Why I'm an atheist

[BADecker]

What is that number again? Is it 10 to the fortieth? If it hasn't happened in 10 to the fortieth (or whatever that number is again) it is impossible, scientifically. Look it up. Standard high school science.

You just totally made that up. Unless you have a link for that? Dictionary.com won't be your friend here, I think.

Correct. I just authored the words that I used without copying them from somewhere else. I made it up, although someone else might have used the exact same words in the exact same order somewhere else at some other time.

The thing that I didn't make up is that there is a number - maybe 10⁴⁰ - that if the odds against are greater than 10⁴⁰ scientifically, it is considered an impossibility by scientists. Now, it is true that I don't remember the number, but you can find it if you search for it. It might not be 10⁴⁰.

[qwik2learn]

It's impossible to know whether or not awareness ends at death,

Incorrect. There is a counterexample that you have not addressed. There are known and documented instances of awareness during a period when brain function had ended, in other words "actual death experiences". Science may not have much to say about death in a metaphysical sense, but the timeline of awareness and brain activity during anoxia, as well as the correlation between brain function and EEG, have been extensively studied. Just like you, the OP also believed that it would be impossible to know of awareness after death, but he decided to stop responding to me as soon as we started discussing anoxia and the timeline of awareness (see below). There is also a lot of supporting evidence from many different classes of phenomena that refutes the idea that awareness ends at death.

Even skeptic Chris French admitted that validating the formation of perception and memory during such a time-frame would suggest that consciousness is not being generated by the brain. Take a close look at the timeline! If one is "rational," then in common parlance this means that one can think clearly and is capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

OP is no longer responding to me because of the impressive evidence that I have presented since I started posting here, and you are similarly not engaging with the scientific research that has been put forward. You are simply wrong about physical death because you are not paying attention to the debate between the OP and I. I have met my burden of proof by pointing out the scientific consensus about medical death and brain function (required for awareness) during cardiac arrest. You seem to think that you have no burden of proof at all.

and pointless to argue about since what happens after irrevocable death is unknown.

And what the hell is "irrevocable death"? Whatever definition is convenient for you? Why don't you try to address the facts about brain function and anoxia like the OP did (see below); at least he had the brains to do the research about the timeline of awareness.

Your statement that the brain can't have any activity once the oxygen flow stops is false. Brain activity measurable on a EGG only disappears after 20-40 seconds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death). This time is enough to leave memories of hallucinations. Actually, the hallucinations probably start before the complete stop of the supply of oxygen. And in that situation, 40 seconds of hallucinations might seem minutes to the near death individual.

This would not explain cases of longer duration, for example the patient in AWARE had perceptions which lasted at least 2 minutes and were verified by medical staff.

[Trading]

OP is no longer responding to me because of the impressive evidence that I have presented

Are you shore that the reason I haven't posted was being overwhelm with your "impressive evidence". Is that another one of your "scientific proven facts"?

[qwik2learn]

Your statement that the brain can't have any activity once the oxygen flow stops is false. Brain activity measurable on a EGG only disappears after 20-40 seconds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death). This time is enough to leave memories of hallucinations. Actually, the hallucinations probably start before the complete stop of the supply of oxygen. And in that situation, 40 seconds of hallucinations might seem minutes to the near death individual.

This would not explain cases of longer duration, for example the patient in AWARE had perceptions which lasted at least 2 minutes and were verified by medical staff.

OP,
Your explanation is not sufficient. I am skeptical and you did not meet your burden.
What is your response?

[Trading]

If you kept talking with me, and I had the necessary patience, I would make you an atheist.

Something on the OP made you think and you didn't really like what that thought forced you to conclude. Are you trying to convince me or yourself?

[organofcorti]

What is that number again? Is it 10 to the fortieth? If it hasn't happened in 10 to the fortieth (or whatever that number is again) it is impossible, scientifically. Look it up. Standard high school science.

You just totally made that up. Unless you have a link for that? Dictionary.com won't be your friend here, I think.

Correct. I just authored the words that I used without copying them from somewhere else. I made it up, although someone else might have used the exact same words in the exact same order somewhere else at some other time.

The thing that I didn't make up is that there is a number - maybe 10⁴⁰ - that if the odds against are greater than 10⁴⁰ scientifically, it is considered an impossibility by scientists. Now, it is true that I don't remember the number, but you can find it if you search for it. It might not be 10⁴⁰.

Yes, you totally made up that number and the whole idea. The concept is simply wrong. 1/10^40 != 0

[organofcorti]

It's impossible to know whether or not awareness ends at death,

Incorrect. There is a counterexample that you have not addressed. There are known and documented instances of awareness during a period when brain function had ended, in other words "actual death experiences". Science may not have much to say about death in a metaphysical sense, but the timeline of awareness and brain activity during anoxia, as well as the correlation between brain function and EEG, have been extensively studied. Just like you, the OP also believed that it would be impossible to know of awareness after death, but he decided to stop responding to me as soon as we started discussing anoxia and the timeline of awareness (see below). There is also a lot of supporting evidence from many different classes of phenomena that refutes the idea that awareness ends at death.

Even skeptic Chris French admitted that validating the formation of perception and memory during such a time-frame would suggest that consciousness is not being generated by the brain. Take a close look at the timeline! If one is "rational," then in common parlance this means that one can think clearly and is capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

OP is no longer responding to me because of the impressive evidence that I have presented since I started posting here, and you are similarly not engaging with the scientific research that has been put forward. You are simply wrong about physical death because you are not paying attention to the debate between the OP and I. I have met my burden of proof by pointing out the scientific consensus about medical death and brain function (required for awareness) during cardiac arrest. You seem to think that you have no burden of proof at all.

and pointless to argue about since what happens after irrevocable death is unknown.

And what the hell is "irrevocable death"? Whatever definition is convenient for you? Why don't you try to address the facts about brain function and anoxia like the OP did (see below); at least he had the brains to do the research about the timeline of awareness.

Your statement that the brain can't have any activity once the oxygen flow stops is false. Brain activity measurable on a EGG only disappears after 20-40 seconds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death). This time is enough to leave memories of hallucinations. Actually, the hallucinations probably start before the complete stop of the supply of oxygen. And in that situation, 40 seconds of hallucinations might seem minutes to the near death individual.

This would not explain cases of longer duration, for example the patient in AWARE had perceptions which lasted at least 2 minutes and were verified by medical staff.

I disagree with you, and now I'm 'brainless'? Sigh.

Your concept of death is different to mine. If someone is dead, they don't get up again to tell you about it. If they do, they weren't dead. Death is final.

Discussing what people see in a death-like state is uninteresting, unless someone can perform a replicable peer reviewed experiment that can prove something important is happening. I haven't seen anything like the level of proof I want and that I apply to all aspects of my life, so it's just not interesting for me.

Even a falsifiable hypothesis would be a good start, but AFAICT you don't even have that.

[qwik2learn]

I disagree with you, and now I'm 'brainless'? Sigh.

You ignore the science behind the timeline of awareness during anoxia when presented with it, therefore you are irrational by definition.

Your concept of death is different to mine. If someone is dead, they don't get up again to tell you about it. If they do, they weren't dead. Death is final.

Your concept of death bears no relation to the timeline of awareness during anoxia and the medical fact that awareness is impossible if the brain is nonfunctional. So for the purposes of our discussion of the cardiac arrest study, your concept bears no relation to the facts, it is a non-sequitor.

Discussing what people see in a death-like state is uninteresting, unless someone can perform a replicable peer reviewed experiment that can prove something important is happening.

Awareness without brain function is important because it falsifies materialism and its "awareness from eternal nothing" (OP is a materialist).

I haven't seen anything like the level of proof I want and that I apply to all aspects of my life, so it's just not interesting for me.

Even a falsifiable hypothesis would be a good start, but AFAICT you don't even have that.

You are misinformed: Even the skeptics agree that the survival hypothesis is falsifiable; these guys are saying exactly what I and other skeptics have been saying about the tests that would be required:
https://books.google.com/books?id=dlRuBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=survival+hypothesis+falsifiable&source=bl&ots=sI-MDSpa86&sig=iQglG33Jvrpx_oVmY1U4jOPLRHM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjG6pmp9LLMAhUEsYMKHUpeCKsQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=survival%20hypothesis%20falsifiable&f=false

[qwik2learn]

If you kept talking with me, and I had the necessary patience, I would make you an atheist.

Actually, I was once a committed atheist! I had the necessary patience to evaluate many classes of phenomena, and changed my POV as a result.

Let's stay on topic and let the conversation continue; specifically I would need you to explain to me how you will meet your burden of proof for showing that awareness comes from 'eternal nothing' because Currently, your explanation is not in accord with medical evidence about the timeline of awareness during cardiac arrest. Your explanation is not sufficient. I am skeptical and you did not meet your burden. I will patiently ask you for the true reasoning behind your refusal to accept this class of evidence (the patient from AWARE is not the only case from this class).

You can't compare a junkie's hallucinations with scientific experimentation. The patient from the AWARE study had a true perception of a sound during a flat EEG (indicating an absence of brain activity), so his experience (a so-called "death experience") cannot be dismissed as hallucinations.

Something on the OP made you think

Yes indeed I did some thinking, and I think my thought was thusly so:
"why would the OP conclude that 'everything seems to force you to conclude' that 'our true home is eternal nothing' when my research and knowledge leads me to conclude the opposite?"
Later on I did some more thinking and some internet searches and found myself thinking:
"It is more elegant and far easier to accept as a working hypothesis that sentience exists as a potential at the source of creation, and the strongest evidence has already been put on the table: Everything to be observed in the universe implies consciousness."
I also thought about all of the eminent researchers (link here) who all concluded likewise and was curious about why the OP has accepted this philosophy (materialism), and whether he was aware of the evidence and reasoning behind the thinking of these researchers.

and you didn't really like what that thought forced you to conclude.

I was forced to conclude that I need to exhaustively discuss the matter with the OP, who otherwise seems totally rational and perfectly capable of evaluating scientific evidence in detail on this thread. I'm still not sure how to feel about this...

Are you trying to convince me or yourself?

You, brother. Do you want my phone number or similar? PM me if you want to change the format of our discussion.

[organofcorti]

I disagree with you, and now I'm 'brainless'? Sigh.

You ignore the science behind the timeline of awareness during anoxia when presented with it, therefore you are irrational by definition.

Irrational and brainless. Would you like to push on and hit me with something *really* mean? Hey BADecker's been posting at me for ages, so I have a pretty thick skin.

Your concept of death is different to mine. If someone is dead, they don't get up again to tell you about it. If they do, they weren't dead. Death is final.

Your concept of death bears no relation to the timeline of awareness during anoxia and the medical fact that awareness is impossible if the brain is nonfunctional. So for the purposes of our discussion of the cardiac arrest study, your concept bears no relation to the facts, it is a non-sequitor.

Discussing what people see in a death-like state is uninteresting, unless someone can perform a replicable peer reviewed experiment that can prove something important is happening.

Awareness without brain function is important because it falsifies materialism and its "awareness from eternal nothing" (OP is a materialist).

I haven't seen anything like the level of proof I want and that I apply to all aspects of my life, so it's just not interesting for me.

Even a falsifiable hypothesis would be a good start, but AFAICT you don't even have that.

You are misinformed: Even the skeptics agree that the survival hypothesis is falsifiable; these guys are saying exactly what I and other skeptics have been saying about the tests that would be required:
https://books.google.com/books?id=dlRuBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=survival+hypothesis+falsifiable&source=bl&ots=sI-MDSpa86&sig=iQglG33Jvrpx_oVmY1U4jOPLRHM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjG6pmp9LLMAhUEsYMKHUpeCKsQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=survival%20hypothesis%20falsifiable&f=false

Any research papers I can read? It's much easier to tell if a paper has been accepted by the scientific community.

The AWARE study results are interesting but by no means final, and they do not actually prove anything. They just point to things that they think should be investigated further.

And it's still not a very interesting question. Unless someone comes back from the dead there's no way to be sure that experience during "clinical death" will be the same as that after someone has really, really died.

For everyone who didn't read the study, here's the relevant wikipedia entry:

In 2001, Sam Parnia and colleagues investigated out of body claims by placing figures on suspended boards facing the ceiling, not visible from the floor. Parnia wrote "anybody who claimed to have left their body and be near the ceiling during resuscitation attempts would be expected to identify those targets. If, however, such perceptions are psychological, then one would obviously not expect the targets to be identified."[123] The philosopher Keith Augustine, who examined Parnia's study, has written that all target identification experiments have produced negative results.[124] Psychologist Chris French wrote regarding the study "unfortunately, and somewhat atypically, none of the survivors in this sample experienced an OBE."[125]

In the autumn of 2008, 25 UK and US hospitals began participation in a study, coordinated by Sam Parnia and Southampton University known as the AWARE study (AWAreness during REsuscitation). Following on from the work of Pim van Lommel in the Netherlands, the study aims to examine near-death experiences in 1,500 cardiac arrest survivors and so determine whether people without a heartbeat or brain activity can have documentable out-of-body experiences.[126] As part of the study Parnia and colleagues have investigated out of body claims by using hidden targets placed on shelves that could only be seen from above.[126] Parnia has written "if no one sees the pictures, it shows these experiences are illusions or false memories".[126]

In 2014 Parnia issued a statement indicating that the first phase of the project has been completed and the results are undergoing peer review for publication in a medical journal.[127] No subjects saw the images mounted out of sight according to Parnia's early report of the results of the study at an American Heart Association meeting in November 2013. Only two out of the 152 patients reported any visual experiences, and one of them described events that could be verified.[128]

On October 6, 2014 the results of the study were published in the journal Resuscitation. Among those who reported a perception of awareness and completed further interviews, 46 per cent experienced a broad range of mental recollections in relation to death that were not compatible with the commonly used term of NDEs. These included fearful and persecutory experiences. Only 9 per cent had experiences compatible with NDEs and 2 per cent exhibited full awareness compatible with OBEs with explicit recall of 'seeing' and 'hearing' events. One case was validated and timed using auditory stimuli during cardiac arrest.[129] According to Caroline Watt "The one ‘verifiable period of conscious awareness’ that Parnia was able to report did not relate to this objective test. Rather, it was a patient giving a supposedly accurate report of events during his resuscitation. He didn’t identify the pictures, he described the defibrillator machine noise. But that’s not very impressive since many people know what goes on in an emergency room setting from seeing recreations on television."[130][131]

[qwik2learn]

He didn’t identify the pictures, he described the defibrillator machine noise. But that’s not very impressive since many people know what goes on in an emergency room setting from seeing recreations on television."[130][131]

This rationalization is not impressive AT ALL.
Is this not obviously presupposing the conclusion? How can the other specific details of this case be explained? The many elements of NDE and the totality of the evidence are ignored in favor of a convenient ad-hoc hypothesis with no evidence to back it. It seems like the skeptical explanation is always lacking in explanatory power when the entire situation is accounted for, just like is described in other cases of this class and other cases I mentioned in this thread. The totality of the evidence is more impressive than you realize... at least OP declares himself willing to speak with me about the nitty gritty, as for you I don't believe you would examine the various cases in sufficient detail, you would probably just rely on secondary sources like skepdic or wikipedia or the JREF.

[Gronthaing]

The patient from the AWARE study had a true perception of a sound during a flat EEG (indicating an absence of brain activity), so his experience (a so-called "death experience") cannot be dismissed as hallucinations.

A flat eeg doesn't mean absence of brain activity. May just mean the eeg can't detect the activity. Like it dropping below a level that can be detected by non invasive methods. Which is how eeg is used most of the time. Happens with deep anesthesia for example.

[qwik2learn]

A flat eeg doesn't mean absence of brain activity.

Is that claim peer-reviewed or verified in any way that is relevant to awareness during NDE as in the AWARE study?

May just mean the eeg can't detect the activity. Like it dropping below a level that can be detected by non invasive methods. Which is how eeg is used most of the time. Happens with deep anesthesia for example.

Do you have any evidence that NDE is related to whatever it is that you are talking about? And have you even taken the time to study the literature and understand the differences between these types of unconscious (e.g. coma, anesthesia) and allegedly conscious (i.e. NDE) phenomena? Also, did you read the below link with the refutations to common skeptical claims?

Unless someone comes back from the dead there's no way to be sure that experience during "clinical death" will be the same as that after someone has really, really died.

That is a double-standard. Medical science and neuroscience unite in the understanding that brain function is required for awareness; just like Darwinian theory and the Central Dogma of Biology, this is simply the scientific consensus; I would call it the "functional hypothesis".

An "actual death experience" happens after "40 seconds" in some persons, and the perceptions during that period have been documented on multiple occasions, not just in AWARE; this class of phenomena is called veridical perception; I found a good writeup on the spiritual development site blog:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/07/materialist-explanations-of-ndes-fail.html

[BADecker]

What is that number again? Is it 10 to the fortieth? If it hasn't happened in 10 to the fortieth (or whatever that number is again) it is impossible, scientifically. Look it up. Standard high school science.

You just totally made that up. Unless you have a link for that? Dictionary.com won't be your friend here, I think.

Correct. I just authored the words that I used without copying them from somewhere else. I made it up, although someone else might have used the exact same words in the exact same order somewhere else at some other time.

The thing that I didn't make up is that there is a number - maybe 10⁴⁰ - that if the odds against are greater than 10⁴⁰ scientifically, it is considered an impossibility by scientists. Now, it is true that I don't remember the number, but you can find it if you search for it. It might not be 10⁴⁰.

Yes, you totally made up that number and the whole idea. The concept is simply wrong. 1/10^40 != 0

As I said, I don't know what the number is. It is something like that - 1:10⁴⁰ against. However, I didn't make up the idea. There is a number such as the one I stated (although mine may be wrong) beyond which scientists consider it an impossibility.

From http://sententias.org/2011/01/13/a-probability-so-small-its-impossible/:

The question is at what probability is the probability so small that it could be considered impossible?

10⁸⁰ x 10⁴⁵ x 10²⁵ = 10¹⁵⁰

The unit 10⁸⁰ is a number representing the number of elementary particles in the universe.  Elementary particles are believed to have no substructure, this would include:  quarks, leptons, and bosons.

The unit 10⁴⁵ is measured in hertz, which represents alterations in the states of matter per second.  The properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 10⁴⁵ times per second.  This universal bound on transitions between physical states is based on the Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time.

The unit 10²⁵ is in seconds.  This is a generous, upper bound on the number of seconds that the universe can maintain its integrity [before expanding forever or collapsing back in on itself in a “big crunch”].  This number is according to the Standard Model (the big bang).

The product, 10¹⁵⁰, is the total number of state changes that all the elementary particles in the universe can undergo throughout its duration.  Compare this number to Oxford physicist Roger Penrose’s calculation that the odds of the special low entropy condition having occurred by chance in the absence of any constraining principles is at least one in 10^{10^123}.  In other words, that’s how many different ways the universe could appear from it’s initial conditions.  To understand how large of a number 10^{10^123} is, take away the exponents and try writing out the number.  If you were to write a one and put a zero on every elementary particle in our universe you could then write out 10⁸⁰, which only makes up an incredibly tiny portion of Penrose’s probability (twice for Dembski’s universal probability).

Probability that is 1:10¹⁵⁰ against, is impossible.

For your reading pleasure, from http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/:

...

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 10⁶⁰. The number 10⁶⁰, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 10¹⁸ seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 10¹⁴ square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 10⁹) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 10¹⁸ seconds, there can, therefore, be 10¹⁸/10², or 10¹⁶, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 10¹⁴ (10⁹) (10¹⁶), or 10³⁹ attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 10⁶⁰, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 10³⁹ attempts might be successful is only one out of 10⁶⁰/10³⁹, or 10²¹.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

[qwik2learn]

Let's forget about any "soul" for the reasons stated here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1424793.0

How convenient for you that your reasons do not need to be backed up with evidence, and that the evidence that suggests a soul does not need to be addressed at all!

I STILL need you to explain to me how you will meet your burden of proof for showing that awareness comes from 'eternal nothing' because Currently, your explanation is not in accord with medical evidence about the timeline of awareness during cardiac arrest. Your explanation is not sufficient. I am skeptical and you did not meet your burden. I will patiently ask you for the true reasoning behind your refusal to accept this class of evidence (the patient from AWARE is not the only case from this class).

You can't compare a junkie's hallucinations with scientific experimentation. The patient from the AWARE study had a true perception of a sound during a flat EEG (indicating an absence of brain activity), so his experience (a so-called "death experience") cannot be dismissed as hallucinations.

[qwik2learn]

Let's forget about any "soul" for the reasons stated here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1424793.0

You are saying that awareness comes from "eternal nothing", but there is no evidence to suggest this; you say that "everything" seems to "force [you] to conclude" that we came from "eternal nothing", but when I press you on the details you are suddenly silent. In all reality, everything is suggesting to you that consciousness existed before and will continue to exist.

"It is more elegant and far easier to accept as a working hypothesis that sentience exists as a potential at the source of creation, and the strongest evidence has already been put on the table: Everything to be observed in the universe implies consciousness."

[BADecker]

Let's forget about any "soul" for the reasons stated here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1424793.0

You are saying that awareness comes from "eternal nothing", but there is no evidence to suggest this; you say that "everything" seems to "force [you] to conclude" that we came from "eternal nothing", but when I press you on the details you are suddenly silent. In all reality, everything is suggesting to you that consciousness existed before and will continue to exist.

"It is more elegant and far easier to accept as a working hypothesis that sentience exists as a potential at the source of creation, and the strongest evidence has already been put on the table: Everything to be observed in the universe implies consciousness."

Relax. All he means is that he can't remember anything from before he was conceived.

[Moloch2]

hillary will make homosexualism a national religion thats why I vote her. Every time someone says it,s agains familu values it hurts my feelings

[ZOOM007]

you are an authiest because you do not believe in any religion. i think you do not have to call yourself an authiest because you should first believe in any religion then apply it to your practical life then you should choose that you are an authiest or not.

[BADecker]

you are an authiest because you do not believe in any religion. i think you do not have to call yourself an authiest because you should first believe in any religion then apply it to your practical life then you should choose that you are an authiest or not.

You mean author, not authiest.