definition of

As an "Atheist" would you consider this hypothesis?

In a Universe where duality is observed to be the most common factor of existence, it is safe to assume that energy can only fundamentally exist in one of two states, positive or negative, when you couple this information with laws such as every particle has an anti particle it kind of makes sense, the only thing is that there is more to it, a particle that does not have an anti-particle, is its own anti-particle, this means that it exists in two states at once, which is technically impossible(on our scale) unless you take quantum mechanics into account, when you understand the fundamentals of quantum mechanics you will understand that there is really three states energy can exist in, positive, neutral and negative, which can be written as such A+B=C where C is merely the product of A and B simply existing, so to recap, Neutral doesnt really exist, yet it does exist simultaneously, Neutral IS our universe, the "housing" or vacuum that we observe around us, We also refer to this as Matter, Matter houses the energy which defines what particle it is to be, the periodic table shows us which energy levels(Ev) each element requires to be stable, if there is more, it is radiated away into the vacuum where it will be added to another particle, if it is less, then it will keep loosing Ev untill it reaches a lighter stable element. So what does this have to do with god then... Well, if everything we can comprehend is made from energy and our consciousness is made from energy, is it not then safe to assume that collectively as a consciousness, WE are god... "the whole equals more than the sum of its parts". Anyway imagine the collective mind power of every conscious being in the universe... how godly would that be... God manifests "himself" in various forms... God sustains and nourishes god cannot be created or destroyed... Thats the bullshit they tried to brainwash me with as a child. This is the ammo I have to fire in retaliation!! I am looking forward to your reply, thank you in advance :-) Howard
Atheist Answer: 

Blimey, that's a hunka hunka burnin' pseudoscience if ever I saw one. Thanks for bringing it in.

First I'll put on my fact-checking hat.
- The two most commonly accepted examples of duality in our universe are the wave-particle duality of light and the decayed/not decayed state of unobserved unstable atoms (often explained using Schroedinger's Cat), and they're not even mentioned here.
- There probably isn't antimatter equivalent to all matter, or vice versa. We observe tremendous asymmetry, for example the fact that our part of the universe appears to contain almost entirely matter and almost no natural antimatter.
- In contrast to antimatter, which we can not only observe but deliberately produce and store, negative energy is still entirely hypothetical and may not exist at all. Antimatter in fact appears to consist of positive energy.
- There's an old saying that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. The author of this argument apparently thinks he understands quantum mechanics.
- A vacuum may not be neutral at all, according to zero-point energy theory.
- Matter doesn't just house energy, it is energy in another form. It's really not separate from it.

Ultimately, none of this has anything to do with consciousness, so if the argument had left out everything before "So what does this have to do with god then..." it wouldn't make any less sense.

Next up, I'll put on my targeting scope and go for the central point of this shemozzle.

If consciousness is energy, just because it's made of the same stuff as everything else doesn't give it power over everything else. Our collective consciousnesses have no godlike influence over the rest of reality. Besides, we don't have a collective consciousness or "hive mind" as we understand the concept so we've got no way of combining our mental powers to physically affect the universe. All we can do is move our own bodies and get things done through ordinary teamwork. Not much of a god, are we?

Even the idea of consciousness as independent energy is a contested premise. It requires a position of mind-brain duality (that is, mutual independence) that most atheists don't share. Consciousness in any materialist view is simply a function of the brain itself, kept running by electrical impulses which have no external influence and no autonomy. It's like a computer program: wipe the computer, and it disappears.

Finally, there's a more general point to be made, so I'll go up in my mehve to see the big picture.

If when considering the world at large you feel you must posit the existence of a major hypothetical entity, like a collective consciousness or a Prime Mover or a Designer (none of which are likely necessary), you're free to call it anything you like. However, if you arbitrarily give it an existing name which also refers to an separate, well-established concept, it's an unsupported link between the two entities. It's a big problem with the Transcendental Argument and all others which end with, "We call this creator/lawmaker/intelligence/feeling/cupcake God." Even if the argument is sound, the entity you've successfully argued for may well not be your god at all, and it's a dishonest leap to assume that it is.

I hope this is the kind of ammo you're looking for.

- SmartLX

Syndicate content