Mind Candy and Scientific Appreciation

120 posts / 0 new
Last post
LogicFTW's picture


This is because God exists objectively as intelligible thought,

You consider something can exist objectively, (in this case your god idea.)

Because it is an "intelligible" (whatever that ambiguous descriptor you decided "intelligible" means,) thought?

Lets google the definition of "objective" shall we?

"not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

So... what part of your god idea is not personal feeling or opinion? What can you point to for your god idea that is not just "talk"?

I already know the answer: You got nothing.

Do not feel bad, no one does, billions of people have been trying for thousands of years to take their god idea beyond the subjective, all of them have failed.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Well so far Alchemy, it seems

Well so far Alchemy, it seems you've told us:

  • necessary beings can change
  • necessary beings can not change
  • sets are non-contingent
  • sets are contingent
Alchemy123's picture
Do you have any actual

Do you have any actual arguments or are you just not interested in my reasoning that I gave? Or do you want me to put it in easy to digest bullet points?

Nyarlathotep's picture

Are sets contingent on god existing?

Alchemy123's picture
sets ARE concepts ARE numbers

sets ARE concepts ARE numbers IS God in the ontological sense. I have said this already. I am not a proponent of divine simplicity. God is made up of parts, and seeing these parts is what makes you understand God.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Alchemy - sets ARE concepts

Alchemy - sets ARE concepts ARE numbers IS God...

Earlier you told us sets are beings that "... exist in necessity of their own nature, not because another being entails its existence". Now it seems you are telling us that sets are part of god, so are contingent upon god's existence.

Why can't you seem to keep your story straight?

Whitefire13's picture
I don’t (well actually I do

I don’t (well actually I do otherwise I wouldn’t do it - paradox) mean to break my comment up but I find it easier to focus my thoughts. Just my mind-candy ...

Edited to add @Alchemy
I’m going to start with “consciousness” exists. It just “is” (I can’t imagine the out of time/space) so I’m imagining a “force” (I’m going to force myself into physical reality). And I’m going to refer to myself as “I am” because I am everything. Nothing exists outside of me, everything is “me” in various forms of energy. I am consciousness so I experience everything. I am the light moving, magnetic force, the dark energy and every imaginable thing. If it is imagined it is not outside me, it is within me and an experience. I am the raper and the rape victim, the child born rich and the child in Time magazine awaiting my physical death from starvation. I am also the vulture awaiting my meal with anticipation. I am the quasars and the black holes and every alternate version of what could be and is.
In this scenario, what I, whitefire experience doesn’t matter except to “me” as a small physical part of a greater consciousness that “I am”. A part of “I am” or “consciousness” that has set perimeters and physical limits to this aspect of the “one mind game”.

Lion IRC's picture
An omnipotent necessary Being

An omnipotent necessary Being can do whatever He wants.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Lion IRC - An omnipotent

Lion IRC - An omnipotent necessary Being can do whatever He wants.

How do you know that omnipotent necessary beings have a penis?

Cognostic's picture
@Lie on: Can an omnipotent

@Lie on: Can an omnipotent necessary being be unnecessary? If he can not be unnecessary, he is not omnipotent. If he can be unnecessary what in the fuck do we need him to be necessary for?

Lion IRC's picture
Yes an omnipotent being can

Yes an omnipotent being can do whatever He wants.
How about you? Can you force God to need you?

Whitefire13's picture


When my one boy was little, he forced his “blankey” to need him. “where’s blankey, he’s lonely!!!”
It’s a projection - attributing human emotions/qualities to abiotic “things”. But at least blankey “existed”

Whitefire13's picture
Second scenario- the universe

Edited to add @Alchemy

Second scenario- the universe is the processor that a greater consciousness has arisen from. I can liken this to me. My body contains all forms of “life” consuming, reproducing, warring, etc as “microcosms” of “me”. I am not aware of its level of consciousness, nor do I care. It serves the purpose of keeping me alive and once “they” are done - well, so am I.
So if I’m in this type of scenario, it really doesn’t matter either.

boomer47's picture


"I am everything." " Nothing exists outside of me, everything is “me. Aka as solipsism, one of older philosophies.

Neither known or care if the universe is conscious, nor am able to assume anything sufficiently complex will produce consciousness /or god . What's that, at the final cause argument?

As far as I'm aware, there are five broadly accepted arguments for the existence of god. Haven't noticed a new one from what's his name.

I retain my opinions :

That god cannot be argued into or out of existence. So far, all claims for the existence of gods have been unfalsifiable ,as far as I am aware. To be able to believe in a god or gods, I require proof. Period.

As far as I can tell, consciousness /the mind, also called the spirit or soul isa process, not a separate object with mass. . For humans, I understand consciousness as the dynamic of the the living .I concede that it SEEMS as if memory is stored in a specific area or areas of the brain.

That the mind is injured if the brain is injured in certain ways, and as far as I know, dies when the brain dies, strongly supports my materialist opinion, I think.


"Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ (About this soundlisten); from Latin solus, meaning 'alone', and ipse, meaning 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. "


The Quinque viæ (Latin "Five Ways") (sometimes called "five proofs") are five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica. They are:

the argument from "first mover";
the argument from causation;
the argument from contingency;
the argument from degree;
the argument from final cause or ends ("teleological argument")."


Whitefire13's picture
Thanks cranky. Didn’t even

Thanks cranky. Didn’t even think to look up that scenario 1 or 2 I spouted out. But the idea of both are played out in (some) movies, books (in different forms) ... I just let my imagination roam. All these bits of ideas and information we take in...

Edited to add... from my prospective, I look at that argument list and I think WTF?!?! I don’t get it. Is that where the “telos” reference comes from????

boomer47's picture


I have no idea. I really can't be arsed reading the walls of texts presented by our two current mental masturbators.

OT who IS that Amber person? I honestly don't know. A reality TV star? Talking head for the chattering class?

Cognostic's picture
@White" WTF????

@White" WTF????

Consciousness exists? "“consciousness” exists. It just “is” NO! As long as you have a physical element to create it. Show me consciousness without a physical attachment. Consciousness like speech or hearing is an emergent property of physicality.

You get to ride the little red Chooo Chooo - Woooo Woooo

"I am everything." " Nothing exists outside of me, everything is “me” in various forms of energy." BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT --- ha ha ha ha ha ==== "I, whitefire experience doesn’t matter except to “me” as a small physical part of a greater consciousness that “I am”. A part of " WOOPS! I guess the greater consciousness exists outside the little piece you are. And if you are a little piece aren't their other little pieces? A physical part?

A physical Part? Please demonstrate the physical part of the "greater consciousness you speak of." Demonstrate physical consciousness without a physical part.

Whitefire13's picture
Omg Cog. Read the comments

Omg Cog. Read the comments surrounding it for fucks sake. Jeesssuusss Christ.
I sure in shit wouldn’t want to discuss sci-fi or Rick/morty episodes with you! You’d assume I think it’s real!

Tin-Man's picture
@Whitefire Re: Cog

@Whitefire Re: Cog

You'll have to try to forgive Cog. He can sometimes be "Imaginatively Challenged"... *chuckle*.... He was likely up all night huffing rotten banana peels again. Just grab his balls and squeeze them firmly a couple of times. That usually brings him back into focus.... er-uh... So I've been told, anyway...

Whitefire13's picture
I’ve caught on to that.

I’ve caught on to that. Jumping up and down, patting his head, frowning his brow ...”tribe betray” eee,eeew,eeeee

Here - my right side of my brain fired a synapses. My left side compensated. The right side sometimes brings me pleasure that’s why those fuckers “go off”.

Feel better?

Alchemy123's picture

I don't know exactly what your point was, but you have come to some similar conclusions and similar language to to other philosophers of mind. IF you're interested in that kind of stuff check out Kant, Fichte and Hegel (i swear this isnt my channel):

"Consciousness like speech or hearing is an emergent property of physicality"
Is this the part where you site your consciousness as evidence of that?

Whitefire13's picture

But I don’t have to. I live in a set reality. A reality that this is all fine and dandy, but I gotta make pizza for my boys type of reality.
We can only work with what is present - what “is”... and the only measure of this reality that has gotten us anyplace or has answered real questions is science (method), because it deals in evidence. It doesn’t have all the answers but it sure is better than the alternative “answers” to some of the questions because it seeks what is true...

Edited to add - I didn’t mean to be flippant - but I’d rather read your thoughts than listen to a YouTube presentation.

Whitefire13's picture
@Alchemy. “ I don't know

@Alchemy. “ I don't know exactly what your point was, ”

Yes you do. If not reread it. If you don’t get it, I’m afraid I can’t entertain your other ideas of “knowing” god’s mind.

...I’m just a woman trying to make pizza...

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Whitefire

@ Whitefire

Here this will help when reading Alchemy

"Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the quantum soup via chaos-driven reactions. We are in the midst of a consciousness-expanding deepening of life that will give us access to the quantum cycle itself. Reality has always been overflowing with dreamers whose hearts are engulfed in balance.
This life is nothing short of a flowering revolution of life-affirming learning. Ecstasy is a constant. Truth is the driver of peace.
If you have never experienced this evolution at the speed of light, it can be difficult to vibrate.
Nothing is impossible. Ecstasy requires exploration. Health is the healing of passion, and of us."

Whitefire13's picture
I see OMS - you get how candy

I see OMS - you get how candy works! Try living on it...it’ll rot your body... :)

Apollo's picture
I'm interested in your idea

I'm interested in your idea that the Bible is consistently wrong.

"...the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Genesis 2:7

Since you have the philosophical position of atheist, I would not expect you to agree that God did it. But look at the other part. Humans were made from the stuff of the ground. Is that wrong? If people are not made of the material of the ground what do you think they are made of? Moreover, it references breath. Living things breath. Is that wrong? Don't people and other living things breath?

Theists are not required to believe things from ancient times that make no sense (to them) when informed by a modern perspective.

"Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless." Ecclesiastes 3:19 Is that wrong?

If that is wrong, what do you believe? What is being said by these Biblical passages is that humans are made of the material of the ground. And when you die you body deteriorates back to the material of the ground. That's why in the Anglican prayer book, a prayer recited a funerals states in part, "dust to dust, ashes to ashes...."

That's in recognition of the belief that when we die, we return to the dust of the earth that we were made of. Personally informed by a modern perspective, I don't see what is mistaken about that Biblical perspective.

The Bible is not a rational collection of writings and we are not required to believe ancient things that are presently unbelievable.

Too, you mention science. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein were all theists of various sorts. Clearly, there is nothing in science that requires disbelief in God. Atheism is a philosophical position, not a scientific finding. (Some people like to argue Darwin became atheist, but I have no evidence of that. When he formulated his theory he was theist. When his daughter died he questioned his belief in God. An associate asked him if he was now atheist. He said no, but he might prefer agnostic to theist.

Whitefire13's picture
Hi Apollo! I reread my intro

Hi Apollo! I reread my intro to this topic, my OP, because at first, I was a little annoyed. Then I realized I used the word “hypothesis”, papers expressing an idea. So, in the spirit of FairPlay, I’m good to discuss this god idea as expressed in this book.

However, for me, this is mind-candy. Also, I can be blunt, swear, and you may find some reasoning “offensive” - but (unless you start it first ;) I will only challenge/attack/accept the idea and not the poster behind it. Also, just so you know, I don’t get into word-fights. If you can’t figure out a meaning, or I can’t figure out a meaning of a word then the word has to be “out”. This is suppose to be fun, and others find word meanings/Greek/Hebrew shit fun (but I don’t). Same with history - again, just basic understanding and agreement. And I want to read (mostly) your words. You know what I mean? Your thoughts.

And I’m patient...life outside this site can require attention (kids don’t always listen when I yell shut up) - but if you’re “done” or I’m “done” that’s ok, I’ll just say “bye for now” ...

After this spiel, feel free to add anything on what makes you comfortable (or not). I have to do some other stuff, but I will be back later and I’ll need to re-read what you wrote. It’s a lot, so maybe smaller chunks ?!?!

Whitefire13's picture
@Alchemy...”the Bible is

@Apollo...”the Bible is consistently wrong.“

I didn’t write that and I don’t think that. The method under loose terminology of “peer review” of bible believers is wrong. Too many Christian/Jewish religions all claiming “truth” using the same textbook and contradicting/condemning each other. Not to mention those outside of organized religion using the book and claiming they’re right. To me, if there is no reliable method within the “system” to establish the “truth” of a matter...who cares, it’s all opinion. And I’m sure you’ve heard the saying ...opinions are like assholes,
everyone’s got one ;)

...I would disagree and say stuff from the water. Are you talking “elements” (take your iron pill or calcium from milk) as “ground” or origins “where we originated”?

...I know what breathing is, and the air we breath. And (without getting into semantics) life, but I don’t know what “breath of life” is

...” Theists are not required to believe things from ancient times that make no sense...”. I would hold “not required” - depends on the choice the theist makes when believing the bible (or parts therein). In my experience (through conversations, family, friends, news, charity organizations, etc etc) the requirements differ. So for example a practicing Jew differs or has requirements different than a practicing Catholic. Both “faiths” usually use the bible to back up their particular requirement.

...that scripture in Eccl is bang on. I set a dead bird, cat, mouse whatever beside a dead human, yup - they are dead. I have no problem with that. And in the very end, it’s all “meaningless”....no problem with that. 50,000 years from now or even 5000 from now, anyone (human) won’t know I ever lived. That’s ok. I’m here now, they’re not and I give my life meaning.

- anyway, gotta get supper started ...

Whitefire13's picture
@Apollo...” Bible is not a

@Apollo...” Bible is not a rational collection of writings and we are not required to believe ancient things that are presently unbelievable.”

...accepted. However, it does contain some rational things which should be considered, as I consider rational ideas from all sources...

“ there is nothing in science that requires disbelief in God.”

...again, I agree. A scientist can belief or hold whatever beliefs he/she personally wants to. However the “scientific method” requires not taking those beliefs into the lab. And anyone doing a scientific “peer review” (tearing it to shreds to see if the idea and evidence survives) also leaves their personal beliefs “at the door”. It’s like I don’t care whether my doctor believes “whatever”, the medical standard he obligates himself to provide doesn’t include his personal belief in treating me.

I think that covered it. Look forward to reading your reply.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.