im an atheist. debate me!

Where is the proof that you can observe something outside of your mind?

What the hell is the belief in 'no belief'? What are you even talking about? Clearly not atheism.

And your answer was 'obviously, yes.'



So what? My hand can't receive radiowaves, but a radio can, and they're both physical. If you're saying that because one physical thing can't do something, then no physical thing can, that's just silly.



Yes, you have repeated this over and over again. But WHY? What is the difference between physical materials and supernatural materials? If you have no answer, then your position is unreasonable by definition.



But why? Feelings don't have to have substance. Maybe thoughts and feelings are virtual in the way an object within a video game is virtual. They are rendered through interactions within the hardware.

I never said that proof exists.

you should probably look up the definition to 'Theism' and 'Gnosticism'.. and then revisit your own definition to 'Atheism' and 'Agnosticism' ...

I'm sorry, I don't see your point.

.Boob man I would respond to your quite directly....but you blocked me

If you created a simulation to create a universe, how is this not intelligent design - if you created the fucking simulator ?
Are you really this fucking stupid ?

Bostrom himself , who authored the original simulation argument , would classsify it as an intelligent design argument .

You might give this a read.

[link to evolutionnews.org (secure)]
.

David Klinghoffer has explained what ought to be clear: the “simulation hypothesis” entails “that our universe is intelligently designed. That’s what a computer simulation is, obviously, intelligent design.”


David is a theist author for the Discovery institute btw...the largest organizational force financing the intelligent design movement .
Lmfao .. doesn't get any better than that



As far a source Holonomic models are concerned that was one example .I also stated from the beginning , I haven't studied this in over 15 years. But I remember the breakthroughs at the time...and as far as I can tell ( and you should be able to as well by now) the evidence has only mounted , much memory occurs non locally- within, and possibly outside ( in the endocrine system) of the brain .

I gave plenty of direct nueral science links, that demonstrate non local phenomenon. I said from the beginning everyone disagrees about the magnitude .. of course erasing a memory is possible with enough damage to the correct area. But it also can be returned sometimes ...get it ?

You have provided no links to show the consensus of psychologist currently believe every memory, is encoded to one local area. That's what they taught in the 1950s probably lol.
Give it up already...or prove it
Put up or shut it...
No link ...lyour man boobs stink

Last Edited by Sisyphusrock on 10/25/2021 10:55 PM

I didn't block you. You're really still going with this? Wow. I'll try one more time and see if you get it.

Design requires intent, agreed? There's something called a genetic algorithm. These run on evolutionary principles. They apply random changes to a code, or virtual object, discarding negative changes and keeping beneficial ones. With genetic algorithms it's possible to create -say- an aerodynamic wing without any intelligent input, or any intended outcome. Not design.

If I create a simulation to replicate the conditions of the big bang, and then I create multiple big bangs, each with randomly selected constants, and one of them happens to automatically produce galaxies and life, then I didn't design those galaxies and life. I may not even be aware of those galaxies and life. I hope you get it this time, because I'm done explaining it to you.



unless of course, I didn't intelligently design the contents of the simulation.

Discovery institute and evolution.org are both well known Creationist propaganda rags. Of course the discovery institute would love to equate simulation hypothesis with the intelligent design movement, because -as I said- they desperately want to trick people into thinking their movement is scientific and not religious.

This isn't complicated. Yes, obviously any idiot can see that a computer simulation involves intelligence, you don't need 'intuition' to see that. But the 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' movement is just rebranded Creationism that rejects the principle that modern lifeforms could arise without intentional, intelligently guided design.



Why would I care what the consensus among psychologists is? I never said local. I said different memories are stored in different parts of the brain. I was having a conversation with someone else about the soul, then you came along, started talking about non-local memory and you've been pestering me since.

Man boobs ...

if you created a computer , and it created a simulation , all on its own ...by programing itself...
That is intelligent design.
It doesn't matter how deep you want to make the Asimov cascade .
I cannot possibly relate ; how doesn't this make sense to you?

I cannot find any philosophy forum, or discussion, article or anything , from anyone other than you that disagrees with this. And neither will you, because it is logically inconsistent to do so.
You are welcome to make a case other than blind contradiction . The wiki link you provided , included three entire sections of different types of secular intelligent design , all of which simulation theory falls under clearly ...


I came here for inspiration ....this is what I got instead.




Last Edited by Sisyphusrock on 10/26/2021 02:31 PM

...

Last Edited by Sisyphusrock on 10/26/2021 02:10 PM

I tried to Steelman the theists earlier for fun.
But it seems rational agnostics are now calling themselves atheists .
So I was a little confused

We used to call that a skeptic .
Now they want to be called atheists

Last Edited by Sisyphusrock on 10/26/2021 02:26 PM

What if existence didn't have to be created? What if it simply always was? The unbelievably bizarre Big Bang theory would be over and so would Judeo-Christianity.

Athiesm, the devils false religion. Because even Satan knows God exists.

Because I know what 'design' means. Are you saying that a randomly generated image, spat out by an algorithm is designed by an intelligence?

Intelligent design exists in opposition to evolution. they insist that animals couldn't have evolved, without deliberate intelligent design. Hence the name.

Whether or not our universe is a simulation, evolution still happens.



You don't get it. those aren't different types of 'secular intelligent design.' The intelligent design movement as a whole tries to present itself as secular, because they want to have their ideas taught in science class along side evolution. The intelligence deign movement is inherently opposed to evolution. They reject the idea that modern life could evolve, without design.

The simulation hypothesis does not necessarily assert this. For the 6th time.

'Cause da debbil is real.

.
Man Boobs , my argument is not predicated on what the theists are doing with it.
It started from me making the statement to the effect...

" I would think simulation theory falls under a subset of Intelligent design."
And then , you disagreeing with that
So far everything points that my intuition was correct.


simulation theory is an Intelligent Designer argument in fundamentals .

Last Edited by Sisyphusrock on 10/26/2021 07:43 PM

Imagine walking around enjoying life and not being able to give praise to the creator ROFL

Tragic

It's not 'intuition' you goose. You heard the word intelligent design, and you know that computers are designed by intelligences, so you assumed simulation hypothesis (not a theory) falls under that label.

What you've failed to realize is that 'intelligent design' refers to a specific movement that rejects evolution theory and the simulation hypothesis does not necessarily rule out evolution theory.

P.S. Why did you ignore my question? Are randomly generated images designed by an intelligence? The answer is no.

We use simulations now to replicate the laws of physics in a vacuum, and we see that spiral galaxies form independently. Are those galaxies designed? No.

That there is a god is a positive claim. Declining belief is not a positive claim. If one said there is no god, that would be a positive claim. That would also be unprovable. So theism has been and continues to be an unproven claim. I reject the claim for lack of evidence. I find god not guilty of existence. However, I don't claim it doesnt exist, just not proven.

Ok, sure.

I’ve never suggested there is anything other than one fundamental substance that makes up our reality. But like in a dream at night you can be dressed up in white coat and analyse some atoms and molecules and whilst those apparent atoms and molecules are made of the same stuff as the dreamer yet those atoms and molecules are not the source or creator of the dreamer. The dreamer, whilst made of the same stuff, has some power that those apparent atoms and molecules have not.

The materialistic view of a big bang, a solid real world of atoms and molecules, then little creatures and consciousness sparking into existence then monkeys developing into human beings sounds completely ridiculous to me.

You want proof!?

…………………...„„-~^^~„-„„
………………„-^'' : : „'' : : : : -„
…………..„- : : :„„--/ : : : : : : : '\
…………./ : : „- . .| : : : : : : : : '|
……….../ : „- . . . | : : : : : : : : |
………...\„- . . . . .| : : : : : : : :'|
……….../ . . . . . . '| : : : : : : : :|
……..../ . . . . . . . .'\ : : : : : : : |
……../ . . . . . . . . . .\ : : : : : : :|
……./ . . . . . . . . . . . '\ : : : : : /
….../ . . . . . . . . . . . . . -„„„„-'
….'/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '|
…/ . . . . . . . ./ . . . . . . .|
../ . . . . . . . .'/ . . . . . . .'|
./ . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . .'|
'/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'|
'| . . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . .|
'| . . . . . . \„^- „ . . . . .'|
'| . . . . . . . . .'\ .\ ./ '/ . |
| .\ . . . . . . . . . \ .'' / . '|
| . . . . . . . . . . / .'/ . . .|
| . . . . . . .| . . / ./ ./ . .|

You can't handle the truth

What you observe in a dream is not made of molecules...



Yes, you're just repeating yourself now. You haven't come close to explaining what's ridiculous about them. To the people that actually understand those theories, they don't seem ridiculous. Evolution is actually kind of obvious when you think about it.

I concur “What you observe in a dream is not made of molecules...”

There’s nothing ridiculous about big-bang theory or evolution theory per se. Thinking you can explain where the living entity that can perceive, have a sense of I exist (I am), be aware, experience, think, feel, have love and compassion, read the thoughts of others and remain rock solid stable whilst images constantly appear and disappear is something else.

But you think you can explain it. You think that consciousness results from a undetectable substance, and that it couldn't possibly be the result of the physical interactions between matter and energy, like everything else in the observable universe.

"I’ve never suggested there is anything other than one fundamental substance that makes up our reality."

In that case, matter is just a manifestation of that fundamental substance, so why couldn't it generate consciousness?

No you don't get it, the term has evolved .
If you don't want to call it Secular Intelligent design, what category would you place it ?

Secular theories....Exist also autonomously ...despite the movements origins , or general body of work.
An intelligent design argument is not predicated to be against evolution .That is by far the origin, and body of, I don't disagree with that.
Reread your wiki link
Nick Bostrom is not a theist .
Simulation theory IS classified as a secular Intelligent design argument .
Ancient aliens another one.

You must not know what subset means
Which was" in "the very first post you disagreed with.
The post precluded the majority of intelligent design had an overarching narrative " set" that this is " sub" to.

Last Edited by Sisyphusrock on 10/28/2021 03:03 PM

No you don't get it, the term has evolved .
If you don't want to call it Secular Intelligent design, what category would you place it ?

Secular theories....Exist also autonomously ...despite the movements origins , or general body of work.
An intelligent design argument is not predicated to be against evolution .That is by far the origin, and body of, I don't disagree with that.
Reread your wiki link
Nick Bostrom is not a theist .
Simulation theory IS classified as a secular Intelligent design argument .
Ancient aliens another one.

You must not know what subset means
Which was" in "the very first post you disagreed with.
The post precluded the majority of intelligent design had an overarching narrative " set" that this is " sub" to.


I'm done addressing your points until you answer my questions.

*Is a randomly generated image, produced by an algorithm designed by an intelligence?

*Are the spiral galaxies produced in physics simulations designed by an intelligence?

*Is Creationism a subset of evolution theory, because they accept that all felines descend from a common ancestor?