Theistic Possibility?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Konraden

Moderator cut: edit

Moderator cut: insulting

Moderator cut: edit The etymology of nature has been posted several times on these forums which show you to be wrong. By why would you trust an etymology--those scientists must have gotten together and made up new words in order to reject God! Where have I heard that reasoning before?

History.

"self-creation" isn't possible for nature but is for God is special pleading.

THAt is YOUR view . . . "nature" and God are the same entity in mine . . . remember? Try to keep things straight, ok.

You want peer-reviewed evidence for a definition?

If it has no basis . . . ANY definition can be created. That is meaningless semantic terpsichory.

You want peer reviewed evidence that gamma radiation can kill you? That tornadoes have body counts? That bears can make a nice feast of your flesh?

No . . . i want evidence that your conclusions about what that implies about the existence of God are valid and not arbitrary.

No. Consciousness is the nutshelling of a series of phenomenon that we experience--self-awareness, recognition, etc. There is no "composite energy" that exists in any "universal field" that God can access to **** with us.

If the individual components that comprise its formation are pure energy . . . how can you possibly substantiate this absurd claim.

Our consciousness is not a dualists fantasy. The fact that neuroscience agrees with me is far more and **** wide than anything you can provide.

What you refer to are OPINIONS of neuroscientists about the homunculus . . . NOT established scientific fact.

Penrose is a quantum physicist, and considering that neuroscience mocks him (the entire pixie dust in synapses comment comes to mind) is again--more than you can provide. You and your ideas are jokes.

At least jokes have amusement value . . . unlike your TRASH. Really, Konraden . . for your own good take out the trash.

Meaningful discussion cannot occur without definitions, and your steadfast refusal to accept the given ones or define new rigid ones makes everything you say meaningless.

Your refusal to accept the new ones in favor of unsubstantiated ones because of tradition and intransigence makes everything you say rote mindless philosophical garbage.

Chaotic indeed--which is exactly what we see. The evidence for the simple providing the complex is abound, Mystic. Why you insist that something must be intelligent--especially "special for humans" as your religion and your insistence than consciousness is (without any supporting argument) makes an intelligent universe--well, an unintelligent position.

Do not use the asinine beliefs attributed to religion as your basis for criticizing MY beliefs, Konraden. Repeatedly CLAIMING I have no supporting arguments when you have been apprised of them continually is not merely disingenuous . . . it is deceitful. Your ignorance or refusal to learn the substance of them is no excuse for dismissing them as non-existent.

[Vic235]

"Always there" is not equivalent to religious concepts of "eternity".

[Zekester]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Ok! So what would constitute 'proof' in your guys minds - how would you know?

Okay, you Christians are always talking about the return of Jesus when he will vanquish the anti-christ and set up his kingdom on Earth.

Why can't he just come down through the clouds periodically to prove all us misguided and arrogant atheists wrong? That should be easy enough for your all powerful and omnipotent savior to pull off. If he really existed he could remove all doubt just that easily.

I won't hold my breath.

[Konraden]

This is too fun. I have no problem agreeing and accepting that the brain is solely responsible for what we call consciousness and that without it--we would not have nor produce, nor be able to provide in any form a conscious experience. How you somehow think that consciousness is somehow possible without that three pound pudding is beyond me.

[jackmccullough]

Here's a good discussion of these points:


YouTube - How to Convert an Atheist Part 1

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Konraden

This is too fun. I have no problem agreeing and accepting that the brain is solely responsible for what we call consciousness and that without it--we would not have nor produce, nor be able to provide in any form a conscious experience. How you somehow think that consciousness is somehow possible without that three pound pudding is beyond me.

How does any product manage to exist without the production facility that produces it? Your understanding and analysis of the production of consciousness in the brain seems to go into "cognitive arrest" at the point where the "in-process" production is ended. You refuse to even consider that the pure energy composite that was produced still remains within the universal field that comprises our reality.

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

How does any product manage to exist without the production facility that produces it? Your understanding and analysis of the production of consciousness in the brain seems to go into "cognitive arrest" at the point where the "in-process" production is ended. You refuse to even consider that the pure energy composite that was produced still remains within the universal field that comprises our reality.

The flame is no longer a flame when it becomes my hot tea.

[Miss Blue]

time for closure on this one, because it has gone off topic , become insulting and attacking