Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

mhs, you can't say I "haven't solved all the problems" when I *have* answered every single thought experiment you've thrown at me. The solution *is* obvious, and the physical explanation *does* explain these things. The reason you may not find it obvious is because you're holding onto a concept that has already been shown to be worthy of non-acceptance. If you keep trying to mold that concept around everything, then yes, it will just confuse you. Approach it physically, and it all makes sense.

I still have a lot to say about that thought experiment. I still don't feel like you've "directly" answered to everything. Instead of saying "I did answer to everything", let's just proceed until I have finished.

Don't you wonder why I still think that there is a conflict? Don't you consider the possibility that I noticed something that you didn't, in this thought experiment? Wait, don't answer now, I'll still reply to your final answer.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

It's fine to continue questioning something until you are satisfied, but you need to make sure you understand the other arguments first.

Also, if you had actual proof of an afterlife, then I would obviously have to consider it. But, right now, all proof points against it. I'm not arguing corrosively against the concept of an afterlife/God because "I simply find it BS" -- but because there's absolutely no evidence for such things, but plenty of evidence to suggest other alternatives. If there were evidence of an afterlife, I would no longer find it BS. But what I do find BS is to base an entire faith off a "maybe" and hold it to be true. If someone wants to test a "maybe," there's a method for it. If someone still wants to have "hope" for something, then that's another thing. What's silly to me is to "know something to be true/to believe in something strongly" with no real truth behind it at all. That's BS to me.

Alright. I know that if I tell you "that's not what I'm doing", it'll be pointless.

I did say that "people see what they want to see" because that's what I noticed so far.

The ideal would be for people to seek the truth and believe in the truth because it is the truth, not because they "want" to believe in it. But, usually, there is something that makes people lean towards a side, even if they aren't truly aware of that.

Are you an atheist only because of what you mentioned, or do you somehow connect the act of believing in God or afterlife, regardless of the reason, with ignorance? Well, I think that there are some cultural reasons for that. Usually, religious people are ignorant. After living with several ignorant and religious people, some people tend to dislike religion. Are you sure that it isn't one of the reasons?

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Re: Your thought experiment, the clone will be entirely new. The one derived from the original atoms will be the original person.

There IS a problem. Please, please, PLEASE read this carefully, try to be as impartial as you can, because I cannot *not* see a conflict. Assuming that your answer is true:

*After* the structure was completely destroyed, after all the atoms were spread and there was no longer any connection between them, if I somehow find these specific atoms and recreate your body, *you* will feel like you've woken up. But this will NOT happen if I pick different atoms, because it will be a clone.

You know this: the entity with different atoms will be identical to you, and will feel exactly like you. But *you* will still feel nothing.

Just answer: WHY will you still be limited to those same atoms after they were spread around the world?

Do you still think that there is a structure? Because there clearly isn't.