I don't understand pantheism

[Gearbreak]

I guess there's a small possibility that the universe has a consciousness. But I'm not gonna place any bets on it anytime soon.

Um no, no chance at all. If you are to agree with the likes of Hawking, "A God is not required", then why would the universe itself need to be a giant cognition itself? 

Yes there is cognition in the universe, IE life on earth, but again, that cannot bet treated the same because biological life is not the collective universe. Atoms in non life are not structured the same way as carbon based life. No reason at all to even consider a giant cognition knowing this. 

"So you're saying there's a chance?"

Ok sure, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, I "might" fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my butt. The idea that the universe collectively is conscious is superfluous and just like the old God claims of antiquity causes excess baggage and would also suffer the problem with infinite regress on top of that.

There are lots of steps between a sub atomic particle, to an atom, to a molecule, to an organ, to a neuron, and the universe outside of evolution does not look the same, the atom structures outside evolution do not function the same way. Consciousness is an outcome of natural processes, not a required starting point. One rain drop isn't the entire cloud or the entire hurricane. 

So if you agree that you would not bet on it, and I agree, I would not bet on a consciousness being the cause of all this, then don't feed either the fundies, or the si fi wooers. 

Consciousness is a temporary blip, just like a hurricane does not exist prior to existing and has to build up to one, but even then, it has a finite time and will eventually break up and stop being a hurricane.

Man that's a lot of shit to say about my small opinion on this. The universe is vast and mostly unknown, who knows what the fuck else we're going to find. So I don't like to say anything is impossible until we know everything. 
And I'm not feeding anything, people who believe shit will believe shit despite what I say. Hell I hope the most harmful thing people believe in the future is that the universe is conscious. I hate the violence that is perpetuated by religion, not belief itself.

[Brian37]

Um no, no chance at all. If you are to agree with the likes of Hawking, "A God is not required", then why would the universe itself need to be a giant cognition itself? 

Yes there is cognition in the universe, IE life on earth, but again, that cannot bet treated the same because biological life is not the collective universe. Atoms in non life are not structured the same way as carbon based life. No reason at all to even consider a giant cognition knowing this. 

"So you're saying there's a chance?"

Ok sure, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, I "might" fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my butt. The idea that the universe collectively is conscious is superfluous and just like the old God claims of antiquity causes excess baggage and would also suffer the problem with infinite regress on top of that.

There are lots of steps between a sub atomic particle, to an atom, to a molecule, to an organ, to a neuron, and the universe outside of evolution does not look the same, the atom structures outside evolution do not function the same way. Consciousness is an outcome of natural processes, not a required starting point. One rain drop isn't the entire cloud or the entire hurricane. 

So if you agree that you would not bet on it, and I agree, I would not bet on a consciousness being the cause of all this, then don't feed either the fundies, or the si fi wooers. 

Consciousness is a temporary blip, just like a hurricane does not exist prior to existing and has to build up to one, but even then, it has a finite time and will eventually break up and stop being a hurricane.

Man that's a lot of shit to say about my small opinion on this. The universe is vast and mostly unknown, who knows what the fuck else we're going to find. So I don't like to say anything is impossible until we know everything. 
And I'm not feeding anything, people who believe shit will believe shit despite what I say. Hell I hope the most harmful thing people believe in the future is that the universe is conscious. I hate the violence that is perpetuated by religion, not belief itself.

You are postulating a gap answer, and it is no better than when theists use a God of the gaps.

Saying you don't know something is fine, making up woo is to fill in the gap is still a naked assertion.

If there is no need to fill in the gap with old God/s/deities/super natural, then there is also no need to add the superfluous naked assertion that the universe itself is a giant cognition. It would still as an idea be a gap answer, and still suffer the problems of "begging the question" and "infinite regress".

It is ok to ditch bad claims. In fact it is not only ok, it is a good thing. Never postulate anything with extra baggage. As I said in a prior post, if you already accept that there is no cognition named Poseidon causing hurricanes, nor a cognition named Thor causing lightening then the universe itself does not need the extra baggage gap filling naked assertion as being a giant cognition itself.

And I already explained to you that there are tons if steps between a single particle to an entire in tact life. You cannot have cognition in life by skipping those steps. You cannot treat say a quark as an entire neuron much less an entire in tact brain all by itself. 

You are correct that there are lots of unknowns, but there is also alot we DO KNOW, and scientists know that atoms in non living objects are arranged far differently than carbon based life. That makes it literally physically impossible for the universe to be a giant cognition itself. 

If you think that way, you might as well chalk all this up to a giant invisible pink unicorn too.

[Gearbreak]

Man that's a lot of shit to say about my small opinion on this. The universe is vast and mostly unknown, who knows what the fuck else we're going to find. So I don't like to say anything is impossible until we know everything. 
And I'm not feeding anything, people who believe shit will believe shit despite what I say. Hell I hope the most harmful thing people believe in the future is that the universe is conscious. I hate the violence that is perpetuated by religion, not belief itself.

You are postulating a gap answer, and it is no better than when theists use a God of the gaps.

Saying you don't know something is fine, making up woo is to fill in the gap is still a naked assertion.

If there is no need to fill in the gap with old God/s/deities/super natural, then there is also no need to add the superfluous naked assertion that the universe itself is a giant cognition. It would still as an idea be a gap answer, and still suffer the problems of "begging the question" and "infinite regress".

It is ok to ditch bad claims. In fact it is not only ok, it is a good thing. Never postulate anything with extra baggage. As I said in a prior post, if you already accept that there is no cognition named Poseidon causing hurricanes, nor a cognition named Thor causing lightening then the universe itself does not need the extra baggage gap filling naked assertion as being a giant cognition itself.

And I already explained to you that there are tons if steps between a single particle to an entire in tact life. You cannot have cognition in life by skipping those steps. You cannot treat say a quark as an entire neuron much less an entire in tact brain all by itself. 

You are correct that there are lots of unknowns, but there is also alot we DO KNOW, and scientists know that atoms in non living objects are arranged far differently than carbon based life. That makes it literally physically impossible for the universe to be a giant cognition itself. 

If you think that way, you might as well chalk all this up to a giant invisible pink unicorn too.

I don't have the energy to argue about something I don't care that much about. I disagree but I'm going to back off this one.

[Brian37]

You are postulating a gap answer, and it is no better than when theists use a God of the gaps.

Saying you don't know something is fine, making up woo is to fill in the gap is still a naked assertion.

If there is no need to fill in the gap with old God/s/deities/super natural, then there is also no need to add the superfluous naked assertion that the universe itself is a giant cognition. It would still as an idea be a gap answer, and still suffer the problems of "begging the question" and "infinite regress".

It is ok to ditch bad claims. In fact it is not only ok, it is a good thing. Never postulate anything with extra baggage. As I said in a prior post, if you already accept that there is no cognition named Poseidon causing hurricanes, nor a cognition named Thor causing lightening then the universe itself does not need the extra baggage gap filling naked assertion as being a giant cognition itself.

And I already explained to you that there are tons if steps between a single particle to an entire in tact life. You cannot have cognition in life by skipping those steps. You cannot treat say a quark as an entire neuron much less an entire in tact brain all by itself. 

You are correct that there are lots of unknowns, but there is also alot we DO KNOW, and scientists know that atoms in non living objects are arranged far differently than carbon based life. That makes it literally physically impossible for the universe to be a giant cognition itself. 

If you think that way, you might as well chalk all this up to a giant invisible pink unicorn too.

I don't have the energy to argue about something I don't care that much about. I disagree but I'm going to back off this one.

Please do, and actually you backing off is a good sign, because it should say to you, NOT ME, but to you, it is not a worthy argument to defend. Things with evidence don't need apology, or mental masturbation. Things with evidence are subject to repeated testing and falsification and peer review.

Uttering words because it sounds good to you is not evidence. Otherwise every human in our species who ever uttered a word would all be right all at the same time. I really am not treating your claim in this thread any differently than I would a standard old mythology defending theist.

[Gearbreak]

I don't have the energy to argue about something I don't care that much about. I disagree but I'm going to back off this one.

Please do, and actually you backing off is a good sign, because it should say to you, NOT ME, but to you, it is not a worthy argument to defend. Things with evidence don't need apology, or mental masturbation. Things with evidence are subject to repeated testing and falsification and peer review.

Uttering words because it sounds good to you is not evidence. Otherwise every human in our species who ever uttered a word would all be right all at the same time. I really am not treating your claim in this thread any differently than I would a standard old mythology defending theist.

I didn't think it was that worthy of defending in the first place. It's like if I said reeses was the best candy and you sent me a essay on how reeses is the worst candy and I should stop eating it. I'm still eating reeses but I'm not going to argue about it.

[Brian37]

Please do, and actually you backing off is a good sign, because it should say to you, NOT ME, but to you, it is not a worthy argument to defend. Things with evidence don't need apology, or mental masturbation. Things with evidence are subject to repeated testing and falsification and peer review.

Uttering words because it sounds good to you is not evidence. Otherwise every human in our species who ever uttered a word would all be right all at the same time. I really am not treating your claim in this thread any differently than I would a standard old mythology defending theist.

I didn't think it was that worthy of defending in the first place. It's like if I said reeses was the best candy and you sent me a essay on how reeses is the worst candy and I should stop eating it. I'm still eating reeses but I'm not going to argue about it.

Good then why do you keep arguing? None of the candy metaphor is an argument either. No shit, people are going to believe what they want regardless, so? Part you forget is far too many humans sacrifice knowledge out of fear because they do that. It still amounts to intellectual laziness. 

You can also staple your nuts to the wall, but I wouldn't recommend it.

[Gearbreak]

I didn't think it was that worthy of defending in the first place. It's like if I said reeses was the best candy and you sent me a essay on how reeses is the worst candy and I should stop eating it. I'm still eating reeses but I'm not going to argue about it.

Good then why do you keep arguing? None of the candy metaphor is an argument either. No shit, people are going to believe what they want regardless, so? Part you forget is far too many humans sacrifice knowledge out of fear because they do that. It still amounts to intellectual laziness. 

You can also staple your nuts to the wall, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Okay I will say one thing bothers me. Are you saying we shouldn't think about possibilities and just wait for scientists to tell us what's true? That future discoveries will all be nothing special and expected and follow the same pattern? That we know enough to understand the entire universe and whatever might lie beyond it? High estimate we might know 1% of the universe. We don't know jack shit. At the end of the day I go to bed not believing in gods or woo, but fuck if I know how it would work if it does exist. People thinking about what possible future discoveries waiting ahead is better than people denying current discoveries because their magic book said so. Hell if christians and muslims started thinking outside their books in any way that's a win in my book.