Help with debunking a creationist claim

[Kharakov]

You might have addressed "the reason for the slow adding of advantages to beings" assuming your premise of conscious guidance (although not very good ones). That's premature without having established that your premise is valid.

Proponents of non-conscious action have yet to prove or at least provide a bit of evidence that any action in the universe is not caused by consciousness. <snip>

You can't prove a negative. If you want your claims to be seriously considered as a likely explanation of reality, it's up to you to give positive evidence for them. If the best you can do is say "you can't prove it's not so", you right out there with aliens on a campaign to eliminate reindeer.

Where is the positive evidence that anything in the universe reacts without consciousness? Coming from the standpoint of a specific form of the matter/energy in the universe that reacts to the matter/energy in the universe, where do you come up with the idea that other matter/energy in the universe is non-conscious, and only your specific form is conscious? Are you some sort of dualist who thinks your consciousness is some type of spirit that is not tied to matter/energy?

You've got to remember one little thing: you are consciously reacting. From first person observation, you only know that you react consciously, you have absolutely no evidence that anything reacts without consciousness. The side proposing non-conscious reactions has the burden of proof, since you have not ever consciously witnessed a reaction that is not conscious (your bodies involuntary responses are not those of your consciousness, but this indicates nothing about whether the responses are done by conscious beings or not).

There is absolutely no evidence that any non-conscious reaction has ever existed ever.

 

[Juma]

There is absolutely no evidence that any non-conscious reaction has ever existed ever.

Why do you assume that reaction has anything to do with conciousness?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Proponents of non-conscious action have yet to prove or at least provide a bit of evidence that any action in the universe is not caused by consciousness.

But is that our problem?
We do not see that a deity (or any other term for such a consciousness) is needed to explain the fact that gravity works.
You offer no REASON to think that a deity (or whatever) is historically connected to the fact that gravity works.

When you offer it as 'the ultimate truth' the only thing you can say is that it might be so.
But i see no reason to think it must be so.

Many actions are not caused by OUR consciousnesses (including the various biological activities in our brain), but assuming actions are caused by something that is not conscious without any evidence that actions are done by something that is not conscious is a pretty big leap, and not justified in the slightest.

Not so.
As i pointed out, the behavior of gravity includes no traits that must be attributed to any sort of consciousness we are familiar with.
It is far simpler to explain it, therefore, as not having a conscious motivator than it is to invoke a consciousness we don't have any other evidence for.

The premise of a non-conscious actor in the universe needs to be justified, and there is absolutely no justification.

No, as a working hypothesis, the non-conscious universe the observed behavior of the universe.
Claims that it 'could be' different can go no farther than 'could be' without any sort of evidence.
Thus can be dismissed unless and until there is any reason at all offered to make one believe a deity (whtvr) is necessary to explain existence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is absolutely no evidence that any non-conscious reaction has ever existed ever.

And this observation is significant, why?

I mean, it is possible for fallacious reasoning to produce the correct answer, if only by accident.

So, however we got the opinion that the universe includes unconscious, undirected events, what can you offer to show us this is not an accurate conclusion?

 

[Kharakov]

There is absolutely no evidence that any non-conscious reaction has ever existed ever.

Why do you assume that reaction has anything to do with conciousness?

Does anyone else think Juma is a bot?

 

[Kharakov]

But is that our problem?

Well, the "our" you refer to are the consciously reacting beings claiming that other reactions are not conscious without proof or even a hint of evidence. You know conscious reactions exist, yet assume that an electrons reaction to a photon is not conscious, or part of a beautiful dance?

As i pointed out, the behavior of gravity includes no traits that must be attributed to any sort of consciousness we are familiar with.
It is far simpler to explain it, therefore, as not having a conscious motivator than it is to invoke a consciousness we don't have any other evidence for.

Umm, gravity exemplifies certain traits that we are totally familiar with: love, the desire to be grouped with one another, the desire to be near one another. Electromagnetism exemplifies sexual attraction. The strong and weak forces exemplify the joining together of others into family units, and the tying together of atoms into more complex structures such as chemicals exemplifies the ties that larger groups make with one another.

Yet you only see love among humans. You don't see the gathering together of vast numbers of atoms into groups as indicating that they all feel a pull towards one another, a perfect pull that allows the other various desires of the beings that make us up slowly refine the way they work together with us to allow us to join in this beautiful dance (although we are awkward swans in a ducks pond).

Thus can be dismissed unless and until there is any reason at all offered to make one believe a deity (whtvr) is necessary to explain existence.

You can explain existence however you want, you just won't be right unless you acknowledge that the senior beings (protons, etc.) have been around long enough to know some really cool patterns of behavior, but also have the patience of eons and do not need to hammer the truth down your throat.

 

[Kharakov]

There is absolutely no evidence that any non-conscious reaction has ever existed ever.

And this observation is significant, why?

I mean, it is possible for fallacious reasoning to produce the correct answer, if only by accident.

So, however we got the opinion that the universe includes unconscious, undirected events, what can you offer to show us this is not an accurate conclusion?

Perhaps simply the idea that on a fundamental level, that the very fabric of our universe reacts to everything within it. It supports clashing ideas and beings, refining us and the ideas, and my goal is to contribute what I can, even if I am but a lowly human (and lowly even from a human perspective).

The idea itself will not convince you, but if you are lucky, you will be able to observe the reaction of the world around you to your own thoughts, as you align your purpose with finding great joy with the small beings (point particles) and great spirits (which physics would call "fields") created by these beings, of which you are one (a field and a particle) of some sort. The synchronization of events in the life of a suspicious person will lead them to see "conspiracies by greedy higher ups", etc. but all in all, we must do the best that we can, and we have no excuse not to contribute. But I digress- I cannot convince you, but you can watch, observe patiently, listen, and you may be pleasantly surprised, although your naturally suspicious nature will cause you to question a lot of events that happen.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is absolutely no evidence that any non-conscious reaction has ever existed ever.

And this observation is significant, why?

I mean, it is possible for fallacious reasoning to produce the correct answer, if only by accident.

So, however we got the opinion that the universe includes unconscious, undirected events, what can you offer to show us this is not an accurate conclusion?

Perhaps simply the idea that on a fundamental level, that the very fabric of our universe reacts to everything within it.

Basic physics says actions = reactions. Can you show any reason to think that this requires an intelligence?
Not just that you're fond of seeing it as the act of an intelligence, but any positive evidence that it is required.

It supports clashing ideas and beings, refining us and the ideas, and my goal is to contribute what I can, even if I am but a lowly human (and lowly even from a human perspective).

And that requires design to accomplish?
I can stand on a rock and construe The Great American Novel. the fact that the rock supports me does not seem to require any intelligence on the part of the rock, or the glacier that deposited the rock, the weather patterns that made the glacier...

More to the point, science can explain the rock, the glacier, global cooling, etc. without an appeal to a designer.
Your view adds nothing to the universe.

The idea itself will not convince you,

And that's about all you've got.

but if you are lucky, you will be able to observe the reaction of the world around you <non-evidence poetry snipped>

Yeah, yeah, the evidence makes more sense if i come to believe the conclusion first.

You still haven't shown an actual problem with the conclusion that there's nothing out there behind the curtain.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But I digress- I cannot convince you, but you can watch, observe patiently, listen, and you may be pleasantly surprised, although your naturally suspicious nature will cause you to question a lot of events that happen.

But i'm questioning YOU right now.

Theories are abandoned when there is evidence that they cannot account for.
They're abandoned for theories that can account for all the evidence the old one did, AND the new evidence.

You have no evidence against the idea that most events in the universe are not artifacts of an intelligence.
Not really.
MOre of a placeholder for personal incredulity, or credulity, depending on the polarity of the label-maker.

Which makes one wonder why you reject the idea that most events in the universe are not artifacts of an intelligence.
All you can really offer is that you prefer to see the universe that way. You're working backwards, from the conclusion TO the evidence.
And then pointing fingers at OTHER people and saying 'They're fallacious! They're fallacious!'
Fine. Great. Takes one to know one. I'm rubber and you're, etc. Turn off the lights when you leave.

 

[Kharakov]

Basic physics says actions = reactions. Can you show any reason to think that this requires an intelligence?

It requires conscious skill, refined in the first few nanoseconds of existence, which were a lot longer to the beings involved (time is relative).

I can stand on a rock and construe The Great American Novel.

Do it.

the fact that the rock supports me does not seem to require any intelligence on the part of the rock, or the glacier that deposited the rock, the weather patterns that made the glacier...

More to the point, science can explain the rock, the glacier, global cooling, etc. without an appeal to a designer.

Designers. Steady action, which supports various types of consciousness, some of which require a sense of physical stability because of their lack of emotional stability, is an indication of intelligence.

Yeah, yeah, the evidence makes more sense if i come to believe the conclusion first.

hehe... no, you've got to test the idea.

You still haven't shown an actual problem with the conclusion that there's nothing out there behind the curtain.

It is a conclusion.

I find comfort in the organization of reality. My life is more than a little bit designed, and I can perceive the design of it. If it was just one little thing, I would write it off, and truthfully I might be more than a little bit deranged. The fact of the matter is this- someone, or a group, is organizing my life so that I perceive an organizing influence in my life (and I can read it back to the beginning).

I have awesome times sometimes, and sometimes I worry a bit about things, but over all my life is moving in the right direction, I am comfortable, although I don't have all the options I would like to eventually have. I lost love, but.

 

[Juma]

There is absolutely no evidence that any non-conscious reaction has ever existed ever.

Why do you assume that reaction has anything to do with conciousness?

Does anyone else think Juma is a bot?

Do you? Why?

 

[Kharakov]

But I digress- I cannot convince you, but you can watch, observe patiently, listen, and you may be pleasantly surprised, although your naturally suspicious nature will cause you to question a lot of events that happen.

But i'm questioning YOU right now.

Yeah!

Which makes one wonder why you reject the idea that most events in the universe are not artifacts of an intelligence.

Obviously not all acts are intelligent, even if done by conscious beings.

All you can really offer is that you prefer to see the universe that way. You're working backwards, from the conclusion TO the evidence.

So, since I am the conclusion of the universe at this point in spacetime, who are you to question me? That's me working backwards, to your first statement of the post I am replying to.

I mean, the color blue isn't necessarily the smartest being in the book- ohh, wait, are qualia beings? <-- that's a yoke.

And then pointing fingers at OTHER people and saying 'They're fallacious! They're fallacious!'

I said people were fallacious? Although in some sense it ties in with the idea that I am a conclusion of the universe at this point in spacetime, which is actually pretty trippy. Did you actually set it up so I would call myself a conclusion, and then later say that I was calling people (who would be other conclusions) fallacious?

That is crazy smart. Unless, of course, it was set up by the intelligence behind the curtain (which, as a parent, you probably are more closely connected to than I am as an arguably developmentally challenged adult).

 

[Kharakov]

There is absolutely no evidence that any non-conscious reaction has ever existed ever.

Why do you assume that reaction has anything to do with conciousness?

Does anyone else think Juma is a bot?

Do you? Why?

OMFG! Did nobody get the joke? It's not like a bot would react consciously (although the beings supporting it do).

 

[Juma]

There is absolutely no evidence that any non-conscious reaction has ever existed ever.

Why do you assume that reaction has anything to do with conciousness?

Does anyone else think Juma is a bot?

Do you? Why?

OMFG! Did nobody get the joke? It's not like a bot would react consciously (although the beings supporting it do).

So why do you assume that reaction has anything to do with conciousness?

 

[Kharakov]

So why do you assume that reaction has anything to do with conciousness?

That was hilarious, your response is so botlike. Which reaction specifically?

So reactions supported by conscious beings can be non-conscious, ehh, such as the addition of 2+2? That reaction is created by following a specific set of non-conscious rules, but it is carried out by a consciousness.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have awesome times sometimes, and sometimes I worry a bit about things, but over all my life is moving in the right direction, I am comfortable, although I don't have all the options I would like to eventually have. I lost love, but.

Would this evidence of design be equally available to this girl?
Do you think she'd appreciate the fact that you find a general satisfaction with the direction of your life and the design of the universe?

 

[Juma]

So why do you assume that reaction has anything to do with conciousness?

That was hilarious, your response is so botlike. Which reaction specifically?

So reactions supported by conscious beings can be non-conscious, ehh, such as the addition of 2+2? That reaction is created by following a specific set of non-conscious rules, but it is carried out by a consciousness.

Is it? I often perform complex mathematical computations without being aware how I do them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

(which, as a parent, you probably are more closely connected to than I am as an arguably developmentally challenged adult).

Who would argue that?
You just seem to accept really really shallow things as evidence. Plenty of fully developed adults do that.

 

[DBT]

So why do you assume that reaction has anything to do with conciousness?

That was hilarious, your response is so botlike. Which reaction specifically?

So reactions supported by conscious beings can be non-conscious, ehh, such as the addition of 2+2? That reaction is created by following a specific set of non-conscious rules, but it is carried out by a consciousness.

What difference does consciousness make in terms of what neural networks are doing in response to something?

 

[Kharakov]

I have awesome times sometimes, and sometimes I worry a bit about things, but over all my life is moving in the right direction, I am comfortable, although I don't have all the options I would like to eventually have. I lost love, but.

Would this evidence of design be equally available to this girl?
Do you think she'd appreciate the fact that you find a general satisfaction with the direction of your life and the design of the universe?

Of course. There are problems to be worked out, and many who want to drag others down, or at the very least don't want to help out.

In fact, the last time someone brought up amoebic dysentery in Africa back on the old board,I made a contribution to UNICEF That niight, I watched a TV show. On the show, there was a child who kept dyinig of dysentery on the game Oregon Trail (which was a book and paper game when I was in school, but it was a video game in the TV show). Then the other character came in and one the game in a matter of minutes, repeatedly playing the game and perfecting their actions so that they one quicker every time.

Ohh, and there was a reference to UNICEF in the next episode, which I also watched that night.

And I've suffered as well. A lot of the suffering I've had has had to do with mistakes I had made in the past.

- - - Updated - - -

So why do you assume that reaction has anything to do with conciousness?

That was hilarious, your response is so botlike. Which reaction specifically?

So reactions supported by conscious beings can be non-conscious, ehh, such as the addition of 2+2? That reaction is created by following a specific set of non-conscious rules, but it is carried out by a consciousness.

Is it? I often perform complex mathematical computations without being aware how I do them.

That's the beings within you (or perhaps outside of you) performing the computations without your awareness.