Searching For Atheist Apologists.

[Theland]

I have searched in vain for atheist apologists who can present plausible theories of the origin of the universe.
So far, the ones I have found all presuppose a, "something," as a part of their definition of nothing.
Lawrence Krausse requires laws to make, "nothing," unstable.
Hawking required gravity.
An unnamed YouTube lecturer required that time was past eternal.
Can you direct me to any more?

[Theland]

Rationalist - as regards information, there are many highly qualified scientists who assert that information must always come from a mind.
Can you disprove this and suggest other sources of information that can be proven and tested, other than a mind?

[mibn2cweus]

//,,,there are many highly qualified scientists who assert that information must always come from a mind.//

Your alleged 'many highly qualified scientists' assertions are wrong. The mind processes information it has acquired through sensory perception. Information is not created in the mind out of nothing, it is observed in reality. A process of reason (noncontradictory identification) is necessary to discern information from delusion.

[Rationalist]

Theland
you suggest that 'many highly qualified scientists ... assert that information must always come from a mind."
First, define information.
I studied information theory. I know how the world of science defines that term.
I think you use the world in a non- technical sense.

Second, define "mind"

I do not have a technical definition for that word.
I know (sort of) what it means when used in general language, but if we are to have a meaningful discussion, then we must know what you mean by 'mind'

In previous discussions, where such terms have been used, some weak-minded people have gone on to say that the information in God's mind led to the creation of the universe.

That would be an example of pseudo-scientists hijacking technical terms and using them incorrectly, in order to confuse the weak of mind - I am sure you would not fall into that trap.

If you think you are discussing from a scientific perspective, then please refer me to the peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals that support your case.

Otherwise, you are simply dressing up your faith-based assertions as scientific language, which is, as I said, doomed to failure.

[naomi24]

Theland, //If only Gallileo, Newton and Eistein had been satisfied saying, "We don't know," would they have had your admiration? //

Until they had evidence to support their ideas they didn't 'know'. Where's your evidence to support your ideas?

[Theland]

In my opinion, information can be passed on, copied, and never changed unless there is an error in the transcript.
New information always requires the origin to be a conscious mind.
I have no experience, or ever heard of, information being generated otherwise.
Can you enlighten me as to the existence of an alternative source?

[Theland]

Naomi - My post above is the evidence.
Information comes from a mind.
Please direct me to an alternative source.

[Theland]

I have been told, as you know, to question my faith, well this is exactly what I am doing here.

[mibn2cweus]

Where do you suppose the mind gets its information if not from an external reality through perception - by what means, through what process? How do you differentiate between reality and delusion?

What is, is, in spite of what your mind believes it is or wishes it to be. A mind devoid of means (sensation) or process (perception) can not be conscious of anything. It is the mind which must conform to reality in order to learn to integrate with and live in it. Reality exists regardless of what you choose to imagine and has no stake in your success.

I value my limited time and resources to much to squander any of it on entertaining anyones delusions.

[Theland]

Mibs - Thsnk you. If I understand you correctly then I agree with you.
But my point is, we are creative, and ideas originate in our minds. When we share and export those ideas , that is information.
It's origin is our mind.
I know of no other origins of information.

[mibn2cweus]

False equivalencies lead to confusion at best, or worse, deception. If you want to discuss 'ideas', don't equate them with 'information'. Ideas are constructs of the mind but do not necessary correspond to reality. Information can be about ideas, good or bad, but has a much wider context when not specified.

[Theland]

Who writes the programme for the computer you are using?
The programme is information, it originated in a human mind.
Your typed responses on this thread are your ideas, originating in your human mind and exported / transmitted as information through the medium of the Internet.
There is no other origin of information other than a mind.
Philosophers have struggled with this question and never been able to suggest a different origin.
If you don't agree, then please direct me to a source that will affirm an alternative origin.

[Rationalist]

Theland:
First, define information.

Second, define "mind"

Once I know what you mean by those terms, we can discuss.

You have hit upon an aspect of the world that cannot – at present – be explained by science: intelligence; consciousness.

I accept that.

I do not accept that God is the explanation for that, since there is no evidence; no possibility of testing the theory, and no possibility of falsifying the assertion.

I simply say that I do not know the origins of consciousness.

I do not know the difference between a live person a second before death, and the corpse a second after death.

None of that is any evidence at all for a God.

[Theland]

Rationalist - Information is the thoughts and instructions transmitted either by its originator, the mind, or retransmitted through another agency, either another mind or a device.

[Theland]

Mind is the product of our consciousness, produced by but not confined to neuro activity in the brain.

[pixie374]

Theland, the most obvious example of literal "information" is DNA. It is not created in a mind, or even processed by a mind. It just does as instructed, whether we understand it or not. Doesn't that show that information is an external thing and not "created"?

[Theland]

Pixie - I'm afraid you are mistaken.
DNA copies and then transmits information to produce proteins.
Each protein was made according to instructions from DNA provided by a protein, which was made according to instructions provided by a protein, which was . . . . . . Ad infinitum right back to its initial origin - a mind.

[Theland]

It's a real chicken and egg paradox, until you get right back to the origin of life.

[pixie374]

Erm... which mind?

[pixie374]

The chicken and egg is a cliche, not a paradox. Dinosaur eggs came first. If you mean chicken eggs (presumably), the chick is created and the egg built around it. It isn't a mystery.

[pixie374]

But even so, theland (without actually agreeing) ....DNA is still "information". All new DNA is created, as information, without a mind being involved.