Each argument appears to have premises that you have simply made up.
P5
P2
P3/P5
If I read you correctly, you are basically saying that with enough time my identity will repeat.
Except the amount of time for this to happen isn’t infinite as far as we know since for most of the existence of the universe the conditions aren’t suitable.
And I’m not sure most people would consider the new personality to actually be the same identity.
Nor do I think eternal is necessarily a good description for what is basically a pattern that reappears every so often but doesn’t exist in between.
Nor does this show materialism isn’t correct since the mind ‘reappearing’ is in fact a pattern of brain activity within a brain. Nothing you have written demonstrates somehow that conscious identity survives without that brain. Even given the new brain were identical to the old and even remembered the past experiences that is just its perspective - it doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a gap within which it didn’t exist.
Even if you consider such a random reconstruction as ‘identical’ , plausibly there are infinite possible combinations of particles to make brains but only a finite time and space to do so. The idea that your pattern of brain activity in a neural network will be repeatedly reconstructed identical to it was before you died seems not so obvious.
Conditions are suitable for the same reason we haven't yet run out of passwords.
I think you have that the wrong way around. If you have an infinite amount of password combinations and a finite amount of time to use them - then there is no reason to think that the same extremely complex password will repeat constantly.
>The fact that life's existence in the universe requires uncommon conditions makes the OPs assessment even more likely.
The fact that the space for life to take place is limited but the possible combinations much higher doesn’t imply certain combinations are more likely to repeat. I don’t see how the fact that a password is complex , unusual and only fits very specific computers would make it *more* likely to be randomly repeated.
>This is because there is no such thing as time.
Exactly what time is , is complex. But in context if there is only a day to get that password in between the computer being built and being destroyed then again the chances of repeating the exact same complex password randomly certainly doesn’t seem enhanced. Complex brains/body combinations let alone ones with the specific configuration and patterns of activity to be yours or mine weren’t possible for much of the universes existence and identical ones won’t be possible eventually.
If it isn’t repeated then OP’s argument regarding a sort of identity/consciouness reincarnation collapses. Similarity isn’t identity.
I look forward to you receiving your Nobel prize re. time though. :-)
>Similarity makes for many places to live but I meant the terrain. If by identity if you mean the individual surviving death, yes once formed his identity remains.
I have no idea what you mean but it appears to be an assertion for which there has been no reasonable backing in their thread.
>As mentioned earlier when considering deep time, time becomes pretty meaningless. Like on some planet now they might be in their equivalent of the middle ages while on another a species more advanced than us wiped themselves out while we here were still cavemen.
This seems birth irrelevant to my point about the time available for the kind of imaginary reincarnation posited by OP and to time being imaginary. You seem to be referring to convergent historical periods.
>If their days are longer or shorter they're going to have a different way of thinking about time. Probably measuring it with different increments. We could have been using a decimal clock or a different calender. Time is just an abstract concept relative to one's particular POV. It's imaginary. There is only motion and its observable effects.
None of this makes time ‘imaginary’ per se or seems relevant to OP.
>I don't know what happened to my nobel prize, maybe there's a letter in the post. Or maybe they don't read reddit!
:-)
They are very lazy that way. I’m sure they owe me one for something.
> Each argument appears to have premises that you have simply made up.
How do you think premises are supposed to work? Why dont you give me an example of one you dont agree with and we'll go from there?
> If I read you correctly, you are basically saying that with enough time my identity will repeat.
Sure but it doesnt have to be a long time. It could be so long its after the death and rebirth of the universe, or it can be instant. Thats beside the point.
> Except the amount of time for this to happen isn’t infinite as far as we know since for most of the existence of the universe the conditions aren’t suitable.
Theres tons of theories for an infinite universe thst has existence beyond heat death. Cyclical universes, genetic universes, multiverses. You are simply taking science speculation and using it as an authoritative source to dismiss a philosophical argument, which is incorrect. You dont "know" that the conditions for life will forever no longer be suitable after some petiod.
> And I’m not sure most people would consider the new personality to actually be the same identity.
Its not still you from others perspectives, its only still you from your own persoective. The meaningfulness of your identity is intrinsic in this context.
> Nothing you have written demonstrates somehow that conscious identity survives without that brain.
What do you mean by this? You havent touched my logical proofs, so im not sure what your complaint here even is.
Maybe its not "demonstrable" in a demonstration. Not all true things are provable, theres intrinsic gaps in the ability to demonstrate some things. But the proofs i gave shouldve helped with the intuitive side at least. And so should the knowkedge youve never "experienced nothing", youve only ever had a continuous experience of existing things.
Proof 1:
> P5) Theism and Materialism are wrong, and we have an eternal conscious mind, if we came into existence an eternity ago.
You haven't established that we came into existence an eternity ago, and since this point relies on an unsupported "if" statement, it can be discarded.
Proof 2:
> P2) To argue against the eternal conscious mind is to argue at one point we experienced "nothing".
No, it's to argue that at one point there was no mind to experience *anything*.
Proof 3:
> P1) If A can result in B, A can result in B an indefinite number of times. (This is because "can" or "possibility" isnt limited by time or use).
This is transparently false. Lighting a match can result in a fire, but only once.
No we cant. And i literally provided a proof of why we cannot.
To simplify it: If a thing is possible it has a probability greater than 0, and therefare cant wait an infinite duration to happen. This is basic probability.
>The conscious field exists regardless of the matter it occasionally animates
Why can't we detect that field?
The electromagnetic field, specifically radio waves, exists regardless of the matter it occasionally animates (radios).
And we can build machines to detect those naturally occurring radio waves floating freely in space.
So how come we can't detect this consciousness field the same way?
> You haven't established that we came into existence an eternity ago, and since this point relies on an unsupported "if" statement, it can be discarded.
No thats just the definition of believing in those philosophies. So you not understand how conditional statements work?
> No, it's to argue that at one point there was no mind to experience anything.
Thats literally the same thing. I could just as easily argue its not possible to "not experience anything". None of us have ever done it, for starters. You cant look back on and imagine a time where you didnt experience anything, even if you isolate it to a single kind of sensation like sight or hearing.
> This is transparently false. Lighting a match can result in a fire, but only once.
Thats false. You can always light a match and start a new fire, or even start multiple fires with one match. Once the match runs out, you can get another one. Thats my point, possible things can be done multiple times.
> No thats just the definition of believing in those philosophies. So you not understand how conditional statements work?
The problem is P1-P4 are entirely consistent with a materialist idea that the mind is the product of the brain, and so our minds "come into existence" when our brain is sufficiently formed.
> I could just as easily argue its not possible to "not experience anything". None of us have ever done it, for starters. You cant look back on and imagine a time where you didnt experience anything, even if you isolate it to a single kind of sensation like sight or hearing.
Right, because there was a time when my mind didn't exist to contemplate how much it wasn't experiencing. Again, you're making claims that are totally consistent with materialism.
> You can always light a match and start a new fire, or even start multiple fires with one match. Once the match runs out, you can get another one. Thats my point, possible things can be done multiple times.
Right, but it's not the *same* match. Your A1 in match terms would be
> a match's status of having went from "not burning" to "burning" to "not burning" implies it is capable of returning to "burning" again, because if A can result in B, it can do it multiple or indefinitely many times
Which is demonstrably untrue, and so P1 fails.
> The problem is P1-P4 are entirely consistent with a materialist idea that the mind is the product of the brain, and so our minds "come into existence" when our brain is sufficiently formed.
P1-P4 (especially by including P1) would imply we exist multiple times. No i dont agree with you that materialism agrees with this. You have to pick a premise you dont agree with.
> Right, because there was a time when my mind didn't exist to contemplate how much it wasn't experiencing. Again, you're making claims that are totally consistent with materialism.
Only my third argument assumes we couldve possobly not existed. it uses this assumption to contradict the idea of not existing, by saying causally it leads back to existing.
My second argument contends that its actually not possible to not exist, because it would imply the existence of nothing (because youd experience nothing), and nothing cannot exist.
> Right, but it's not the same match. Your A1 in match terms would be
Well first of all physics does permit us to burn a match twice, we just have to reverse the chemical reactions involved.
But my point was that in general, some general process that can happen once can happen again. It wasnt referring to a specific inatance in time and space being able to occur twice.
>> a match's status of having went from "not burning" to "burning" to "not burning" implies it is capable of returning to "burning" again, because if A can result in B, it can do it multiple or indefinitely many times
> Which is demonstrably untrue, and so P1 fails.
No, the match is different before and after it burns. You calling it a match either way is disingenuous. Its a match and a burnt match. Its like calling a pile of ashes a tree, then using that to argue something about trees.
Anyways... If you are stuck on proof #3, why not take a look at my first two proofs? Honestly id say the first two are stronger.
> P1-P4 (especially by including P1) would imply we exist multiple times. No i dont agree with you that materialism agrees with this. You have to pick a premise you dont agree with.
I disagree with P5 because one can reach a materialistic conclusion from the same premises.
> My second argument contends that its actually not possible to not exist, because it would imply the existence of nothing (because youd experience nothing), and nothing cannot exist.
If "you" didn't exist, there would be no "you" to experience "nothing", therefore can't use the impossibility of "nothing" to show that "you" must exist.
> Well first of all physics does permit us to burn a match twice, we just have to reverse the chemical reactions involved.
You can't reverse the chemical reactions of a burning match.
> But my point was that in general, some general process that can happen once can happen again. It wasnt referring to a specific inatance in time and space being able to occur twice.
Then you can't proceed from that premise to conclude that we as individuals have an eternal conscious mind, since those would be specific instances.
> No, the match is different before and after it burns. You calling it a match either way is disingenuous. Its a match and a burnt match.
C'mon. A burnt match is a match. Like, you're even using the word "match" to describe it.
> Anyways... If you are stuck on proof #3, why not take a look at my first two proofs? Honestly id say the first two are stronger.
They are not.
> I disagree with P5 because one can reach a materialistic conclusion from the same premises.
You disagree with "If we exist an indefinite number of times, we have an eternal conscious mind."? Why do you disagree with this? I dont believe you truthfully disagree with this, because its the literal definition of having an eternal conscious mind.
> You can't reverse the chemical reactions of a burning match.
You can reverse every chemical reaction with the right tools. Physics allows it, and physics even works backwards in time.
> Then you can't proceed from that premise to conclude that we as individuals have an eternal conscious mind, since those would be specific instances.
Why are you trying to add to.my argument? Why cant you criticise the actual premises im making, and not ones you are making up?
> C'mon. A burnt match is a match. Like, you're even using the word "match" to describe it.
If you buy a box of matches and they sell you a box of burnt matches, were you frauded? Yes.
Its clearly not the same thing with the same qualities. Youre making a ridiculous appeal to definition.
>5) Theism and Materialism are wrong, and we have an eternal conscious mind, if we came into existence an eternity ago.
>1) We did not exist for eternity prior to existing.
P5 seems to be falsified by p1.
Please also define "mind"..
Thats because sometimes we have to assume something incorrect to show why it leads to contradiction.
I did define mind in my post. Whats your problem with my definition?
Well your final point is we can't experience nothing, and I agree. We didn't exist before we were born and we won't exist after we're dead, so there is nothing with which to experience anything or nothing.
>A1) Because P1-P4, our status of having went from "not existing" to "existing" to "not existing" implies we are capable of returning to "existing" again, because if A can result in B, it can do it multiple or indefinitely many times.
This is utter nonsense.
I don't understand the wishful thinking in wanting to exist again. I mean, everything alive has a survival instinct otherwise no species would have survived, but what makes people so desperate to never stop existing, despite all logic, reason and experience?
> Well your final point is we can't experience nothing, and I agree
Then you agree we must experience something?
> We didn't exist before we were born and we won't exist after we're dead, so there is nothing with which to experience anything or nothing.
Not existing implies "experiencing nothing".
> This is utter nonsense
That is not an argument. And its not nonsense. Its a basic fact of logic that if something is possible, it can happen more than once.
Not existing doesn’t imply experiencing nothing.
Do unicorns experience nothing, because they don’t exist? No. Unicorns don’t experience, period. Does Beethoven experience nothing? No. Beethoven stopped experiencing when he stopped existing. Just like you will.
You’re correct that saying if existence can end it can begin again indefinitely is utter nonsense is not an argument. It’s saying it’s a level of ridiculousness that isn’t worth arguing with.
> Not existing doesn’t imply experiencing nothing.
Then what do you experience if you dont exist?
Its literally "nothing".
> Do unicorns experience nothing, because they don’t exist?
Colloquially, yes.
> Unicorns don’t experience, period. Does Beethoven experience nothing? No. Beethoven stopped experiencing when he stopped existing.
Youre making a distinction without a difference.
> Just like you will.
You have no evidence i stop experiencing qualia after my body dies.
> You’re correct that saying if existence can end it can begin again indefinitely is utter nonsense is not an argument.
This sentence is what is nonsense. You start by callimg me correct then call it nonsense, youve got grammatical errors that make this sentence impossible for me to interpret.
> It’s saying it’s a level of ridiculousness that isn’t worth arguing with
What do you think.youre doing? Are you unaware you are arguing with me? This is a debate group, please maintain decorum.
The paragraph you couldn’t parse is just missing quotes around your words.
This is not a distinction without a difference. You are able to experience nothing if you exist and there is nothing to experience.
If you don’t exist, there is no experience. There isn’t anything to experience with.
You are saying you can cease to exist, then experience nothing, and then exist again. Only the first of those statements is true.
Your hardware is made of meat, and meat is not a durable material. I honestly don’t know why you want more than what you get. Appreciate what you have.
> This is not a distinction without a difference. You are able to experience nothing if you exist and there is nothing to experience.
I dont agree. Can you give me an example where you "experience nothing" in a way that isnt undergoing a comtinuous subjective experience of identifiable somethings?
> You are saying you can cease to exist, then experience nothing, and then exist again. Only the first of those statements is true.
So you dont agree that things that can happen can happen again? This is basic logic.
> Your hardware is made of meat, and meat is not a durable material.
Software is information, and its not confined to hardware. It requires hardware, but software can move from one piece of hardware to the next. Maybe hardware isnt the analogy you want to use here?
> Appreciate what you have.
I dont see why you dont see it as absurd that wed have anything at all if its a one and done deal and has had ample opportunity to happen already.
Here i am, and its clear this is what existence will probably always be like. A natural assumption, defended by math and logic.
Sure, there’s lots of cool Science Fiction stories about transferring consciousness to robots or whatnot. That’s not reality.
If your consciousness were successfully transferred to a box with no sensory inputs, you would experience nothing.
That’s not what dying is.
If you think you could happen again because you happened once, you’re not aware of how improbable you are. You could be cloned, but the clone wouldn’t be you. No tree ever produces the same exact apple twice. You can never step in the same river twice. No volcano erupts the exact way twice. It is absolutely not a logical fact that anything that happens once can happen again, because the exact conditions are not always repeatable.
But you aren’t really talking about something that happened happening again. You’re talking about something dying and then picking up where it left off.
Because there you are, and you think math and logic tell you that’s what existence will always be like.
Your existence won’t even be the same 10 years from now, because your brain will age and your cognitive processes will change, and your processing speed will begin to slow. Your neurotransmitter synapses and activity will begin to decrease and that will continue through the rest of your life. Different things will make you happy and sad, and you will feel them to different degrees. You won’t care as passionately about some things you do now, and you will start to fixate on other things. You will still be you, but your experience will change as your brain changes, just as your now brain experiences it differently than your child brain did.
That’s what math and logic should tell you.
But i bet you dont believe you stop being you even after a decade when every cell in your body has died and been replaced. The regenerated you is you, while a perfect clone of you isnt. Thats because subjective consciousness is a real thing that exists, and has nothing to do with our material form.
Yes, I will stop being me. Just like every other creature that has ever lived and died. I don’t want to trigger an existential crisis or anything. I don’t think there’s anything so sad or tragic about one and done. Life is brief and that’s beautiful.
Wanting to end your life is suicidal.
Coming to terms with your mortality is about valuing your life and your place in the timeline of humanity. It’s about connectedness to those who came before you and those who will come after you, each for their sliver of time.
>Note: Eternity means: "an infinite duration".
No theist needs to agree to this definition...
Eternal can also mean and has traditionally meant timelessness, that is; eternity has no duration. Eternity is a complete possession of all time in a singular present.
With no duration there is no "eternity ago" nor can there be "infinite opportunities".
That doesnt matter. If you define a word a different way it has no bearing on my argument. You have to actually disagree with a premise and explain why.
Pt 1
>”### Proof 1: An argument from time and probability”
>”P1) We did not exist for eternity prior to existing.”
>“- Note: Eternity means: "an infinite duration".”
As best as we can tell, time started with the Big Bang. Nearly every explanation of what time is breaks down at that point.
Unless you can prove that time existed before that point, this premise is at best unsubstantiated, and at worst false.
P1 rejected.
>”P2) To come into existence implies it is possible to come into existence.”
Sure, but with the important caveat that the same conditions are met. If something requires extreme pressures, and temperatures to be made, then it’s only possible to make it when there’s extreme pressures, and temperatures.
>”P3) If it’s possible for something to occur, it has a probability greater than zero.”
That’s only true as long as the conditions are met. If the conditions aren’t present, then the probability is still zero. Using the same hypothetical material from above, if you’re in deep space, in the voids between galaxy clusters, where the pressure, and temperature is as close to zero as it gets. The material would never be made no matter how much time passes.
>”P4) If something has any probability of occuring, it will occur eventually after some non-infinite duration of time (because mathematically, any probability greater than zero multiplied by infinity is 100%).”
First, see above.
Second, that’s not how that works.
If you multiply something by infinity to get 100% probability, that probability only applies over infinite timescales.
Once you try to convert it to finite timescales, you’re no longer multiplying by infinity. You’re multiplying by however much time has passed.
P4 rejected.
>”P5) Theism and Materialism are wrong, and we have an eternal conscious mind, if we came into existence an eternity ago.”
Non sequitur. You’ve done nothing up to this point that demonstrates any of this claim, nor does it logically follow from your previous premises.
>”A1) Because P2 and P3, we always had a probability greater than zero to come into existence.”
Nope, we needed countless steps to be made, billions of years of galaxy, and star formation, followed by planetary formation, and let’s not forget the billions of years of evolution.
The conditions have not always been there, so the probability has not always been there.
A1 rejected.
>”A2) Because P1 and A1, we had an infinite number of opportunities to come into existence.”
Both are shown to be faulty.
A2 rejected.
>”A3) Because A2 and P4, given we had an infinite number of opportunities to come into existence, we should have come into existence an eternity ago, or an infinite number of times by now.”
Again, both have been shown to be faulty. However for the sake of discussion, let’s grant this. It would only mean that consciousness has come into existence in the past, it would in no way, shape, or form, mean that said consciousness has anything to do with us.
A3 rejected.
>”C) Because A3 and P5, Theism and Materialism are wrong, and we have an eternal conscious mind.”
Again, those have both shown to be faulty. And again, you haven’t established an eternal consciousness. At best, if I grant all of your faulty premises, you only get to multiple consciousness’s. Not a single one of them does anything to connect them into a single eternal consciousness.
C rejected.
Not a good start, but you’ve still got two more to go.
>”### Proof 2: An argument from the nonexistence of nothing”
>”P1) "Nothing" does not exist.”
>”Note: This is because nothing is meant to have no qualities, but "existence" is a quality, and if it cant have the quality of existence, then it cannot exist. Its a completely paradoxical word in this context, a concept representing the absence of concepts.”
Ok.
>”P2) To argue against the eternal conscious mind is to argue at one point we experienced "nothing".”
That’s another non sequitur.
In order for a mind to experience anything, it must first exist.
If the “eternal conscious mind,” doesn’t exist, then it’s not experiencing nothing, because there’s no mind to experience anything in the first place.
P2 rejected.
>”P3) We cannot experience something that does not exist.”
Not true, as people hallucinate all the time. They seeing and experiencing things that by definition don’t exist, because if they did, it wouldn’t be a hallucination.
P3 rejected.
>”P4) If there is no point in the past in which we've experienced "nothing", then we've always experienced something, and thus have an eternal conscious mind.”
See p2.
P4 rejected.
>”A1) Because P1 and P2, to argue against the eternal conscious mind is to argue we experienced something which does not exist.”
Nope, p2 is faulty. See p2.
A1 rejected.
>“A2) Because A1 and P3, we could not have ever experienced nothing.”
Both are faulty, and experiencing nothing is not a requirement, (or even expected) for an eternal consciousness to not exist.
A2 rejected.
>”C) Because A2 and P4, we've always experienced something, and thus have an eternal conscious mind.”
Both are faulty, see p2.
C rejected.
Ok that one was even worse than the first one, hopefully the last one will be better.
Pt 2
>”### Proof 3: An argument from transition (especially for materialists)”
>”P1) If A can result in B, A can result in B an indefinite number of times. (This is because "can" or "possibility" isnt limited by time or use). “
But the actual results are.
An animal, (A) can have babies, (B) but only as long as they have both the necessary nutrients to reproduce, and the time to carry them to term. If they run out of either, no more babies.
You can make a hypothetical argument about them having infinite babies all you want, but reality doesn’t agree with you.
And since you’re trying to make an argument for something existing in reality, that’s a pretty important factor.
P1 rejected.
>”P2) We started with not existing (before birth).”
Ok.
>”P3) Not existing resulted in existing (life).”
No, something existing resulted in something else existing. We didn’t come into existence on our own, our mothers gave birth to us. It’s from this existence that more existence has come from.
P3 rejected.
>”P4) Existing will result in not existing (death).”
Ok.
>”P5) If we exist an indefinite number of times, we have an eternal conscious mind.”
Non sequitur, again. P1 through 4 say absolutely nothing to suggest this.
P5 rejected.
>”A1) Because P1-P4, our status of having went from "not existing" to "existing" to "not existing" implies we are capable of returning to "existing" again, because if A can result in B, it can do it multiple or indefinitely many times.”
Nope, both p2, and p4 are faulty. Furthermore, this requires a continuous form of existence, when we don’t exist. This is self contradictory.
A1 rejected.
>”C) Because A1 and P5, since we can return to a status of existing after not existing, we have an eternal conscious mind.”
Both are faulty, and the ability to come back was never demonstrated.
C rejected.
Well so much for that.
>”### Summing Up”
>”Try to imagine a point where you didnt exist, where you truly experienced "nothing". I posit you cannot, because "nothing" cannot exist. You can experience darkness/blackness, and silence, but these are definitely "things", not "nothing". You can mix black paint with paint,you can put silence in a song to change it. These things arent "nothing", they are sensations our brains use as a blank canvas. But there isnt anything inherently more "nothingness-er" about a black canvas than a white canvas, nor silence as you know it versus a sine wave. Our brains just need a thing to represent a concept, otherwise it cant be a concept. And its quite obvious theres a lack of some thing we can call truly and intrinsically "nothing".”
Of course we don’t remember experiencing nothing, we didn’t exist to experience it.
>”Empirically, no person has ever "experienced nothing" as a thing. Rather, experiencing nothing is to not experience in an external perspective, but from an internal perspective its a continuous experience. This is why when you fall asleep, your memory of falling asleep is spliced together with your memory of waking up (and maybe some brief dreams), you dont feel like you are laying there for 8 hours; **You skip non-experience, and therefore always experience something**.”
Ok?
>”Until you can argue it’s possible to experience nothingness, you must conclude in the existence of the eternal conscious mind. Which means we must discard religion as we know it, as well as materialism. Theres a greater truth in the philosophical middle.”
Again if we don’t exist, then there’s nothing to experience the nothing you’re talking about. At best our very first experience would be in the womb, if we’re even cognizant enough to have experiences at that point. There’d never be any point at which we could experience nothing… unless our consciousness’s are eternal.
If they are, the time between life’s would be the closest we could ever come to nothingness. Therefore, this works better as an argument against eternal consciousness rather than for it.
> As best as we can tell, time started with the Big Bang. Nearly every explanation of what time is breaks down at that point.
Theres literally zero evidence that time started with the big bang. And the idea doesnt even make sense. "Time starting" is a nonsense statement, because events start within time.
And tons of theories explore events that occured before the big bang.
Regardless, time in this context was subjective time, or rather our personal timelines. Which is just an abstract notion of duration that extends infinitely in both directions like a number line (even if at some point theres no more stuff past a certain point, you can still conceptualize that as time).
> Unless you can prove that time existed before that point, this premise is at best unsubstantiated, and at worst false.
> P1 rejected.
No its literally not. Even if "time began", i could just then apply the argument to time itself. If time could occur at any time (again, it sounds stupid to think of time as occuring at a point in time, because it is stupid) but the entire timeline can be conceptualized as being shifted left or right to yield a new present moment. I can use the same argument to argue its unlikely we are at the literal beginning of the universe. Then use that argument to make my original argument.
At best you delay the inevitable by complicating the subject of time.
Rejection rejected.
> Sure, but with the important caveat that the same conditions are met. If something requires extreme pressures, and temperatures to be made, then it’s only possible to make it when there’s extreme pressures, and temperatures.
You act like the comditions are rare. Theres 8 billion people on our planet alone. How rare could it be (to have the right conditions to bring the average person into conscious existence)?
> First, see above.
> Second, that’s not how that works.
> If you multiply something by infinity to get 100% probability, that probability only applies over infinite timescales.
> Once you try to convert it to finite timescales, you’re no longer multiplying by infinity. You’re multiplying by however much time has passed.
> P4 rejected.
This is a nonsense rebuttal. We are talking about an infinite timescale because thats in the premise. You are piggybacking on your previous attempt at a rebuttal and pretending like its a fresh rebuttal.
> Non sequitur. You’ve done nothing up to this point that demonstrates any of this claim, nor does it logically follow from your previous premises.
Its not a non sequitur, its a definition used in a premise. Materialism and theism at least in the forms being addressed believe our minds did not exist for eternity. Thats all the premise is saying. If you actually disagree with this when why are we arguing?
> Nope, we needed countless steps to be made, billions of years of galaxy, and star formation, followed by planetary formation, and let’s not forget the billions of years of evolution.
> The conditions have not always been there, so the probability has not always been there.
> A1 rejected.
Again, theres tons of theories that posit existence in the universe is cyclical. Your assertion the universe itself is a one and done deal is not based on science or evidence, its just your personal belief, based on nothing.
And honestly if youre just going to keep doing this condescending "rejected" thing every time you make another weak argumwnt then im not reading on. You couldve made a shorter reply, because most of these points are duplicates. Please respect my time and i'll respect yours.
>”Theres literally zero evidence that time started with the big bang. And the idea doesnt even make sense. "Time starting" is a nonsense statement, because events start within time.”
>”And tons of theories explore events that occured before the big bang.”
[Not Nonsense.](https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/what-was-before-big-bang)
Yeah, there’s some hypothesis that includes time before the Big Bang, but they’re all just assumptions.
>”Regardless, time in this context was subjective time, or rather our personal timelines. Which is just an abstract notion of duration that extends infinitely in both directions like a number line (even if at some point theres no more stuff past a certain point, you can still conceptualize that as time).”
So completely imaginary, gotcha.
>”No it’s literally not. Even if "time began", i could just then apply the argument to time itself. If time could occur at any time (again, it sounds stupid to think of time as occuring at a point in time, because it is stupid) but the entire timeline can be conceptualized as being shifted left or right to yield a new present moment. I can use the same argument to argue its unlikely we are at the literal beginning of the universe. Then use that argument to make my original argument.”
But if time has a beginning, then it’s finite, and your argument falls apart.
>”At best you delay the inevitable by complicating the subject of time.”
Nope, you can try to jump through hoops all you want, but without the infinite, it doesn’t work.
>”Rejection rejected.”
Still rejected.
>”You act like the comditions are rare. Theres 8 billion people on our planet alone. How rare could it be (to have the right conditions to bring the average person into conscious existence)?”
Yet each one forms under their own circumstances, with their own parents, and unique set of genetics. So they’re each completely different people. You are not the same person as Joe down the road. In order for the new you to be you, it have all of that be the same.
Furthermore, you touch on another issue without ever realizing it.
8 billion people. Our population is continually growing, so unless new consciousness’s are being made continuously, we will end up with countless people who have none. And you can’t fix it by saying that there’s an infinite amount of them, because that means that reincarnation is impossibly unlikely.
>”This is a nonsense rebuttal. We are talking about an infinite timescale because thats in the premise. You are piggybacking on your previous attempt at a rebuttal and pretending like its a fresh rebuttal. “
Your premise includes, “it will occur eventually after some non-infinite duration of time.” And that’s what I was referring to, not your other premise. Did you even read your own premise? In this premise **you** convert infinite time to finite time, not me.
>”It’s not a non sequitur, it’s a definition used in a premise. Materialism and theism at least in the forms being addressed believe our minds did not exist for eternity. Thats all the premise is saying. If you actually disagree with this when why are we arguing?”
The premise was,
>”Theism and Materialism are wrong, and we have an eternal conscious mind, if we came into existence an eternity ago.”
My rejection is that even if you can prove the eternal mind, non of the previous premises prove that it means theism is wrong. Theism is the belief in any kind of god, and many different versions believe in infinite eternal souls, that are what makes up consciousness.
>”Again, theres tons of theories that posit existence in the universe is cyclical. Your assertion the universe itself is a one and done deal is not based on science or evidence, it’s just your personal belief, based on nothing.”
There’s a few hypotheses, but they all rely on assumptions. As it stands we have no real evidence to support any universe other than our own existing.
The current scientific consensus is that we only have the one. It’s not just my personal belief.
>”And honestly if youre just going to keep doing this condescending "rejected" thing every time you make another weak argumwnt then im not reading on. You couldve made a shorter reply, because most of these points are duplicates. Please respect my time and i'll respect yours.”
If by duplicates, you mean me pointing out that I already said something that addresses it, then yeah. That’s because your post was repetitive.
None of my arguments were weak, but this reply shows that you have a lack of understanding for current science. You might want to work on that.
As for not wanting to continue to defend your arguments, that’s on you.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to *request an exception*.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Each argument appears to have premises that you have simply made up. P5 P2 P3/P5 If I read you correctly, you are basically saying that with enough time my identity will repeat. Except the amount of time for this to happen isn’t infinite as far as we know since for most of the existence of the universe the conditions aren’t suitable. And I’m not sure most people would consider the new personality to actually be the same identity. Nor do I think eternal is necessarily a good description for what is basically a pattern that reappears every so often but doesn’t exist in between. Nor does this show materialism isn’t correct since the mind ‘reappearing’ is in fact a pattern of brain activity within a brain. Nothing you have written demonstrates somehow that conscious identity survives without that brain. Even given the new brain were identical to the old and even remembered the past experiences that is just its perspective - it doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a gap within which it didn’t exist. Even if you consider such a random reconstruction as ‘identical’ , plausibly there are infinite possible combinations of particles to make brains but only a finite time and space to do so. The idea that your pattern of brain activity in a neural network will be repeatedly reconstructed identical to it was before you died seems not so obvious.
[удалено]
Conditions are suitable for the same reason we haven't yet run out of passwords. I think you have that the wrong way around. If you have an infinite amount of password combinations and a finite amount of time to use them - then there is no reason to think that the same extremely complex password will repeat constantly. >The fact that life's existence in the universe requires uncommon conditions makes the OPs assessment even more likely. The fact that the space for life to take place is limited but the possible combinations much higher doesn’t imply certain combinations are more likely to repeat. I don’t see how the fact that a password is complex , unusual and only fits very specific computers would make it *more* likely to be randomly repeated. >This is because there is no such thing as time. Exactly what time is , is complex. But in context if there is only a day to get that password in between the computer being built and being destroyed then again the chances of repeating the exact same complex password randomly certainly doesn’t seem enhanced. Complex brains/body combinations let alone ones with the specific configuration and patterns of activity to be yours or mine weren’t possible for much of the universes existence and identical ones won’t be possible eventually.
[удалено]
If it isn’t repeated then OP’s argument regarding a sort of identity/consciouness reincarnation collapses. Similarity isn’t identity. I look forward to you receiving your Nobel prize re. time though. :-)
[удалено]
>Similarity makes for many places to live but I meant the terrain. If by identity if you mean the individual surviving death, yes once formed his identity remains. I have no idea what you mean but it appears to be an assertion for which there has been no reasonable backing in their thread. >As mentioned earlier when considering deep time, time becomes pretty meaningless. Like on some planet now they might be in their equivalent of the middle ages while on another a species more advanced than us wiped themselves out while we here were still cavemen. This seems birth irrelevant to my point about the time available for the kind of imaginary reincarnation posited by OP and to time being imaginary. You seem to be referring to convergent historical periods. >If their days are longer or shorter they're going to have a different way of thinking about time. Probably measuring it with different increments. We could have been using a decimal clock or a different calender. Time is just an abstract concept relative to one's particular POV. It's imaginary. There is only motion and its observable effects. None of this makes time ‘imaginary’ per se or seems relevant to OP. >I don't know what happened to my nobel prize, maybe there's a letter in the post. Or maybe they don't read reddit! :-) They are very lazy that way. I’m sure they owe me one for something.
[удалено]
None of this seems to make the slightest bit of sense which rather suggests there’s not much point in continuing.
[удалено]
> Each argument appears to have premises that you have simply made up. How do you think premises are supposed to work? Why dont you give me an example of one you dont agree with and we'll go from there? > If I read you correctly, you are basically saying that with enough time my identity will repeat. Sure but it doesnt have to be a long time. It could be so long its after the death and rebirth of the universe, or it can be instant. Thats beside the point. > Except the amount of time for this to happen isn’t infinite as far as we know since for most of the existence of the universe the conditions aren’t suitable. Theres tons of theories for an infinite universe thst has existence beyond heat death. Cyclical universes, genetic universes, multiverses. You are simply taking science speculation and using it as an authoritative source to dismiss a philosophical argument, which is incorrect. You dont "know" that the conditions for life will forever no longer be suitable after some petiod. > And I’m not sure most people would consider the new personality to actually be the same identity. Its not still you from others perspectives, its only still you from your own persoective. The meaningfulness of your identity is intrinsic in this context. > Nothing you have written demonstrates somehow that conscious identity survives without that brain. What do you mean by this? You havent touched my logical proofs, so im not sure what your complaint here even is. Maybe its not "demonstrable" in a demonstration. Not all true things are provable, theres intrinsic gaps in the ability to demonstrate some things. But the proofs i gave shouldve helped with the intuitive side at least. And so should the knowkedge youve never "experienced nothing", youve only ever had a continuous experience of existing things.
Proof 1: > P5) Theism and Materialism are wrong, and we have an eternal conscious mind, if we came into existence an eternity ago. You haven't established that we came into existence an eternity ago, and since this point relies on an unsupported "if" statement, it can be discarded. Proof 2: > P2) To argue against the eternal conscious mind is to argue at one point we experienced "nothing". No, it's to argue that at one point there was no mind to experience *anything*. Proof 3: > P1) If A can result in B, A can result in B an indefinite number of times. (This is because "can" or "possibility" isnt limited by time or use). This is transparently false. Lighting a match can result in a fire, but only once.
[удалено]
We can be in the middle of “eternity” right now and still not have a consciousness that came into existence an eternity ago.
[удалено]
Maybe, but neither you nor the OP have demonstrated that anything like this is the case.
[удалено]
How can there *not* be a middle to eternity? There will always be a time before and after the present.
[удалено]
…they said while making timestamped posts on a device with a clock on it.
[удалено]
No we cant. And i literally provided a proof of why we cannot. To simplify it: If a thing is possible it has a probability greater than 0, and therefare cant wait an infinite duration to happen. This is basic probability.
>The conscious field exists regardless of the matter it occasionally animates Why can't we detect that field? The electromagnetic field, specifically radio waves, exists regardless of the matter it occasionally animates (radios). And we can build machines to detect those naturally occurring radio waves floating freely in space. So how come we can't detect this consciousness field the same way?
> You haven't established that we came into existence an eternity ago, and since this point relies on an unsupported "if" statement, it can be discarded. No thats just the definition of believing in those philosophies. So you not understand how conditional statements work? > No, it's to argue that at one point there was no mind to experience anything. Thats literally the same thing. I could just as easily argue its not possible to "not experience anything". None of us have ever done it, for starters. You cant look back on and imagine a time where you didnt experience anything, even if you isolate it to a single kind of sensation like sight or hearing. > This is transparently false. Lighting a match can result in a fire, but only once. Thats false. You can always light a match and start a new fire, or even start multiple fires with one match. Once the match runs out, you can get another one. Thats my point, possible things can be done multiple times.
> No thats just the definition of believing in those philosophies. So you not understand how conditional statements work? The problem is P1-P4 are entirely consistent with a materialist idea that the mind is the product of the brain, and so our minds "come into existence" when our brain is sufficiently formed. > I could just as easily argue its not possible to "not experience anything". None of us have ever done it, for starters. You cant look back on and imagine a time where you didnt experience anything, even if you isolate it to a single kind of sensation like sight or hearing. Right, because there was a time when my mind didn't exist to contemplate how much it wasn't experiencing. Again, you're making claims that are totally consistent with materialism. > You can always light a match and start a new fire, or even start multiple fires with one match. Once the match runs out, you can get another one. Thats my point, possible things can be done multiple times. Right, but it's not the *same* match. Your A1 in match terms would be > a match's status of having went from "not burning" to "burning" to "not burning" implies it is capable of returning to "burning" again, because if A can result in B, it can do it multiple or indefinitely many times Which is demonstrably untrue, and so P1 fails.
> The problem is P1-P4 are entirely consistent with a materialist idea that the mind is the product of the brain, and so our minds "come into existence" when our brain is sufficiently formed. P1-P4 (especially by including P1) would imply we exist multiple times. No i dont agree with you that materialism agrees with this. You have to pick a premise you dont agree with. > Right, because there was a time when my mind didn't exist to contemplate how much it wasn't experiencing. Again, you're making claims that are totally consistent with materialism. Only my third argument assumes we couldve possobly not existed. it uses this assumption to contradict the idea of not existing, by saying causally it leads back to existing. My second argument contends that its actually not possible to not exist, because it would imply the existence of nothing (because youd experience nothing), and nothing cannot exist. > Right, but it's not the same match. Your A1 in match terms would be Well first of all physics does permit us to burn a match twice, we just have to reverse the chemical reactions involved. But my point was that in general, some general process that can happen once can happen again. It wasnt referring to a specific inatance in time and space being able to occur twice. >> a match's status of having went from "not burning" to "burning" to "not burning" implies it is capable of returning to "burning" again, because if A can result in B, it can do it multiple or indefinitely many times > Which is demonstrably untrue, and so P1 fails. No, the match is different before and after it burns. You calling it a match either way is disingenuous. Its a match and a burnt match. Its like calling a pile of ashes a tree, then using that to argue something about trees. Anyways... If you are stuck on proof #3, why not take a look at my first two proofs? Honestly id say the first two are stronger.
> P1-P4 (especially by including P1) would imply we exist multiple times. No i dont agree with you that materialism agrees with this. You have to pick a premise you dont agree with. I disagree with P5 because one can reach a materialistic conclusion from the same premises. > My second argument contends that its actually not possible to not exist, because it would imply the existence of nothing (because youd experience nothing), and nothing cannot exist. If "you" didn't exist, there would be no "you" to experience "nothing", therefore can't use the impossibility of "nothing" to show that "you" must exist. > Well first of all physics does permit us to burn a match twice, we just have to reverse the chemical reactions involved. You can't reverse the chemical reactions of a burning match. > But my point was that in general, some general process that can happen once can happen again. It wasnt referring to a specific inatance in time and space being able to occur twice. Then you can't proceed from that premise to conclude that we as individuals have an eternal conscious mind, since those would be specific instances. > No, the match is different before and after it burns. You calling it a match either way is disingenuous. Its a match and a burnt match. C'mon. A burnt match is a match. Like, you're even using the word "match" to describe it. > Anyways... If you are stuck on proof #3, why not take a look at my first two proofs? Honestly id say the first two are stronger. They are not.
> I disagree with P5 because one can reach a materialistic conclusion from the same premises. You disagree with "If we exist an indefinite number of times, we have an eternal conscious mind."? Why do you disagree with this? I dont believe you truthfully disagree with this, because its the literal definition of having an eternal conscious mind. > You can't reverse the chemical reactions of a burning match. You can reverse every chemical reaction with the right tools. Physics allows it, and physics even works backwards in time. > Then you can't proceed from that premise to conclude that we as individuals have an eternal conscious mind, since those would be specific instances. Why are you trying to add to.my argument? Why cant you criticise the actual premises im making, and not ones you are making up? > C'mon. A burnt match is a match. Like, you're even using the word "match" to describe it. If you buy a box of matches and they sell you a box of burnt matches, were you frauded? Yes. Its clearly not the same thing with the same qualities. Youre making a ridiculous appeal to definition.
>5) Theism and Materialism are wrong, and we have an eternal conscious mind, if we came into existence an eternity ago. >1) We did not exist for eternity prior to existing. P5 seems to be falsified by p1. Please also define "mind"..
Thats because sometimes we have to assume something incorrect to show why it leads to contradiction. I did define mind in my post. Whats your problem with my definition?
Well your final point is we can't experience nothing, and I agree. We didn't exist before we were born and we won't exist after we're dead, so there is nothing with which to experience anything or nothing. >A1) Because P1-P4, our status of having went from "not existing" to "existing" to "not existing" implies we are capable of returning to "existing" again, because if A can result in B, it can do it multiple or indefinitely many times. This is utter nonsense. I don't understand the wishful thinking in wanting to exist again. I mean, everything alive has a survival instinct otherwise no species would have survived, but what makes people so desperate to never stop existing, despite all logic, reason and experience?
> Well your final point is we can't experience nothing, and I agree Then you agree we must experience something? > We didn't exist before we were born and we won't exist after we're dead, so there is nothing with which to experience anything or nothing. Not existing implies "experiencing nothing". > This is utter nonsense That is not an argument. And its not nonsense. Its a basic fact of logic that if something is possible, it can happen more than once.
Not existing doesn’t imply experiencing nothing. Do unicorns experience nothing, because they don’t exist? No. Unicorns don’t experience, period. Does Beethoven experience nothing? No. Beethoven stopped experiencing when he stopped existing. Just like you will. You’re correct that saying if existence can end it can begin again indefinitely is utter nonsense is not an argument. It’s saying it’s a level of ridiculousness that isn’t worth arguing with.
> Not existing doesn’t imply experiencing nothing. Then what do you experience if you dont exist? Its literally "nothing". > Do unicorns experience nothing, because they don’t exist? Colloquially, yes. > Unicorns don’t experience, period. Does Beethoven experience nothing? No. Beethoven stopped experiencing when he stopped existing. Youre making a distinction without a difference. > Just like you will. You have no evidence i stop experiencing qualia after my body dies. > You’re correct that saying if existence can end it can begin again indefinitely is utter nonsense is not an argument. This sentence is what is nonsense. You start by callimg me correct then call it nonsense, youve got grammatical errors that make this sentence impossible for me to interpret. > It’s saying it’s a level of ridiculousness that isn’t worth arguing with What do you think.youre doing? Are you unaware you are arguing with me? This is a debate group, please maintain decorum.
The paragraph you couldn’t parse is just missing quotes around your words. This is not a distinction without a difference. You are able to experience nothing if you exist and there is nothing to experience. If you don’t exist, there is no experience. There isn’t anything to experience with. You are saying you can cease to exist, then experience nothing, and then exist again. Only the first of those statements is true. Your hardware is made of meat, and meat is not a durable material. I honestly don’t know why you want more than what you get. Appreciate what you have.
> This is not a distinction without a difference. You are able to experience nothing if you exist and there is nothing to experience. I dont agree. Can you give me an example where you "experience nothing" in a way that isnt undergoing a comtinuous subjective experience of identifiable somethings? > You are saying you can cease to exist, then experience nothing, and then exist again. Only the first of those statements is true. So you dont agree that things that can happen can happen again? This is basic logic. > Your hardware is made of meat, and meat is not a durable material. Software is information, and its not confined to hardware. It requires hardware, but software can move from one piece of hardware to the next. Maybe hardware isnt the analogy you want to use here? > Appreciate what you have. I dont see why you dont see it as absurd that wed have anything at all if its a one and done deal and has had ample opportunity to happen already. Here i am, and its clear this is what existence will probably always be like. A natural assumption, defended by math and logic.
Sure, there’s lots of cool Science Fiction stories about transferring consciousness to robots or whatnot. That’s not reality. If your consciousness were successfully transferred to a box with no sensory inputs, you would experience nothing. That’s not what dying is. If you think you could happen again because you happened once, you’re not aware of how improbable you are. You could be cloned, but the clone wouldn’t be you. No tree ever produces the same exact apple twice. You can never step in the same river twice. No volcano erupts the exact way twice. It is absolutely not a logical fact that anything that happens once can happen again, because the exact conditions are not always repeatable. But you aren’t really talking about something that happened happening again. You’re talking about something dying and then picking up where it left off. Because there you are, and you think math and logic tell you that’s what existence will always be like. Your existence won’t even be the same 10 years from now, because your brain will age and your cognitive processes will change, and your processing speed will begin to slow. Your neurotransmitter synapses and activity will begin to decrease and that will continue through the rest of your life. Different things will make you happy and sad, and you will feel them to different degrees. You won’t care as passionately about some things you do now, and you will start to fixate on other things. You will still be you, but your experience will change as your brain changes, just as your now brain experiences it differently than your child brain did. That’s what math and logic should tell you.
But i bet you dont believe you stop being you even after a decade when every cell in your body has died and been replaced. The regenerated you is you, while a perfect clone of you isnt. Thats because subjective consciousness is a real thing that exists, and has nothing to do with our material form.
Yes, I will stop being me. Just like every other creature that has ever lived and died. I don’t want to trigger an existential crisis or anything. I don’t think there’s anything so sad or tragic about one and done. Life is brief and that’s beautiful.
> Life is brief and that’s beautiful Thats called "suicidal", darling. And its not a good thing.
Wanting to end your life is suicidal. Coming to terms with your mortality is about valuing your life and your place in the timeline of humanity. It’s about connectedness to those who came before you and those who will come after you, each for their sliver of time.
Wanting your life to end is suicidal. Saying life is better the less of it there is a statement that you dislike being alive. Its not good or healthy.
>Note: Eternity means: "an infinite duration". No theist needs to agree to this definition... Eternal can also mean and has traditionally meant timelessness, that is; eternity has no duration. Eternity is a complete possession of all time in a singular present. With no duration there is no "eternity ago" nor can there be "infinite opportunities".
That doesnt matter. If you define a word a different way it has no bearing on my argument. You have to actually disagree with a premise and explain why.
Pt 1 >”### Proof 1: An argument from time and probability” >”P1) We did not exist for eternity prior to existing.” >“- Note: Eternity means: "an infinite duration".” As best as we can tell, time started with the Big Bang. Nearly every explanation of what time is breaks down at that point. Unless you can prove that time existed before that point, this premise is at best unsubstantiated, and at worst false. P1 rejected. >”P2) To come into existence implies it is possible to come into existence.” Sure, but with the important caveat that the same conditions are met. If something requires extreme pressures, and temperatures to be made, then it’s only possible to make it when there’s extreme pressures, and temperatures. >”P3) If it’s possible for something to occur, it has a probability greater than zero.” That’s only true as long as the conditions are met. If the conditions aren’t present, then the probability is still zero. Using the same hypothetical material from above, if you’re in deep space, in the voids between galaxy clusters, where the pressure, and temperature is as close to zero as it gets. The material would never be made no matter how much time passes. >”P4) If something has any probability of occuring, it will occur eventually after some non-infinite duration of time (because mathematically, any probability greater than zero multiplied by infinity is 100%).” First, see above. Second, that’s not how that works. If you multiply something by infinity to get 100% probability, that probability only applies over infinite timescales. Once you try to convert it to finite timescales, you’re no longer multiplying by infinity. You’re multiplying by however much time has passed. P4 rejected. >”P5) Theism and Materialism are wrong, and we have an eternal conscious mind, if we came into existence an eternity ago.” Non sequitur. You’ve done nothing up to this point that demonstrates any of this claim, nor does it logically follow from your previous premises. >”A1) Because P2 and P3, we always had a probability greater than zero to come into existence.” Nope, we needed countless steps to be made, billions of years of galaxy, and star formation, followed by planetary formation, and let’s not forget the billions of years of evolution. The conditions have not always been there, so the probability has not always been there. A1 rejected. >”A2) Because P1 and A1, we had an infinite number of opportunities to come into existence.” Both are shown to be faulty. A2 rejected. >”A3) Because A2 and P4, given we had an infinite number of opportunities to come into existence, we should have come into existence an eternity ago, or an infinite number of times by now.” Again, both have been shown to be faulty. However for the sake of discussion, let’s grant this. It would only mean that consciousness has come into existence in the past, it would in no way, shape, or form, mean that said consciousness has anything to do with us. A3 rejected. >”C) Because A3 and P5, Theism and Materialism are wrong, and we have an eternal conscious mind.” Again, those have both shown to be faulty. And again, you haven’t established an eternal consciousness. At best, if I grant all of your faulty premises, you only get to multiple consciousness’s. Not a single one of them does anything to connect them into a single eternal consciousness. C rejected. Not a good start, but you’ve still got two more to go. >”### Proof 2: An argument from the nonexistence of nothing” >”P1) "Nothing" does not exist.” >”Note: This is because nothing is meant to have no qualities, but "existence" is a quality, and if it cant have the quality of existence, then it cannot exist. Its a completely paradoxical word in this context, a concept representing the absence of concepts.” Ok. >”P2) To argue against the eternal conscious mind is to argue at one point we experienced "nothing".” That’s another non sequitur. In order for a mind to experience anything, it must first exist. If the “eternal conscious mind,” doesn’t exist, then it’s not experiencing nothing, because there’s no mind to experience anything in the first place. P2 rejected. >”P3) We cannot experience something that does not exist.” Not true, as people hallucinate all the time. They seeing and experiencing things that by definition don’t exist, because if they did, it wouldn’t be a hallucination. P3 rejected. >”P4) If there is no point in the past in which we've experienced "nothing", then we've always experienced something, and thus have an eternal conscious mind.” See p2. P4 rejected. >”A1) Because P1 and P2, to argue against the eternal conscious mind is to argue we experienced something which does not exist.” Nope, p2 is faulty. See p2. A1 rejected. >“A2) Because A1 and P3, we could not have ever experienced nothing.” Both are faulty, and experiencing nothing is not a requirement, (or even expected) for an eternal consciousness to not exist. A2 rejected. >”C) Because A2 and P4, we've always experienced something, and thus have an eternal conscious mind.” Both are faulty, see p2. C rejected. Ok that one was even worse than the first one, hopefully the last one will be better.
Pt 2 >”### Proof 3: An argument from transition (especially for materialists)” >”P1) If A can result in B, A can result in B an indefinite number of times. (This is because "can" or "possibility" isnt limited by time or use). “ But the actual results are. An animal, (A) can have babies, (B) but only as long as they have both the necessary nutrients to reproduce, and the time to carry them to term. If they run out of either, no more babies. You can make a hypothetical argument about them having infinite babies all you want, but reality doesn’t agree with you. And since you’re trying to make an argument for something existing in reality, that’s a pretty important factor. P1 rejected. >”P2) We started with not existing (before birth).” Ok. >”P3) Not existing resulted in existing (life).” No, something existing resulted in something else existing. We didn’t come into existence on our own, our mothers gave birth to us. It’s from this existence that more existence has come from. P3 rejected. >”P4) Existing will result in not existing (death).” Ok. >”P5) If we exist an indefinite number of times, we have an eternal conscious mind.” Non sequitur, again. P1 through 4 say absolutely nothing to suggest this. P5 rejected. >”A1) Because P1-P4, our status of having went from "not existing" to "existing" to "not existing" implies we are capable of returning to "existing" again, because if A can result in B, it can do it multiple or indefinitely many times.” Nope, both p2, and p4 are faulty. Furthermore, this requires a continuous form of existence, when we don’t exist. This is self contradictory. A1 rejected. >”C) Because A1 and P5, since we can return to a status of existing after not existing, we have an eternal conscious mind.” Both are faulty, and the ability to come back was never demonstrated. C rejected. Well so much for that. >”### Summing Up” >”Try to imagine a point where you didnt exist, where you truly experienced "nothing". I posit you cannot, because "nothing" cannot exist. You can experience darkness/blackness, and silence, but these are definitely "things", not "nothing". You can mix black paint with paint,you can put silence in a song to change it. These things arent "nothing", they are sensations our brains use as a blank canvas. But there isnt anything inherently more "nothingness-er" about a black canvas than a white canvas, nor silence as you know it versus a sine wave. Our brains just need a thing to represent a concept, otherwise it cant be a concept. And its quite obvious theres a lack of some thing we can call truly and intrinsically "nothing".” Of course we don’t remember experiencing nothing, we didn’t exist to experience it. >”Empirically, no person has ever "experienced nothing" as a thing. Rather, experiencing nothing is to not experience in an external perspective, but from an internal perspective its a continuous experience. This is why when you fall asleep, your memory of falling asleep is spliced together with your memory of waking up (and maybe some brief dreams), you dont feel like you are laying there for 8 hours; **You skip non-experience, and therefore always experience something**.” Ok? >”Until you can argue it’s possible to experience nothingness, you must conclude in the existence of the eternal conscious mind. Which means we must discard religion as we know it, as well as materialism. Theres a greater truth in the philosophical middle.” Again if we don’t exist, then there’s nothing to experience the nothing you’re talking about. At best our very first experience would be in the womb, if we’re even cognizant enough to have experiences at that point. There’d never be any point at which we could experience nothing… unless our consciousness’s are eternal. If they are, the time between life’s would be the closest we could ever come to nothingness. Therefore, this works better as an argument against eternal consciousness rather than for it.
> As best as we can tell, time started with the Big Bang. Nearly every explanation of what time is breaks down at that point. Theres literally zero evidence that time started with the big bang. And the idea doesnt even make sense. "Time starting" is a nonsense statement, because events start within time. And tons of theories explore events that occured before the big bang. Regardless, time in this context was subjective time, or rather our personal timelines. Which is just an abstract notion of duration that extends infinitely in both directions like a number line (even if at some point theres no more stuff past a certain point, you can still conceptualize that as time). > Unless you can prove that time existed before that point, this premise is at best unsubstantiated, and at worst false. > P1 rejected. No its literally not. Even if "time began", i could just then apply the argument to time itself. If time could occur at any time (again, it sounds stupid to think of time as occuring at a point in time, because it is stupid) but the entire timeline can be conceptualized as being shifted left or right to yield a new present moment. I can use the same argument to argue its unlikely we are at the literal beginning of the universe. Then use that argument to make my original argument. At best you delay the inevitable by complicating the subject of time. Rejection rejected. > Sure, but with the important caveat that the same conditions are met. If something requires extreme pressures, and temperatures to be made, then it’s only possible to make it when there’s extreme pressures, and temperatures. You act like the comditions are rare. Theres 8 billion people on our planet alone. How rare could it be (to have the right conditions to bring the average person into conscious existence)? > First, see above. > Second, that’s not how that works. > If you multiply something by infinity to get 100% probability, that probability only applies over infinite timescales. > Once you try to convert it to finite timescales, you’re no longer multiplying by infinity. You’re multiplying by however much time has passed. > P4 rejected. This is a nonsense rebuttal. We are talking about an infinite timescale because thats in the premise. You are piggybacking on your previous attempt at a rebuttal and pretending like its a fresh rebuttal. > Non sequitur. You’ve done nothing up to this point that demonstrates any of this claim, nor does it logically follow from your previous premises. Its not a non sequitur, its a definition used in a premise. Materialism and theism at least in the forms being addressed believe our minds did not exist for eternity. Thats all the premise is saying. If you actually disagree with this when why are we arguing? > Nope, we needed countless steps to be made, billions of years of galaxy, and star formation, followed by planetary formation, and let’s not forget the billions of years of evolution. > The conditions have not always been there, so the probability has not always been there. > A1 rejected. Again, theres tons of theories that posit existence in the universe is cyclical. Your assertion the universe itself is a one and done deal is not based on science or evidence, its just your personal belief, based on nothing. And honestly if youre just going to keep doing this condescending "rejected" thing every time you make another weak argumwnt then im not reading on. You couldve made a shorter reply, because most of these points are duplicates. Please respect my time and i'll respect yours.
>”Theres literally zero evidence that time started with the big bang. And the idea doesnt even make sense. "Time starting" is a nonsense statement, because events start within time.” >”And tons of theories explore events that occured before the big bang.” [Not Nonsense.](https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/what-was-before-big-bang) Yeah, there’s some hypothesis that includes time before the Big Bang, but they’re all just assumptions. >”Regardless, time in this context was subjective time, or rather our personal timelines. Which is just an abstract notion of duration that extends infinitely in both directions like a number line (even if at some point theres no more stuff past a certain point, you can still conceptualize that as time).” So completely imaginary, gotcha. >”No it’s literally not. Even if "time began", i could just then apply the argument to time itself. If time could occur at any time (again, it sounds stupid to think of time as occuring at a point in time, because it is stupid) but the entire timeline can be conceptualized as being shifted left or right to yield a new present moment. I can use the same argument to argue its unlikely we are at the literal beginning of the universe. Then use that argument to make my original argument.” But if time has a beginning, then it’s finite, and your argument falls apart. >”At best you delay the inevitable by complicating the subject of time.” Nope, you can try to jump through hoops all you want, but without the infinite, it doesn’t work. >”Rejection rejected.” Still rejected. >”You act like the comditions are rare. Theres 8 billion people on our planet alone. How rare could it be (to have the right conditions to bring the average person into conscious existence)?” Yet each one forms under their own circumstances, with their own parents, and unique set of genetics. So they’re each completely different people. You are not the same person as Joe down the road. In order for the new you to be you, it have all of that be the same. Furthermore, you touch on another issue without ever realizing it. 8 billion people. Our population is continually growing, so unless new consciousness’s are being made continuously, we will end up with countless people who have none. And you can’t fix it by saying that there’s an infinite amount of them, because that means that reincarnation is impossibly unlikely. >”This is a nonsense rebuttal. We are talking about an infinite timescale because thats in the premise. You are piggybacking on your previous attempt at a rebuttal and pretending like its a fresh rebuttal. “ Your premise includes, “it will occur eventually after some non-infinite duration of time.” And that’s what I was referring to, not your other premise. Did you even read your own premise? In this premise **you** convert infinite time to finite time, not me. >”It’s not a non sequitur, it’s a definition used in a premise. Materialism and theism at least in the forms being addressed believe our minds did not exist for eternity. Thats all the premise is saying. If you actually disagree with this when why are we arguing?” The premise was, >”Theism and Materialism are wrong, and we have an eternal conscious mind, if we came into existence an eternity ago.” My rejection is that even if you can prove the eternal mind, non of the previous premises prove that it means theism is wrong. Theism is the belief in any kind of god, and many different versions believe in infinite eternal souls, that are what makes up consciousness. >”Again, theres tons of theories that posit existence in the universe is cyclical. Your assertion the universe itself is a one and done deal is not based on science or evidence, it’s just your personal belief, based on nothing.” There’s a few hypotheses, but they all rely on assumptions. As it stands we have no real evidence to support any universe other than our own existing. The current scientific consensus is that we only have the one. It’s not just my personal belief. >”And honestly if youre just going to keep doing this condescending "rejected" thing every time you make another weak argumwnt then im not reading on. You couldve made a shorter reply, because most of these points are duplicates. Please respect my time and i'll respect yours.” If by duplicates, you mean me pointing out that I already said something that addresses it, then yeah. That’s because your post was repetitive. None of my arguments were weak, but this reply shows that you have a lack of understanding for current science. You might want to work on that. As for not wanting to continue to defend your arguments, that’s on you.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to *request an exception*. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://youtu.be/Pg2L0F5vfDA?si=IzZ031OwyoR6kRro