Could the belief in god considered a mental illness ?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: cooperton
What came first?
Neither..... the seer and the seen arise as one seamless happening.

The Father and Son are one.... without a second.

I would agree. Matter (from the Latin 'mater' meaning "Mother") is constantly conceiving and manifesting the Father Spirit resident within us, His children. The primordial consciousness that created all things resides within us.

originally posted by: gosseyn
a reply to: sapien82
You just ignore the fact that we have no idea how these conscious experiences come to existence, how and why stimuli like vibrating photons hitting our eyes turns into a sensation we call color.

I don't mean to be a broken record, but don't you see how inconceivable it is for these intricate wavelength detection arrays that we call our retinas to have been created by random mutations? Our retinas are capable of in-taking an image of light photons, and sending it through an optic highway to our visual cortex which creates a coherent and relevant image from the rudimentary impending light. Our lens is connected to muscles which allow us to focus or un-focus on various objects and alter the amount of incoming light. We even have night-vision which is activated by rods in our retinas. We are a deterministic vessel that was made to be integrated with the external environment. No random mutation could ever contrive such a perfect synchrony with the outside world.

originally posted by: cooperton
I don't mean to be a broken record, but don't you see how inconceivable it is for these intricate wavelength detection arrays that we call our retinas to have been created by random mutations? Our retinas are capable of in-taking an image of light photons, and sending it through an optic highway to our visual cortex which creates a coherent and relevant image from the rudimentary impending light. Our lens is connected to muscles which allow us to focus or un-focus on various objects and alter the amount of incoming light. We even have night-vision which is activated by rods in our retinas. We are a deterministic vessel that was made to be integrated with the external environment. No random mutation could ever contrive such a perfect synchrony with the outside world.

I get what you mean. The very fact of existing is a mystery in itself. But what you see as perfect I see as imperfect. But whatever I say you're going to say "we see only what we need to see". So you say "it's perfect", then I show you why and where it is not perfect, then you say "yeah it's not perfect, but we only see what we need to see". Everything you say makes me think that you have already set your mind and nothing will make you change your mind, every little fact is for you a means to reinforce your preconceived idea. You use and abuse of the "argument from incredulity", you say "look how complex this is, this must have been created by an intelligence".

as far as i'm concerned, it is.

originally posted by: gosseyn
You use and abuse of the "argument from incredulity", you say "look how complex this is, this must have been created by an intelligence".

Doesn't that make much more sense than "look how complex this is, this must have been created by random probabilistic mechanisms"?

Argument from incredulity says there is no understanding, but I have come to understand many of the microbiological mechanisms as well as the larger biological functions as a whole. It is impossible for these known mechanisms to have come to be by random mutations.. which is reinforced with the fact that we have no lab data that an organism can change into another organism, even with artificial selection from the scientists.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: gosseyn
You use and abuse of the "argument from incredulity", you say "look how complex this is, this must have been created by an intelligence".

Doesn't that make much more sense than "look how complex this is, this must have been created by random probabilistic mechanisms"?

Argument from incredulity says there is no understanding, but I have come to understand many of the microbiological mechanisms as well as the larger biological functions as a whole. It is impossible for these known mechanisms to have come to be by random mutations.. which is reinforced with the fact that we have no lab data that an organism can change into another organism, even with artificial selection from the scientists.

But don't you see the difference ? Nature is here and now, just before our eyes. While your god is a magical fairy tale creature that isn't here, and I might add a creature that is conveniently similar to humans. So you reject what is before your eyes and you prefer to invent an unseen entity.

As long as there is something to learn from nature, I will think that nature did it. As long as our understanding of nature and its mechanisms is not complete, we will have no need to invoke a magical creature that just did it with a magic trick.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Why are you defending a situation you know nothing about?

From what I've read, all cultures say that it was a necessary purge to remove the evil from the world. That's the context we have of the event. Similar to the idea of destroying a cancerous before it kills the entire organism.

historical and scientific evidence of the global flood

Any time someone is willing to accept genocide as a reasonable price for peace on earth, it's a glaring red flag in terms of mental health.

Black Sea deluge

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Any time someone is willing to accept genocide as a reasonable price for peace on earth, it's a glaring red flag in terms of mental health.

How do you suppose you know more about the situation than the cultures who had direct lineage to the people who went through it? It's not the Black Sea Deluge, people in the Andres mountains and all through the American continent talk about the same global flood. It's historical fact.

originally posted by: gosseyn
Nature is here and now, just before our eyes. While your god is a magical fairy tale creature that isn't here

I Am (here).

In the best way I can articulate an unspeakable God, God is the marriage of virtuous ideals with our material vessel. The realization is that we are children of this Being that has always existed - Implementer of laws, and Architect of cosmos.

So you reject what is before your eyes and you prefer to invent an unseen entity.

That is exactly what the laws of physics are. They are the invisible forces that keep matter in its rightful place. You see the effect and ignore the cause - you ignore the Creator and treat the creation (matter) as t.

we will have no need to invoke a magical creature that just did it with a magic trick.

The Copenhagen interpretation is probably the best empirical evidence for the notion of consciousness being intimately connected to the manifestation of matter.

a reply to: cooperton

How do you suppose you know more about the situation than the cultures who had direct lineage to the people who went through it? It's not the Black Sea Deluge, people in the Andres mountains and all through the American continent talk about the same global flood. It's historical fact.

How do you suppose that genocide in any circumstance is an acceptable solution?? Murdering an entire civilization without trial or due process is an act of war and a crime against humanity.

A world-wide deluge, such as described in Genesis, is incompatible with modern scientific understanding of natural history, especially geology and paleontology.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: cooperton

The Copenhagen interpretation is probably the best empirical evidence for the notion of consciousness being intimately connected to the manifestation of matter.

You have no clue what the copenhagen interpretation even means.

There is no uniquely definitive statement of the Copenhagen interpretation. It consists of the views developed by a number of scientists and philosophers during the second quarter of the 20th century. Bohr and Heisenberg never totally agreed on how to understand the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. Bohr once distanced himself from what he considered to be Heisenberg's more subjective interpretation.

In a 2017 article, physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg states that the Copenhagen interpretation "is now widely felt to be unacceptable."

The ensemble interpretation is similar; it offers an interpretation of the wave function, but not for single particles. The consistent histories interpretation advertises itself as "Copenhagen done right". Although the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function. Quantum information theories are more recent, and have attracted growing support.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Any time someone is willing to accept genocide as a reasonable price for peace on earth, it's a glaring red flag in terms of mental health.

How do you suppose you know more about the situation than the cultures who had direct lineage to the people who went through it? It's not the Black Sea Deluge, people in the Andres mountains and all through the American continent talk about the same global flood. It's historical fact.

originally posted by: gosseyn
Nature is here and now, just before our eyes. While your god is a magical fairy tale creature that isn't here

I Am (here).

In the best way I can articulate an unspeakable God, God is the marriage of virtuous ideals with our material vessel. The realization is that we are children of this Being that has always existed - Implementer of laws, and Architect of cosmos.

So you reject what is before your eyes and you prefer to invent an unseen entity.

That is exactly what the laws of physics are. They are the invisible forces that keep matter in its rightful place. You see the effect and ignore the cause - you ignore the Creator and treat the creation (matter) as t.

we will have no need to invoke a magical creature that just did it with a magic trick.

The Copenhagen interpretation is probably the best empirical evidence for the notion of consciousness being intimately connected to the manifestation of matter.

I think you just don't care about science, do you ? You like science and you quote science when you think it helps to reinforce your preconceived ideas, and you loathe science and you try to diminish it when it goes against your preconceived ideas. You just pick and choose. And all that because you have accepted an old book as your ultimate truth.. You don't realise that you tell yourself so many stories.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

How do you suppose that genocide in any circumstance is an acceptable solution?? Murdering an entire civilization without trial or due process is an act of war and a crime against humanity.

It's like asking why would a doctor destroy a cancerous tumor. It's not just the Bible that insists it was a necessary purge. Many of the other accounts specifically address the stubborn evil that was destroying the world.

You have no clue what the copenhagen interpretation even means.

And your copy and paste job from Wikipedia proves this? This is from your own quote:

"It defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function. "

Which is exactly my point. The observer collapses the wave function into a material form. That's what the double slit experiment demonstrated, and that is what I am saying.

originally posted by: gosseyn

you loathe science and you try to diminish it when it goes against your preconceived ideas.

What empirical science have I denied? Show specific examples

a reply to: cooperton

It's like asking why would a doctor destroy a cancerous tumor. It's not just the Bible that insists it was a necessary purge. Many of the other accounts specifically address the stubborn evil that was destroying the world.

We are talking about humans, not a disease! Are you actually unable to tell the difference between the two? You condone the practice of executing millions of innocent people for the sake of world peace? Or are we supposed to believe without trial or due process that every single victim was undoubtedly guilty of horrific crimes and deserved death?

a reply to: cooperton

Which is exactly my point. The observer collapses the wave function into a material form. That's what the double slit experiment demonstrated, and that is what I am saying.

No, the camera does. Unless you are suggesting cameras are secretly using their jedi tricks to manifest our material reality. And this experiment only works on photons, not broad spectrum matter. You seriously need to actually read the research instead of picking out details with zero regard for context.

a reply to: gosseyn

I'm not going to waste too much time on the 'what are you saying'-routine followed by something I clearly never said but happens to be in your mental database of conditioned straw men fallacies.

You argued (or implied) that an appeal to something about nature "we don't fully understand" (yet) is a simpler explanation for the emergence of machinery and technology than the one I gave. I can't really consider that as an explanation at all, it's more of an argument from fantasy and imagination, making use of current ignorance (or feigned ignorance regarding the actual effects of the forces of nature that we have discovered, which cause things to move in the opposite direction). It's not much of a causal explanation at all (other than the vague unspecified 'nature did it, somehow' that isn't even spelled out clearly; maybe you should work on that first before implying it's the simpler explanation). One can't even begin to compare the general conclusion regarding where machinery and technology comes from and some of the basic logical requirements regarding intelligence and technological know-how involved, that I described earlier (and that wasn't the only way to put it).

There's no need to identify said minimum of "1 creator (engineer) with a corresponding* level and type of intelligence and technological know-how" in order to respond to the actual conclusion by induction or causal explanation put before you, nor does one need to ask and answer such questions as raised by Tzarchasm to deal with it and follow Newton's guideline of "admitting of no Objections against the[se general] Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths." (i.e. established facts, like the established facts where machinery and technology comes from and what some of the minimum logical requirements are; you can pretend not to know where machinery and technology comes from all you want, possibly by using some agnostic philosophy similar to South Park's "Agnostic Code", as if you can't be certain about it, but that's not going to change the facts, the truth/reality of the matter.**) Not objections by means of appeals to vague things about nature we supposedly don't fully understand yet, but we might imagine with a lot of wishful thinking and wishful speculation. “For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.” (a label for a methodology that later became associated with the label "modern science") So “that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.” (or worse, wishful vaguely described fantasies that hardly even justify the label "hypotheses") Quoting Newton from my quotations of him before.

*: corresponding with the level of technology and type of machinery in question. In this case, vastly more advanced compared to our own endeavors in nano-engineering and so-called "synthetic chemistry". For comparison:


The last video containing some examples of our endeavors in "synthetic chemistry" and some relevant things to consider regarding making modifications to the endproduct in comparison to myths about nature's supposed abilities in this regards by those who "In effect ... attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces." As mentioned and bolded from the article I was quoting from before on page 19.

**: Nor will everyone fall for such feigned ignorance, I suspect you know what I said makes perfect sense and that they are indeed the minimum logical requirements regarding a causal explanation for the emergence of machinery and technology; you just don't like acknowledging it so you tip-toe around it, ignoring what I said, not responding to it but responding to what you want to hear: 'God did it' and what's available in your straw men database in regards to that phrase. Plus distracting from it with your non-explanation implied as a "simpler explanation" (which is too vague, not spelled out clearly enough to be considered as an explanation, not to mention that it defies known and well-established laws of nature, facts about the effect of the forces of nature on various things such as machinery and technology or individual molecules, well-established facts in the fields of biology, physics and chemistry regarding the subjects discussed by James Tour above and those discussed in my last comment on page 19).

Acknowledge = accept or admit the existence or truth/certainty/factuality/reality/conclusiveness of. (source: google, minus the synonyms for "truth" in that context, I added those)

Someone who applies South Park's "Agnostic Code" rigorously, never acknowledges anything (as being certain). But it's more common for people to apply that way of thinking selectively, just regarding inconvenient facts/truth/certainties/realities.

In essence, the first category of people (applying that code rigorously), deny everything (as being certain). The latter category applies a more selective denial convincing themselves they are ignorant of something inconvenient ('embracing ignorance'? Well either way, it's not 'denying ignorance' as per the motto of this website).

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: gosseyn

"Why do you need to invoke" an appeal to something "we don't fully understand" to evade the argument of induction I and many others do understand quite well?

Why are you so vague in responding to the argument of induction in question? Why do you tip-toe around the factual knowledge available regarding the effect of natural forces on molecules described in the 2nd law of thermodynamics and further elaborated on in the article in my last comment? That contradicts your beliefs, fantasies and appeals to things we supposedly don't understand (yet, but 'nature did it anyway, no matter what the evidence is pointing towards'; that attitude no longer spelled out).

Why not first look at the simpler explanation and exhaust all of its potentialities ?

The simpler causal explanation for the emergence of machinery and technology is creation (engineering) by at least 1 creator (engineer) with a corresponding level and type of intelligence and technological know-how. Not some vague description of something ""we [supposedly] don't fully understand" (yet).

So why indeed won't you look at it without looking for a way out by means of various dubious techniques, cop-outs, distracting subjects or descriptions and 'sophisticated'* blah-blah? (*: I guess that's a bit in the eye of the beholder)

You say that is a "simpler causal explanation", but then why does it raise questions you can't answer? Questions about where this engineer you mentioned is right now, why they are so mysteriously quiet?

You are raising those questions, not the explanation I offered. And you claim I can't answer those questions, which I can but don't feel the need to regarding a consideration of an acceptable explanation for and general conclusion regarding the emergence of the machinery and technology that makes up life. Which I said something about in my reply to gosseyn as well (my previous comment).

originally posted by: gosseyn
a reply to: whereislogic

... Why do you need to invoke an entity like a god to explain something that could be explained through what we call the laws of nature ? That's simply a case for occam's razor. We know nature exists, we know nature does things, we know there are many parameters and mechanisms of nature we don't fully understand, so why would we need to say "god did it" in this context ? Maybe let's first try to see if nature did it ? A scientist who says that his knowledge is perfect is a really bad scientist, and for anyone to say that we know everything there is to know about nature is just pure ignorance.

...
Why not first look at the simpler explanation and exhaust all of its potentialities ?

For anyone who cares to know why I bolded the claim and opinion/belief that the emergence of machinery and technology "could be explained through what we call the laws of nature" and the implication and opinion/belief that the notion of (mindless) "mechanisms of nature we don't fully understand...did it" (accomplished it, caused this effect on matter that has not yet been creatively directed and fabricated into machinery and technology) is a "simpler explanation" than referring to a creator* that knows what he's doing (*: or Creator, implying some additional attributes that are appropiate to consider given the evidence, the facts, at hand); you may want to check out James Tour's answer to the question: "Could laws not yet discovered have helped in the origin of life?" Since it relates to gosseyn's reasoning. At 16:34 in the video below:

originally posted by: cooperton
...The Copenhagen interpretation is probably the best empirical evidence for the notion of consciousness being intimately connected to the manifestation of matter.

Hey Coope.
Am glad that you have introduced 'interpretation', as 'empirical evidence' , and it has gone unchallenged, so far.
So: here to support you, is; Bob's Interpretation of; " Could the belief in god considered a mental illness ? ":




Or: something like that...

originally posted by: whereislogic

you may want to check out James Tour's answer to the question: "Could laws not yet discovered have helped in the origin of life?" Since it relates to gosseyn's reasoning. At 16:34 in the video below:

So, what is he saying there ? We don't know how to do it, we don't know, we don't know, we don't know, it's soooo complex, we don't know and it's just too complex. That's all he is saying. He has no argument other than "we don't know, therefore it must be god".

What if I quoted people who also thought that things were impossible to achieve, people who thought they knew what they were talking about :

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. - Albert Einstein, 1932.

And less than 10 years later, Fermi did it.

I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years. Two years later we ourselves made flights. This demonstration of my impotence as a prophet gave me such a shock that ever since I have distrusted myself and avoided all predictions. - Wilbur Wright (1867-1912) [In a speech to the Aero Club of France (Nov 5, 1908)]

I can accept the theory of relativity as little as I can accept the existence of atoms and other such dogmas. -- Ernst Mach, 1913, Austrian physicist and philosopher

The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it. "Knife" and "pain" are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient. -- Dr. Alfred Velpeau, 1839

There are many more quotes that I could have used here. The point is that even people who are supposed experts in their domain cannot imagine what new things will come up. Just like you and me, they don't know. Is ignorance a sufficient reason to invoke god at every little hole in our knowledge ?

And this last one :

If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done. - Peter Ustinov

a reply to: gosseyn

that is where you are wrong , because the EYE in mammals and other species shares a common evolutionary path to the same problem that faced organisms, How to make sense of light information

and so with the discovery of the rods and cones in the eye , we discovered many animals share the same cones and rods and also make sense of colour hence why so many animals have so many different colours in their coats, fur, bodies its an evolutionary adaptation.
its ok , I know the science is right , you can bang on about how we perceive colour until the cows come home
but its not changing the way the EYE works in living organisms.

Your consciousness doesnt affect or change the light information we receive otherwise every human would experience colours independently from each other this would pose many problems for our species and for many others. The only way we can experience colours differently if there are defects or mutations within our eyes or visual cortex , where humans can experience larger or smaller ranges of the wavelengths of light

These are various forms of colour blindness missing 1 or 2 cones known as dichromacy or what is known as tetrachromacy or tetrachromats, people who have a 4th cone in their eye which allows them to see additional hues of colour.

the humans with super vision

Anyway , if humans experienced colours differently how then do we have "colour theory" or the psychology of colour
where many humans experience the same psychological effect from the colours we perceive ?

there are of course determining factors like age and sex but , the theory wouldnt exist if it didnt have any evidence to substantiate it.

a reply to: sapien82

Are we the same species you and me ?

a reply to: gosseyn

I should hope so