It's a God Theory

[theVOID]

It makes no sense to say that this is an ecumenical matter, it's beyond the scope of churches.

[Cando]

I was just mucking about. I don't even know what ecumenical means. It was a joke. I guess no one here remembers father ted.

[Rayaan]

So you're saying that life cannot form by a long process consistent with our empirical foundation, but can exist spontaneously without creation from the beginning of time?

I didn't say that life on earth cannot form by a long process that is consistent with our empirical foundations. My point was that the source of our life is something which is already alive itself (which is God), because to me it seems impossible that inanimate matter can organize itself into a living thing without a greater intelligence operating behind the laws of nature (even after knowing how evolution works).

And a non-physical mind has no explanatory virtue, you might as well say *poof magic* did it.

Maybe the mind is not physical after all, then, But I strongly feel that there is a mind behind the universe regardless of whether it is physical or not.

Also, it's not the same thing as saying *poof magic* did it because the belief in such a mind is an inference that many people have based on the the amount of complexity and self-organization that they see in living things and the geological structure of this planet. I know that there are other scientists and thinkers who share the same view of the existence of a universal mind. For example, a physicist named Paul Davies argues in his book titled The Mind of God that the reflective power of the human mind cannot be something which is a by-product of "mindless, purposeless" forces (Davies, 232).

Similarly, Freeman Dyson wrote in his book titled The Disturbed Universe, "I do not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the existence of God. I claim only that the architecture of the universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an essential role in its functioning" (Dyson, 251).

No, it's Bare Assertion #3

I used philosophical inductive reasoning, the sort of thing which is not obligated to be placed in control groups, subject to repeated observed experiments, reviewed by professional peers, or fall under any of the guidelines of the scientific method. So, this means that this is a proof by argument, not evidence.

That's why I don't agree with you that what I wrote are nothing but "bare assertions" as you labelled them.

Since you're asking me for a back up, here are some quotes:

Most importantly, spin as a "protopsychic" process, should be self-referential. Such requirement of spin is well supported by Hofstadter (1979)’ s view of what is at the crux of consciousness. According to Hofstadter, consciousness is based on a kind of self-reference that he termed as a "strange loop" and further explained as an interaction between levels in which the top level reaches back down towards the bottom level influencing it, while at the same time being itself determined by the bottom level.

Penrose-Hameroff’ s self-organized objective reduction model of spacetime geometry (Hameroff and Penrose, 1996) also implies that the spacetime dynamcs is driving by certain self-referential process. In addition, Cahill’ s work on a self-referentially limited neural-network model of reality (Cahill, 2002) supports the view of a primordial self-referential network underlying reality. These results lend further support to our fundamental view that spin is a primordial self-referential process driving quantum mechanics, spacetime dynamics and consciousness.

Source: http://cogprints.org/2827/1/SpinNature.pdf

It's a perfect demonstration of bad reasoning.

Why is it bad reasoning?

Here are two more quotes. The first one is an idea which argues that self-awareness is a particular type of self-reference:

According to Hofstadter, self-awareness, the quality of having a "soul," a "self," an "I," is itself the result of a particular kind of self-reference in the "programming" of the human mind. This special self-reference, which he calls the "Strange Loop," is information that references itself, but in such a way as to bring in new information before referencing itself again.- Full Article

Likewise, there is a possibility that reality is also self-referential in a similar way to human consciousness (thus making it self-aware):

This new physics is emerging from a radically different comprehension of the nature of reality, namely that of a self-referential information system, where the information is semantic and active, that is, information that has meaning in the system itself, and because of that the system evolves in a manner determined by that meaning, and so is experienced by the system. This amounts to the assertion that reality is self-aware at all levels, though clearly that self-awareness is of a very limited form in most systems, but is there even at the level of quantum matter. - Full Article

And even if your premises are true and your conclusion follows, how the fuck did you get to "personal god"

Because if it is true that there is a greater intelligence, or a mind, behind the creation of rationalizing animals in this planet, then it also follows that there is a reason for our existence. Why? Because a powerful and a functional mind would operate within the bounds of Reason.

And personally, I think that the existence of Reason is in a greater harmony with the view of a personal God (as opposed to an impersonal God).

[lilyannerose]

First, here's a question:

Why doesn't a book or a table, for example, have the ability of self-perception like we do? Or to put it differently, what is it that makes a certain collection of inanimate matter be able to come to life and then perceive itself (such as the material in our bodies) whereas many other objects around us do not have such an ability (i.e. self-perception)?

It is your belief that "inanimate objects" are inanimate without self-perception. Inanimate objects are composed of matter where is your proof that there is no self-perception? I'm aware that the common thought and belief is that an object is inanimate but there is no proof. Are reality is based on five absolute senses and some say six inclusive of mind. Do you ever ask yourself is that space around you truly empty?

[theVOID]

I didn't say that life on earth cannot form by a long process that is consistent with our empirical foundations. My point was that the source of our life is something which is already alive itself (which is God),

If life requires pre-existing life then that pre-existing life also requires pre-existing life, namely a living "god" cannot live without there already being "life" to create him. You've stumbled upon a massive fallacy in the very beginning of your argument.

As you know, insisting that life necessarily requires a pre-existing life to live but then failing to follow that conclusion back beyond god is nothing more than a double standard.

If your argument depends on a double standard it is neither sound nor valid.

because to me it seems impossible that inanimate matter can organize itself into a living thing without a greater intelligence operating behind the laws of nature (even after knowing how evolution works).

And if inanimate matter can't "organise it's self" (which isn't what happened anyway) into a living thing without a greater intelligence then how the fuck did non-matter do it spontaneously from t0?

Maybe the mind is not physical after all, then, But I strongly feel that there is a mind behind the universe regardless of whether it is physical or not.

And Andrea Yeats "strongly felt" that God wanted her to kill her children... So what?

Also, it's not the same thing as saying *poof magic* did it because the belief in such a mind is an inference that many people have based on the the amount of complexity and self-organization that they see in living things and the geological structure of this planet.

"Many people believe" is an argument from popularity. "many people" have personal experiences of Jesus as God specifically, so "many people" believe something that is directly contradictory to the idea that Jesus was a prophet and is not God. "Many people" believe in Ghosts too.

Spot the difference:

Shit is complex, therefore God did it
Shit is complex, therefore *poof magic* did it.

We've swapped one word for another without losing the meaning component of the proposition, that shows that the concepts are identical in their explanatory virtue, which is of the value 0.

I know that there are other scientists and thinkers who share the same view of the existence of a universal mind.

"many people" again? How many fallacies do you need to justify these dumb beliefs to yourself? It's plainly obvious that your intellectual side is doing back-flips to rationalise this. Stop fooling yourself, you're too fucking smart to resort to illogical arguments to make your intellectual side satisfied with the beliefs you have been raised with.

And as far as the "many people" go in terms of theistic scientists, the "many" is the "tiny minority".

For example, a physicist named Paul Davies argues in his book titled The Mind of God that the reflective power of the human mind cannot be something which is a by-product of "mindless, purposeless" forces (Davies, 232).

That's both a Bare assertion and argument from authority.

How many more fallacies do you need Rayaan?

Similarly, Freeman Dyson wrote in his book titled The Disturbed Universe, "I do not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the existence of God. I claim only that the architecture of the universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an essential role in its functioning" (Dyson, 251).

Look, I know you've been brainwashed by the Muslim community to quote books wherever you're getting into trouble, but for the last time, nobody gives a shit how many self-serving quotes you resort to! The people making the quotes have fallacious arguments and by quoting them as authorities you are only compounding the problem.

I used philosophical inductive reasoning, the sort of thing which is not obligated to be placed in control groups, subject to repeated observed experiments, reviewed by professional peers, or fall under any of the guidelines of the scientific method. So, this means that this is a proof by argument, not evidence.

You attempted an argument from induction, that argument was still fallacious. It's again a case of "shit is complex, therefore god". and "I don't see how consciousness can emerge from material, therefore God"

Also, all reasoning, philosophical and scientific, IS subject to peer review. Philosophers still publish papers for critique, and they accept any fallacies that have been pointed out. If you're not going to accept obvious fallacies then you're only being more disingenuous by saying "look, I'm doing philosophy!"

That's why I don't agree with you that what I wrote are nothing but "bare assertions" as you labelled them.

You made a number of bare assertions, namely about the very existence of God. Your induction was "the universe is complex, therefore God". That's two fallacies at once. Also, you're not even making a proper inductive argument as your required premise that "consciousness cannot emerge from material" is another bare assertion.

Since you're asking me for a back up, here are some quotes:

*sigh*

Most importantly, spin as a "protopsychic" process, should be self-referential. Such requirement of spin is well supported by Hofstadter (1979)’ s view of what is at the crux of consciousness. According to Hofstadter, consciousness is based on a kind of self-reference that he termed as a "strange loop" and further explained as an interaction between levels in which the top level reaches back down towards the bottom level influencing it, while at the same time being itself determined by the bottom level.

1. Argument from authority (again).

2. What spin? The spin of a subatomic particle? There is nothing "protopsychic" about that. Your quote has no context.

3. Also, the "strange loop" idea (and I am assuming without context that it refers to Escher) is consistent with nature and [i]is not in any way dependent upon an ultimate mind.

4. Books about consciousness from 1979 =/= Best understanding. Neuroscience has transformed dramatically in the last decade, the amount of information and understanding we have is several orders of magnitude greater than it was 30 years ago.

Penrose-Hameroff’ s self-organized objective reduction model of spacetime geometry (Hameroff and Penrose, 1996) also implies that the spacetime dynamcs is driving by certain self-referential process. In addition, Cahill’ s work on a self-referentially limited neural-network model of reality (Cahill, 2002) supports the view of a primordial self-referential network underlying reality. These results lend further support to our fundamental view that spin is a primordial self-referential process driving quantum mechanics, spacetime dynamics and consciousness[/i].

So "some fundamental part of nature is a feedback loop" Anything else entirely obvious you'd like to point out and falsely claim to be supporting your argument while you are at it?

Why is it bad reasoning?

Because it's like a fallacy fiesta...

Here are two more quotes. The first one is an idea which argues that self-awareness is a particular type of self-reference:

FFS...

1. Rather than repeatedly making arguments from authority, you might like to explain what the point is and why this has anything at all to do with your argument.

2. I've been reading that PDF, so far I have no fucking clue how or why you are relating it to "god must exist". Self-reference and self-awareness do exist i'm not debating that, what you have completely failed to do is show why these things are dependent upon a God.

And personally, I think that the existence of Reason is in a greater harmony with the view of a personal God (as opposed to an impersonal God).

And you end with an argument from incredulity. Congratulations on one of the most fallacy filled arguments I HAVE EVER SEEN.