Why am I me?

[KichigaiNeko]

---

God makes sense as the ultimate cause of reality, much more sense than any theory I've heard postulated by man. Not that I am conceding anything as far as truth, but really I don't know how people could be so skeptical about God but not about the nonsense people say caused the Universe. As a theory, it explains quite a bit about reality, in fact it can explain everything about it, from macro to micro. It explains morality, it explains why the Universe appears designed and fine tuned for life, it explains how a well organizaed and infinitely precise Universe arose from something chaotic, and that out of nothing. Truth, beauty, reason, logic..even things like altrusim, God resolves all of these philosophical dilemmas. Some people may use it as an excuse, but there is a rich history of philosophical discourse here which you are underwriting unjustly.

Gods don't address any ultimate causes either: They are simply excuses for those who don't want to put in the time and effort to investigate reality.

To the OP: Read Daniel Dennett and John Searle on consciousness. They do some incredibly good work describing how consciousness and identity seem to work.

---

Santa explains the reality of Christmas a helluva lot more compellingly than Jeebus. Does that make him real?

Epi FTW!!

Hellava lot of verbage to say nothing Luce

[Rhizomorph13]

God makes sense as the ultimate cause of reality, much more sense than any theory I've heard postulated by man.

---

Not that I am conceding anything as far as truth, but really I don't know how people could be so skeptical about God but not about the nonsense people say caused the Universe. As a theory, it explains quite a bit about reality, in fact it can explain everything about it, from macro to micro. It explains morality, it explains why the Universe appears designed and fine tuned for life, it explains how a well organizaed and infinitely precise Universe arose from something chaotic, and that out of nothing. Truth, beauty, reason, logic..even things like altrusim, God resolves all of these philosophical dilemmas. Some people may use it as an excuse, but there is a rich history of philosophical discourse here which you are underwriting unjustly.

Gods don't address any ultimate causes either: They are simply excuses for those who don't want to put in the time and effort to investigate reality.

To the OP: Read Daniel Dennett and John Searle on consciousness. They do some incredibly good work describing how consciousness and identity seem to work.

---

God is a theory postulated by man, but anyway, what predictive power does your God give you about the universe? For example you claim that God explains the micro to the macro so, how does God explain a reaction between hydrogen peroxide, mixed with fluorescent dye, and diphenyl oxalate ester? Using God as a metric, how beautiful is the eiffel tower?

I think God is just a nonsenseical imaginary filler that can be placed anywhere and be equally meaningless.

[Epimethean]

God minus infinity equals a billion angels dancing on the head of a pin plus one devil times two billion idiots.

[toro]

Universe appears designed and fine tuned for life

Why do you draw this conclusion instead of that life is so fine-tuned to the universe? By this same argument...
The word 'lucent' was picked just perfectly for you! If it were not for your desire to use it as a member name on atheistforums.org, God would never have inspired man to develop language to create a word that would sound that way while simultaneously meaning bright and clear. That was some thoughtful work on its part.

it explains how a well organizaed and infinitely precise

The universe cannot be infinitely precise. This contradicts the current and leading theories of physics.

Universe arose from something chaotic,

The dynamical interactions explain this. Hence, God is unnecessary unless you are defining God as the interactions. In which case, you need to separate your definition of "God" and "YHWH" in future posts.

and that out of nothing.

You are assuming the universe came "out of nothing". This remains one of the key, unresolved issues of modern physics. Some theories have the universe always existing. Others have the universe starting due to collision between super dimensional membranes. Others suggest that the "universe" is actually a reflection of nothingness (ergo, nothing still exists). Others have the universe spatially expanding in reference to another expanding in the opposite spacetime dimensions. This last one then simply means the universe only has value with reference to the other, and therefore outside of both nothing continues to exist.

-------------------------
One theory is that 'you' exist separately from everyone else because physically, the universe is a collection of separate, isolated systems. Hence, only the interaction between systems (from the POV of one system) exist. The objects causing the interaction have no physical existence.

Physically speaking, this is a form of relativity. The sun doesn't have a definitive physically existence to anything not interacting with it. From the POV of an electron named Jim, only the photons hitting the electron at any given moment do, and the electron stops being the electron and becomes the electron-photon. Anything that is not interacting with it does not exist. From the POV of a human, since we are neurologically a signal in the brain, our neurological signal exists but nothing else does. Hence 'you' are conscious because from your POV, literally nothing not entering your brain physically exists. You are the universe in a sense. Your brain signal does not physically interact with mine, and they remain completely isolated, hence they exist in separate 'universes' so to speak.

This is only possible if we assume there is no objective background universe of which we are interacting. If we do, then that explains what "I" am and why "I" am not "you". This simultaneously means that nothing else can simultaneously physically interact with us (ergo, "know" our consciousness) and everything else at the same time. Read: God.

This is the end result of the RQM interpretation of quantum mechanics.

[The Grand Nudger]

God created the universe out of what then, since nothing isn't an option?

[lucent]

Why do you draw this conclusion instead of that life is so fine-tuned to the universe? By this same argument...

The word 'lucent' was picked just perfectly for you! If it were not for your desire to use it as a member name on atheistforums.org, God would never have inspired man to develop language to create a word that would sound that way while simultaneously meaning bright and clear. That was some thoughtful work on its part.

Clearly I can't have a desire before I exist. The Universe began before me, and my existence is no more important than anyone else.

The universe cannot be infinitely precise. This contradicts the current and leading theories of physics.

Then let's say it is so precise as to have a perfect record of performance.

The dynamical interactions explain this. Hence, God is unnecessary unless you are defining God as the interactions. In which case, you need to separate your definition of "God" and "YHWH" in future posts.

"Dynamical interactions" don't explain it. Here is the theory: (for some reason - Universe begins - explodes - (bunch of magic happens) - order). A directed process makes a bit more sense than this.

And no scientific theory can exclude God, because it cannot rule out Agency.

You are assuming the universe came "out of nothing". This remains one of the key, unresolved issues of modern physics. Some theories have the universe always existing. Others have the universe starting due to collision between super dimensional membranes. Others suggest that the "universe" is actually a reflection of nothingness (ergo, nothing still exists). Others have the universe spatially expanding in reference to another expanding in the opposite spacetime dimensions. This last one then simply means the universe only has value with reference to the other, and therefore outside of both nothing continues to exist.

Stephan Hawking said that the existence of gravity means the Universe could be created out of nothing. I wondered how people could take someone who said something like that seriously.

I am assuming the Universe began, for which there is excellent evidence. I am assuming that something doesn't come from nothing, which is logical. I am assuming that without an eternal first cause you have an infinite regress of causes which is nonsense.

I would also ask why God is any less probable than any of those theories. Design in the Universe is so obvious that the "multiple universe theory" is proposed to eliminate the problem of the impossibility of the odds against such a Universe like ours from spontaneously occuring. With many Universes, eventually our Universe becomes mathematically possible, but then you haven't dealt with the multiple universe generator which is even more fine tuned than the original fine tuning problem.

I will suggest that the problem people have with God has nothing to do with probability and everything to do with an imagined right to complete freedom for self-determination which isn't even logically possible without God.

One theory is that 'you' exist separately from everyone else because physically, the universe is a collection of separate, isolated systems. Hence, only the interaction between systems (from the POV of one system) exist. The objects causing the interaction have no physical existence.

Physically speaking, this is a form of relativity. The sun doesn't have a definitive physically existence to anything not interacting with it. From the POV of an electron named Jim, only the photons hitting the electron at any given moment do, and the electron stops being the electron and becomes the electron-photon. Anything that is not interacting with it does not exist. From the POV of a human, since we are neurologically a signal in the brain, our neurological signal exists but nothing else does. Hence 'you' are conscious because from your POV, literally nothing not entering your brain physically exists. You are the universe in a sense. Your brain signal does not physically interact with mine, and they remain completely isolated, hence they exist in separate 'universes' so to speak.

This is only possible if we assume there is no objective background universe of which we are interacting. If we do, then that explains what "I" am and why "I" am not "you". This simultaneously means that nothing else can simultaneously physically interact with us (ergo, "know" our consciousness) and everything else at the same time. Read: God.

Why not? Where do you get the idea that humans are only "neurological signals in the brain"? That's one giant leap don't you think? What if in this example everyone is a part of God? Why couldn't God be the I AM behind all little i am's?

This is the end result of the RQM interpretation of quantum mechanics.

It's probably the most interesting denial of God I've heard yet, but it doesn't add up to anything.

[frankiej]

Lucent, you are assuming a lot. We can say that we don't know, so why can't you?

[lucent]

Lucent, you are assuming a lot. We can say that we don't know, so why can't you?

You do say you know. If you don't know then you have no foundation to stand upon to say that I am wrong. And if you knew there is a God, you wouldn't deny Him either. I won't say I don't know because I do know.

[frankiej]

Hahaha, ok then...

[KichigaiNeko]

Lucent, you are assuming a lot. We can say that we don't know, so why can't you?

You do say you know. If you don't know then you have no foundation to stand upon to say that I am wrong. And if you knew there is a God, you wouldn't deny Him either. I won't say I don't know because I do know.

There is no evidence luce...none in 2000 years...

next?