I Believe God Exists

[Hakurei Reimu]

What you have labeled "material" is fundamentally nothing more than information interpreted into a representation that appears within your awareness. The only way you know "material" exists, and the only reason why you have ever experienced anything "material" is because of information that you have interpreted as such.

Information and patterns of information, are what produce the reality you experience. Show me how you know a material object exists without first receiving and interpreting information.

Simple. The information you recieve is about those objects. There is no theory of information that does not have that information be about some system under study. If "information" is not about things, then it is by definition not information. It's just noise.

In short, there is no such thing as information standing out all on its own, by definition.

"evidence please, oh but not that evidence, that evidence doesn't count."

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578

I've already explained why pointing at a result consistent with a materialist theory can never undermine materialism. What about quantum mechanics is about spiritual or non-material things? QM describes the behavior of electrons, protons, photons, and the zoo of subatomic particles. It does not say anything about ghosts.

The only thing that these experiments expose is that the world defies our expectations of what matter is capable of, but nothing about materialism says that the material the world is made of cannot behave weirdly.

Anyway, you have responded to a point by restating a point that had already been killed. This is dishonest.

What you have labeled "material" is fundamentally nothing more than information Now what was your evidence again? Oh that's right, Naive Realism.... yeah I reject that based on actual evidence... sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism

Nobody here believes naive realism, you strawmanning fuck. At best, we believe scientific realism. No, the fact that quantum mechanics denies the realism of hidden variables only means that only those unobserved hidden variables simply do not exist to constrian quantum systems, not that the entire ediface of realism is without foundation.

Again, these are dishonest tactics, and you've been shipping them for quite some time now.

[josephpalazzo]

@Gasparov,

Your "information is immaterial" has been debunked here:

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=4329.msg1010541#msg1010541

Please get a reality check.

[Casparov]

Holy fucking shit I am glad I stumbled into this thread, because that is hands down one of the most moronic things I have ever read. I give you my applause, Casper... that seriously made me snort abit in laughter.

Welcome to the 21st Century.  That you snort when you laugh is not an argument, if however you'd like to refute the conclusions of modern scientific experimentation, be my guest.

[Casparov]

You want to tell me all the matter in the universe is there BECAUSE we are observing it? All the galaxies we discovered weren't there before we saw them? Earth didn't exist before there were humans to observe it? Does Mars cease to exist when I'm not looking?

If a tree falls in the forrest with nothing to observe it, does it make a sound?

Does a bear poop in the woods?

All (unfortunately) relevant questions

Yes indeed, very relevant questions:

Einstein: "Do you really believe the moon is not there when nobody looks?"
Neils Bohr: "Can you prove to me the contrary?"

Quantum Mechanics is only "weird" because it is inconsistent with Materialism which has dominated science since it's inception.  Einstein and Bohr were not having this conversation for kicks and giggles, they were seriously contemplating the ramifications of Quantum Mechanics. Now because of recent scientific experiments that were impossible in their day, successfully run in 1999, 2007, 2012, and 2013 we have conclusive evidence that Bohr was correct about QM and Einstein was clinging too tightly to the assumption of Materialism.

If you want to argue about about it, argue the evidence, not your "gut instinct" or "intuition".

[Casparov]

Things still exist whether you're looking at them or not.

A bold assertion! Now can you back this statement up? Both philosophy and hard science disagree with you.

[Icarus]

A bold assertion! Now can you back this statement up? Both philosophy and hard science disagree with you.

So now you speak for the entire scientific community?

[Icarus]

Yes indeed, very relevant questions:

Einstein: "Do you really believe the moon is not there when nobody looks?"
Neils Bohr: "Can you prove to me the contrary?"

Quantum Mechanics is only "weird" because it is inconsistent with Materialism which has dominated science since it's inception.  Einstein and Bohr were not having this conversation for kicks and giggles, they were seriously contemplating the ramifications of Quantum Mechanics. Now because of recent scientific experiments that were impossible in their day, successfully run in 1999, 2007, 2012, and 2013 we have conclusive evidence that Bohr was correct about QM and Einstein was clinging too tightly to the assumption of Materialism.

If you want to argue about about it, argue the evidence, not your "gut instinct" or "intuition".

Someone missed the followup to that discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

A fatal error for the mouthpiece of the scientific community. For shame.

[Mister Agenda]

Yes.

1) How do you reconcile your belief in Materialism with The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment?

I don't know that he actually has a belief in materialism, but since your declarations about the problems the experiment is supposed to pose to materialism seem to be based on a misunderstanding of materialism, someone who has actually bothered to read anything about materialism will see there is nothing to reconcile because the experiment doesn't show anything inconsistent with actual materialism, only the strawman materialism in your particular head.

2) While you are unable to doubt that you are conscious, you are able to doubt that material exists independent of your observation. Do you base your belief in Materialism on any empirical evidence or is this just an assumption you make based on Naive Realism?

Have you established that the ability to doubt something disqualifies it from probably existing? And you never seem to get around to addressing the issue of evidence being essentially arbitrary and illusory under monist idealism. Under monist idealism there is not even the POSSIBILITY of proof of anything AND it requires us to reject all of our sensory experiences as unreal solely because it's conceivable that they're unreal, and we know our senses aren't completely reliable...but HOW do we know that? From the evidence of our senses, which is unacceptable under your scheme.

3) Do you know what Naive Realism is?

To you, it seems to be a label you apply indiscriminately to anyone critical of your assertions about monist idealism.

4) Do you know what The Hard Problem of Consciousness is?

Essentially, it's the problem of being able to know that anyone but yourself is really conscious.

5) Have you ever seen consciousness? If not, how do you know it exists?

Direct experience of it, as you're well aware.

6) Why is believing in Materialism so important to you?

No one conversing with you seems to 'believe in' materialism the way you believe in idealism. We're not convinced it's true. We're just not convinced it's false. Though frankly, you're building a good case for your alternative being poorly supported.

[Casparov]

Show us how you can store or transmit information without any material. I dare you.

Show me how you receive or interpret information without any material... I double dare you.

You assume that all information is dependent on material, yet every perception of "material" you ever have is the direct result of binary information. You interpret this information into a perception, you then assume that this perception is of an external objective material world that is independent of observation. Then you ask me to "show how you receive or interpret information without any material". But I have not made the same unnecessary assumption that you have.

In order to believe that there is "material" in the first place there was a series of binary information patterns that gave rise to the sensory information which you have interpreted as "material".... In a sly and subtle move you then assume this sensory information represents objective "material." You can only receiver information via perception, if you interpret every sensory perception you ever perceive as "material", then you are simply ignorant of the fact that no sensory perception can arise in your conscious awareness as anything other than interpreted information. A leap from the information you receive to believing that objective material objects exist independent of observation is required on your part, and it is an unjustified leap.

You do not perceive the external world directly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism

You receive information which you interpret into a representation of the outside world. That these sensory perceptions represent a Material Observation-Independent world is an assumption with no proof, no evidence, no justification to back it up other than weak statements like, "It seams that way," "kicking rocks hurts", and "it's obvious." Other justifications just turn out to be bold assertions like, 'It is self evident!" and "Things exist when your are not looking at them!" and "Materialism is true!" Bold assertions made with no justification.

Matter is that which occupies space and possesses rest mass.

Immaterial is that which does not consist of matter, is incorporeal, occupies no space and possesses no rest mass.

Information has zero of the qualities of matter and all of the qualities of being immaterial. It is honestly a surprise to me that someone is attempting to define "information" as equal to "material object", but it makes no difference. We can argue this as long as you want. At best you simply mistake the "medium" for the "message". The "message" or the "data" itself is equal to the information, not the "medium" even when you assume the medium is "material".

You can keep asking me the same question over and over and say "i triple double dog dare you" but realize you are speaking to an Idealist, not a Materialist, therefore I am unconvinced of your foundational assumption that matter produces information rather than the other way around. Every perception you ever have is the result of information.

[Sargon The Grape]

1) How do you reconcile your belief in Materialism with The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment?

That experiment has nothing to do with consciousness.

2) While you are unable to doubt that you are conscious, you are able to doubt that material exists independent of your observation.

I'm not going to answer the question you followed this with, because the premise you're basing it off of is fucking stupid. The ability to doubt the existence of other things does not make them cease to exist. This is like the person saying that the ability to conceive of the Christian God means that it must exist: by that same logic, the Enderdragon really is waiting past a mystical gate hidden in a buried stronghold for me to come kill it and roll the end credits of the universe.

3) Do you know what Naive Realism is?

It's a term invented by pseudo-intellectuals with too much time on their hands. Yes, I do know what it is; no, I'm not going to waste my time with it.

4) Do you know what The Hard Problem of Consciousness is?

It's a term invented by pseudo-intellectuals with too much time on their hands. Yes, I do know what it is; no, I'm not going to waste my time with it.

5) Have you ever seen consciousness? If not, how do you know it exists?

I have witnessed other beings express traits consistent with my own consciousness. I can conclude, with reasonable certainty, that they have consciousness. Nothing is ever proven, of course, which is why I have always emphasized that your assertions need to be falsifiable, not provable.

6) Why is believing in Materialism so important to you?

It's not. Falsify materialism and I will drop it in an instant.

[Casparov]

Someone missed the followup to that discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

A fatal error for the mouthpiece of the scientific community. For shame.

From the abstract of the peer reviewed scientific paper that I keep providing but you keep ignoring:

"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality."

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529

You forgot to read the "Final remarks" section of that wikipedia page:

The violations of Bell's inequalities, due to quantum entanglement, just provide the definite demonstration of something that was already strongly suspected, that quantum physics cannot be represented by any version of the classical picture of physics. Some earlier elements that had seemed incompatible with classical pictures included complementarity and wavefunction collapse. The Bell violations show that no resolution of such issues can avoid the ultimate strangeness of quantum behavior.

The VERY EXPERIMENTS I have been presenting over and over on this thread are two of the one's that violate Bell's Inequalities.... And you then present Bell's Theorem.... sigh...

[Contemporary Protestant]

Will it reach 31????

[stromboli]

Wow, talk about a circle jerk. the "evidence" you provided from Wikipedia is noting but a discussion of a philosophical stance, nothing more.

Your whole argument is based entirely in supposition and theory. You simply set aside anything contrary to your argument and insist it isn't evidence.

You yourself have not provided anything that can be considered as proof, and certainly have not comeclose to proving the existence of god.

Every post you have made is nothing but philosobabble. You can't prove a supernatural god because there is no way to quantify it or describe it. It has been tried for a very long time, and no one has succeeded. And you haven't even come close. And if you can disregard all the quoted, specific statements by the likes of Laurence Krauss, Victor Stenger and Sean Carol, you really are missing the point.

Your whole argument has been simply to ignore anything you disagree with and plow on with the same unproven blither.

[Icarus]

From the abstract of the peer reviewed scientific paper that I keep providing but you keep ignoring:

"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality."

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529

You forgot to read the "Final remarks" section of that wikipedia page:

The VERY EXPERIMENTS I have been presenting over and over on this thread are two of the one's that violate Bell's Inequalities.... And you then present Bell's Theorem.... sigh...

Excellent, that got you to respond to my post (see how frustrating it is dealing with someone who doesn't even try to make sense? Now you know how everyone on this forum feels about you). Now, back to the matter at hand: Why are you so confused about your own belief system and the contradictions of a Panentheist also being a Pantheist. Why do you think you speak for the entire scientific community? Several people on this forum are actually part of the scientific community, publish and edit papers, and you certainly don't speak for us. Many more people on this forum have a very good understanding of scientific principles, yet we all think you're bat crazy. Why is that?

[Jason78]

A bold assertion! Now can you back this statement up? Both philosophy and hard science disagree with you.

Take two accurate clocks.   Synchronise them.

Leave one clock in one location.  Carry one with you.   After five hours return to the clock you left.

The unobserved clock will have kept time, even though it and its component parts were unobserved.

(This experiment works even if you don't carry another clock with you, it's just a lot harder to return after five hours.)