1. You do however continually hark to science in you arguments, claiming that it is unscientific to make the statement that god does not exist. I think I have shown that that is incorrect: As Brian-M has just pointed out, no scientific statement is absolute. Every scientific "conclusion" is provisional. A hypothesis is accepted as a theory after it has met every challenge and test that we can come up with to "throw at it". But even then, it is still open to being altered or overthrown altogether if further evidence comes to light. Gravity used to be one such theory, which in relatively recent times has had to accommodate the discovery of "dark energy", which was discussed in terms of "negative gravity" when it was first coming out.
2. I demonstrated that consciousness is dependant on the activity of the brain. A person literally becomes a different person with brain damage. Ergo, the consciousness of a person cannot possibly be continued without a brain, at least not as it was before the cessation of brain existence (not "brain death" which can turn out to be very deep coma… I'm talking dissolution of the physical brain).
3: To say that it is not known whether consciousness continues after death is therefore to say that you are A) expecting that it's possible for some non-material something to take over the function of the physical brain, which is tantamount to saying that this new substance must replicate physical functioning, and therefore it is in fact physical, or B) that you expect a new as yet undiscovered physical medium to exist which can take over the physical function of the brain. Either way, since we have found no phenomena so far which cannot be dealt with in the realms of the four forces we know about, there does not seem to be a requirement for such speculation.
4. Here you are again ignoring the facts as we know them that the brain does indeed affect the consciousness. If altering the brain makes an actually new person, why would you expect to be the same mind after your brain has been destroyed? It is completely illogical to assign some inviolable authenticity to your current state of consciousness, flying in the face of the evidence.
I submit that there are many times in life when one can be conscious without analysing or being aware of one's body, as in dreams or in fits of creative fugue, and the transitions into and out of such states are likewise unconscious, so I can't see that if a consciousness were to survive death in some way there would necessarily be any "getting used to it" required.
5. Here is the nub of the matter: I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, but my use of the word "assume" is not making an absolute statement, it is stating the null hypothesis, which is the scientific position to take, not a personal choice. The null hypothesis is the scientific assumption that something doesn't exist until it is demonstrated. This is because a scientific statement has to be falsifiable, and it is impossible to falsify a statement which requires proving a negative.
Surely you understand this: I can prove that unicorns exist by finding one. Therefore, the statement "unicorns do not exist" is falsifiable by the simple demonstration of finding one.
I can never prove that unicorns do not exist, because there might be one on the other side of the universe, and I can never check every place in the universe. Therefore the statement "unicorns exist" is unfalsifiable, and not a scientific position.
It's the same with gods. The scientific and logical position is that god does not exist, until some evidence comes to light to change that null hypothesis.
6. You are right that science deals with the physical universe. Now that you are defining god as an idea, you seem to be necessarily claiming that "god" has no interaction with the physical universe. I submit that if you are going to define god as having no interaction with the physical universe, then you are just talking for the sake of it, and you are not engaging with science. This tautological situation is nevertheless where you seem to be pitching your tent.
For the concept of "god" to have any meaning beyond being a meme passed on through physical means such as language, and indeed the firings of neurones (which both require physical media), it has to have some independent existence. What sort of existence there could be without either physical dependance or interaction is the realm of pure speculation. Fantasy, with no meaning or consequence. The final resting place of the god of the gaps.
For if god as an idea even once interacted with the physical world, it would be effecting a physical connection, and would no longer be able to divorce itself from the physical as an "idea", which concept is just an "ideal" conceit (an old word meaning effectively "a confection, or an idle construction, of a thought").
7: As to your extraterrestrials, you are abandoning the "idea" ideal you apply to god. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in our knowledge which forbids the physical existence of extraterrestrials. In fact it looks more and more likely that life will occur wherever energy exchange is possible, which is most places in the universe, so the scientific evidence makes the statement "ets are likely to exist" more justifiable than either "ets cannot exist" or "god might exist".
None of which plays into your conceit that "god is an idea". If that's all you were saying, I would agree with you: "god" is an idea.
Where we differ is that I go on to say that "god" is only an idea, and that idea exists in the physical media of our brains and in our language (in books and in speech). The consequences of the idea of god do exist, in the exalted states of consciousness mediated through the interaction of concepts and music and various tricks to induce biochemical fluxes, etc., all of which take place via physical interactions.
To sum up: to speak of "god" "existing" as an "idea" beyond any interaction with the physical universe (which includes our human consciousness) is a conceit which is forever beyond any meaningful reality. It has absolutely no relevance to existence. Your own definition of god as an idea has defined that god out of existence.
8. You are copping out of any meaningful discussion of the issue of god's existence, and you are copping out of following the logic of the discussion to it's necessary conclusion. On top of that, you do hark to science and try to claim that it is unscientific to make the statement that god does not exist. I hope you are willing to accept that, since all scientific statements are de facto provisional, it is the only valid scientific conclusion to arrive at that god does not exist.
A) Everything we know points to that conclusion.
B) It is a falsifiable statement.
C) There is nothing that requires us to even beg the question of any other force or entity to explain the state of the universe or our place in it.
I do think your position of allowing for a nonphysical ineffective entity (which by definition can have no interaction with us and the universe), and your equally disconnected concept of a non-physical survival of consciousness beyond the universe (whatever that could mean), is an illogical and pointless conceit. It is indeed irrational. And I can think of times and situations where it would be far from sensible.
Good luck. aSyd
1: While is is a 'statement' (God does not exist) it is incomplete - as I have stated a few time already.
It is not a 'scientific' statement. It lacks definition...not the 'does not exist' part, but the 'god' part.
What can scientists 'state' about 'god' in regards to such an incomplete statement?
What can the method of science conclude about such a statement?
As to the rest, it can be said that 'we reside in a physical universe' as being a scientific statement. It might be stating the obvious, but that is science.
In this it might be regarded as an absolute statement too.
Certainly science deals with the physical reality absolutely.
2: You have demonstrated a belief created through a physical observation.
3: No. I am saying that it might be the other way around, or something else which is unknown.
The other way around (A) might that consciousness uses the brain and body to experience a human life. In this case the 'non material something' is consciousness itself.
The something else unknown might be that the brain creates consciousness (as per evolution without any outside or other alternate realities etc) but as part of the process consciousness once created, does not die. It could be a natural part of what it is. the point being, we do not know and can not know through any scientific method so far invented.
In either case, a physical medium would not be required.
The requirement for speculation has to do with not having conclusive knowledge to draw from which can absolutely show one way or the other.
As I said regarding speculation, it is okay if anyone wants to do this as long as it does not become belief.
It is a statement of belief to say 'there is no afterlife' (continuation of conscious awareness.)
A statement of speculation in relation to this would be 'there might be or there might not be.'
4: This itself might make an interesting thread topic. There is no reason why one needn't speculate that (should there be afterlife) the consciousness would be unable to identify with both 'personalities' as part of what it is, since it experienced both as part of what it is. Essentially it is the 'you' anyway.
There are ideas that incorporate many different levels of awareness and experience in relation to afterlife. One of these has to do with being able to retain the 'self' (human personality etc) while incorporating that self into other selves without even losing that sense of self.
In a minor way the internet (or any social interaction) achieves this kind of thing. Just my interacting with you is doing things to my 'self' which may never have happened if we didn't.
5: See my remarks on the statement 'god does not exist' Science cannot state such a thing, because it is an incomplete statement anyway.
I understand you argument in relation to the physical universe, but in relation to unicorns which (given the astronomical) most likely do exist, they don't exist unless they are observed by conscious awareness (which is what you are stating really) - they might exist but they cannot be seen to exist so therefore they don;t exist and that is the science of it.
I have taken this reasoning and suggested that if consciousness did not exist in this universe, therefore this universe would not exist, only to be scolded.
I find the contradiction interesting.
By the same argument, extraterrestrials don;t exist unless we observe them to be existing.
Perhaps 'science' is not a particularly good word all by itself. Perhaps it needs to be called 'human science.' to denote our own position in the scheme of things and that while it is feasible that unicorns and extraterrestrials do exists, because they don;t exist here with us on the planet, they don;t exist according to human science, or human scientific method, because we lack the evidence which can be measured scientifically.
Nonetheless I remain unconvinced that such statements as 'god does not exist' or 'there is no afterlife' are 'scientific statements.
6: We do not know that the idea of god does not interact with the physical universe.
One example is that god is consciousness. Therefore god is indeed interacting with the physical universe.
This can be applied to either speculation mentioned in my answer (3).
7: I agree with you on the extraterrestrials. As to 'god is an idea' it is better a statement than 'god does not exist' although whether or not it can be regarded as a scientific statement, I do not know.
What I do know is that 'god does not exist' is not a statement of science. It is a statement of atheism, that is without doubt, but no, not of science.
It is, as I have said, not a very good or complete statement either. It doesn't really mean anything in particular. It is as meaningful as the statement 'god exists'.
But anyway, thanks for your obviously thoughtful arguments. I am enjoying most of the interaction.
ETA
Oh yes - I have forgotten about (8)
In short, I have no interest in meaningful discussion 'gods existence' unless it accompanies some kind of description as to 'what god is' as a base for focus of discussion, because 'god' is just so many things, and for all we know, is essentially all things.
I mean, I am fine with speculation and all that but think the subject is far to comprehensive for our limited collective perspective to grasp in any meaningful way which might benefit us all.
I think that is partly the problem I see with individuals choosing sides (not copping out) endless needless argument about stuff we don;t know for sure but presume to believe anyway.
If being labelled a 'cop out' ensures that I don't have to get into these illogical endlessly looping arguments, I can certainly accept that label with appreciation for some sense of better purpose.
Personally I wouldn't call it 'conceit'. That is a pretty harsh and needlessly judgmental and illogical thing to say. What has conceit got to do with this?
