Philosophy is not science. It is philosophy. I'm done responding to anything you say, you're not even interested in understand why you're wrong.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:23 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: But we see that there is consciousness in the effect - I'm conscious, I imagine you are too.

Why shouldn't consciousness exist in the cause?

Because consciousness didn't exist in the effect for a significant portion of it. Thus the reasonable conclusion is that consciousness is the effect of the effect and not a party to the cause.

---

(October 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Because then we'd have an effect greater than it's cause.

Really? So you have some system of measuring the greatness of causes and effects? Tell me, what standards do you use?

(October 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Like, I threw a nail out of my window, and when I looked outside, there was a brand new car - that doesn't make sense.

It totally makes sense. The nail you threw out punctured the
tire of a brand new car that happened to be driving by.

Regarding your actual argument - a tree grows from an acorn - one of the many, many examples of where the effect is "greater" than the cause.

(October 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: And whether it's proven or not, it's not logical to automatically take a supreme consciousness off the table as a live possibility.

It has never been on the table - except in the minds of deluded theists. So, we have no reason to put it on the table and, given the complex structure required for any consciousness, plenty of reason to take it off - even if it was on the table.

(October 17, 2012 at 1:30 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(October 17, 2012 at 8:23 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: But we see that there is consciousness in the effect - I'm conscious, I imagine you are too.

Why shouldn't consciousness exist in the cause?

Because consciousness didn't exist in the effect for a significant portion of it. Thus the reasonable conclusion is that consciousness is the effect of the effect and not a party to the cause.

I just want to thank you for posting the only reasonable response to this point. Whether I agree with it or not, at least it makes sense!

Maybe your point is true, maybe not. Do models of the origin of the universe prove that consciousness didn't exist for a significant early portion of it, or are they based on that assumption?

(October 17, 2012 at 1:37 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: I just want to thank you for posting the only reasonable response to this point. Whether I agree with it or not, at least it makes sense!

Maybe your point is true, maybe not. Do models of the origin of the universe prove that consciousness didn't exist for a significant early portion of it, or are they based on that assumption?

what does consciousness have to do with the origin of the universe?
You are mixing to fields of science wich have absolutly nothing to do together!

Alright I'm tired of hiding it; I'm a time traveler and I came from the distant future. We are the ones that started the universe, we went back in time and there was a big black bomb with a fuse coming out the top, we lit that and *boom* the universe started. If you would like to know more about my revelations from the future, including how we inevitably destory this universe, please send $20 plus and a self addressed stamped envelope to:

1234 NE Phobaw st.
Hillsboro Or. 97124
c/o Onemtar the time traveler

Please include $5.95 shipping and handling void where prohibited. If you would like plans on how to build an interocitor add $10 to the above price. Act now while supplies last!

(October 17, 2012 at 1:15 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: You know how everyone is always telling me I need to learn more science? Well, ok. But some of you really need to learn more about epistemology. I think you'd figure out why your point is silly if you even just read a wikipedia entry on what epistemology even is.

Your sentence would be better if it said "there is no evidence that is accepted by modern science" or "there is no evidence or rationale that me and my friends like." There is tons (and tons and tons and tons) of evidence. If you've bothered to investigate, the most truthful thing you could say is "I don't like the evidence", not "there is no evidence." Really important difference. Otherwise you're locked in a weird dogma where you assume only modern science produces truth (although modern science can't prove that only modern science produces truth).

The real point is that science simply can't help with these questions.

Why don't you try studying some epistemology yourself? That branch of philosophy does not give any evidence on the form and nature of existence of consciousness. In fact, it simply takes consciousness as a given and goes from there.

Further, science can and does help with questions regarding consciousness. A lot of details about how consciousness works have, in fact, been revealed by science. You really should study it.

(October 17, 2012 at 1:15 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: If you've got consciousness in your final product, it must have been in the original list of ingredients.

That's where you show your embarrassing ignorance of both science and cooking. Ingredients combine, break-down and react in all sorts of manner, such that the stuff you find in your final product may not be anywhere to be found in your ingredients.

To use your own analogy, the taste and flavor you find in the finished chocolate cake cannot be found in the ingredients. It is only when they are mixed and combined in a particular manner that those characteristics emerge. Similarly, consciousness is an emergent property of complex structures that does not exist in original ingredients.

(October 17, 2012 at 1:15 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Where did the Big Bang come from? And what banged out of that thing, anyway?

The fact that you'd even make a statement like that shows how pathetically ignorant you are.

---

(October 17, 2012 at 1:37 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: I just want to thank you for posting the only reasonable response to this point. Whether I agree with it or not, at least it makes sense!

Maybe your point is true, maybe not. Do models of the origin of the universe prove that consciousness didn't exist for a significant early portion of it, or are they based on that assumption?

Try and follow this simple logic:

1. Any and all consciousness we know of exists as a result of complex biological systems. No consciousness has ever been observed in anything other than those systems.

2. We know that these systems did not exist for a significant portion of the universe's history.

3. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that cosnsciousness existed in those parts either.

(October 17, 2012 at 10:51 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Ahhhhh, this explains where your misinformation is coming from. You're using WLC's failed arguments. This one has been debunked many times. Here are some examples:

http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/0...-vilenkin/

The article goes on to say:
~~~~
Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:

[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."
~~~~

But this quote is out of context. Here is the whole quote.

~~~~
You can evade the theorem by postulating prior to some time. This sounds as if there's nothing wrong with having a contraction prior to expansion but the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities so it would never make it to the expanding phase.

So if someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.
~~~~

It seems to me that the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorm does imply an absolute beginning of the universe.

The universe may have had a beginning. So what?

(October 17, 2012 at 5:32 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: The universe may have had a beginning. So what?

I'm glad you asked! The last 3 pages of posts have been just people disliking how I phrased my question.

I'm saying, if God doesn't exist (so he certainly had no part in the beginning of the universe) what do you personally believe regarding the beginning of the universe?

Jeff: http://atheistforums.org/rules.php

Quote:Forum Guidelines
5. Do Not Plagiarize.
When quoting from a source other than yourself give credit where credit is due. Use citations, links, names, etc. when possible. Academic integrity is important to many of the members here and it's only fair to give credit where it is due. It is also the legal thing to do, in most cases. Adding your opinion alongside cited text will not only improve the quality of your post but is encouraged.

While the guidelines are not as strictly enforced as the rules, passing off the words of another as your own is inherently dishonest and far from reasonable.