the magic parts.

The self help stuff is fine as long as they understand god does not judge anybody for being anything other then human.

(February 14, 2016 at 1:40 pm)robvalue Wrote: Free will is a messed up concept. Who exactly would be making the decision? A "person" is just a conveniently abstract way of describing a bunch of stuff stuck together. And not even the same stuff; it's constantly replacing itself with other bits.

The brain is similarly a massive complex machine. There is no one part in charge, the whole thing decides together. The idea of a "self" is another illusion, in my opinion.

It must take a lot of cognitive dissonance daily deciding what to do with your life and then denying your own identity and volition.

My identity has nothing to do with god.

And your signature is the most retarded, most illogical thing I have encountered yet.