Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm anticipating - assuming that Mystic accepts the case for abiogenesis so far - that he will argue that consciousness or awareness is inexplicable without God.
I have done that one before, as well. Unfortunately I can't find a vid. on the evolution of consciousness (other than some woeful ones about New age speculations about human ascendancy to the spiritual plane) but my view is that animal consciousness was just another evolved ability that developed just as the others did. If physical evolution from biochemical is accepted as at least an adequate explanation, the evolution of consciousness is equally plausible by natural means. We still have no need - and thus no evidence - for anything we need call "God".
Life and consciousness are inextricably connected, period. Different lifeforms simply manifest different degrees of consciousness. That is why our Reality must be living because it must be conscious.
I am NOT arguing it cannot happen without an intelligent being doing it. I am arguing that consciousness cannot exist in a substrate which is NOT conscious and is comprised of only "dead" elements. There is no way to get from a substrate that is NOT conscious to the existence of consciousness within it. You seem fixated on a Being DOING whatever, but I am only specifying a consciousness EXISTING as the substrate for our consciousness. It is absurd to think that I am questioning what we have learned about how things work or have worked or are done. I am only questioning what must be true about the substrate for our Reality given the existence of OUR consciousness because the unique contemplative traits of our consciousness are nowhere seen in the periodic table of elements.
First of all you were asserting the Life - not consciousness - but Life - cannot emerge from chemicals naturally.
You posted " the basic unsupported and unsupportable (scientifically) claims by atheists are that essentially "dead" elements (periodic table) somehow combine into living material that reproduce and grow according to some code by somehow developing a "survival" instinct..."
I have done enough to show that this is - scientifically - an invalid claim. If you first concede that Life can emerge naturally without any intelligent agency, we can get onto your argument about consciousness. Perhaps after correcting your inability to grasp the concept of a genetically encoded survival instinct.
First of all you were asserting the Life - not consciousness - but Life - cannot emerge from chemicals naturally.
You posted " the basic unsupported and unsupportable (scientifically) claims by atheists are that essentially "dead" elements (periodic table) somehow combine into living material that reproduce and grow according to some code by somehow developing a "survival" instinct..."
I have done enough to show that this is - scientifically - an invalid claim. If you first concede that Life can emerge naturally without any intelligent agency, we can get onto your argument about consciousness. Perhaps after correcting your inability to grasp the concept of a genetically encoded survival instinct.
It is just annoying that you keep using the word "naturally" AS IF it has some scientific significance beyond labeling our ignorance about what our Reality IS. It is beyond obvious that life employs chemistry so describing their use is like describing the water to someone who is drowning (in ignorance?). It seems that you are just using the label to represent what exists and what happens as existing or happening without any God existing (which is classic begging the question since you can not claim that). You do this presumptuous demanding the default in most of your premises. But, until you independently support your presumptions, they will remain unsupported and unsupportable presumptions.
So much for your scientifically invalid refutation using your unsupported label. You take too many liberties with your premises AS IF there is some actual scientific basis for them instead of presumption and labeling of euphemisms. Where is the genetic code in the periodic table of elements? Why and how does a genetic code come to exist? Where does a survival instinct actually come from and where is its precursor in the periodic table? I could go on, but it seems pointless. You seem completely oblivious to your unsupported and unsupportable presumptions in your so-called logic and reasoning.
I am NOT arguing it cannot happen without an intelligent being doing it. I am arguing that consciousness cannot exist in a substrate which is NOT conscious and is comprised of only "dead" elements. There is no way to get from a substrate that is NOT conscious to the existence of consciousness within it. You seem fixated on a Being DOING whatever, but I am only specifying a consciousness EXISTING as the substrate for our consciousness. It is absurd to think that I am questioning what we have learned about how things work or have worked or are done. I am only questioning what must be true about the substrate for our Reality given the existence of OUR consciousness because the unique contemplative traits of our consciousness are nowhere seen in the periodic table of elements.
How do you validate any of that without a denial of 'emergence' (by which I mean non -living and non - conscious elements combining and producing life and consciousness - whatever YOU mean by it) which is what the evidence indicates and science at least shows is feasible.
All you have is the rhetorical trick of taking the actions and reactions of matter/energy and calling it 'Life' and 'consciousness' which is as much a rhetorical trick as calling it "God".
If you claim (as indeed you did pretty explicitly) that Life and Consciousness cannot evolve without a Mind making it happen - Which is indeed a claim of "God" Doing something with forward -planning intelligence - more than just action an reaction through the innate physical laws of matter - demonstrate that this is so, otherwise I shall see no reason to use the God -label. Which incidentally would be adequately validated, should you try the evasion of "your belief which you do not need to prove".
How do you validate any of that without a denial of 'emergence' (by which I mean non -living and non - conscious elements combining and producing life and consciousness - whatever YOU mean by it) which is what the evidence indicates and science at least shows is feasible.
All you have is the rhetorical trick of taking the actions and reactions of matter/energy and calling it 'Life' and 'consciousness' which is as much a rhetorical trick as calling it "God".
If you claim (as indeed you did pretty explicitly) that Life and Consciousness cannot evolve without a Mind making it happen - Which is indeed a claim of "God" Doing something with forward -planning intelligence - more than just action an reaction through the innate physical laws of matter - demonstrate that this is so, otherwise I shall see no reason to use the God -label. Which incidentally would be adequately validated, should you try the evasion of "your belief which you do not need to prove".
EMERGENCE is an observation NOT an explanation of why or how something came to exist! Stop pretending that observations are scientific explanations. Saying something emerged is no different than saying God produced it.
These post have gone beyond ridiculous. There hasn't been a mention of anything remotely relevant to Religion or Spirituality for several pages. After all, discussion of Religion and Spirituality are the two primary reasons this forum exist. This thread is about Why I Lost My Christian Faith. It's normal for a thread to sometimes veer off topic a bit for a few posts, but pages and pages of irrelevant posts cause people to lose interest in the original topic. Please post relevant to the forum and the thread, and keep the occasional side comments and replies just that. Occasional.
These post have gone beyond ridiculous. There hasn't been a mention of anything remotely relevant to Religion or Spirituality for several pages. After all, discussion of Religion and Spirituality are the two primary reasons this forum exist. This thread is about Why I Lost My Christian Faith. It's normal for a thread to sometimes veer off topic a bit for a few posts, but pages and pages of irrelevant posts cause people to lose interest in the original topic. Please post relevant to the forum and the thread, and keep the occasional side comments and replies just that. Occasional.
Ok This is just going over very old ground anyway, with Mystic denying everything. Including 'emergence' which was just demonstrated in the video I posted.
Gentlemen, I do have a life outside of the forum. The basic unsupported and unsupportable (scientifically) claims by atheists are that essentially "dead" elements (periodic table) somehow combine into living material that reproduce and grow according to some code by somehow developing a "survival" instinct and somehow compete to combine into cooperating organisms that somehow evolve by adapting to their environment into evaluating and reacting organisms that eventually develop a previously non-existent and unique quality of an abstract consciousness capable of contemplating its own and other existences using a somehow transcendent imagination unshackled from the laws of physics and chemistry that otherwise control everything that made them in the first place. Now, this absurd chain of events by essentially "dead" elements is "explained" by observational euphemisms (which means not explained just observed to occur) like "emergence," "self-organization," evolution, etc. AS IF they are scientifically established.
ONCE AGAIN, life is a subset of chemistry. This IS scientifically established, supported and supportable. Your position is NOT, it relies on creationist arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Now, if you geniuses would care to TRY to actually explain scientifically how this all takes place WITHOUT using your euphemistic observational excuses masquerading as explanations, I am all ears (and eyes).
NO ONE smoke a cigarette, straw men and bovine ordure burns very well.
IT is NOT changing the subject. It is the abstract consciousness in the bold that we are using that in no way resembles or can possibly come into being in a "dead" element only Reality. It MUST preexist our consciousness as the substrate (unified field) for our entire Reality. There is NO scientific explanation or mechanism for getting from a substrate without consciousness to the existence of consciousness. Material elements and consciousness have NOTHING in common except they are manifestations within a field. Consciousness is a field phenomenon and it must reside within an existing consciousness field which means our Reality must be a consciousness field and a conscious Reality is the ultimate definition of God. Explain to me your alternative to this.
Your assertion is STILL question begging. What happened to the alleged science?
It is just annoying that you keep using the word "naturally" AS IF it has some scientific significance beyond labeling our ignorance about what our Reality IS. It is beyond obvious that life employs chemistry so describing their use is like describing the water to someone who is drowning (in ignorance?). It seems that you are just using the label to represent what exists and what happens as existing or happening without any God existing (which is classic begging the question since you can not claim that). You do this presumptuous demanding the default in most of your premises. But, until you independently support your presumptions, they will remain unsupported and unsupportable presumptions.
So much for your scientifically invalid refutation using your unsupported label. You take too many liberties with your premises AS IF there is some actual scientific basis for them instead of presumption and labeling of euphemisms. Where is the genetic code in the periodic table of elements? Why and how does a genetic code come to exist? Where does a survival instinct actually come from and where is its precursor in the periodic table? I could go on, but it seems pointless. You seem completely oblivious to your unsupported and unsupportable presumptions in your so-called logic and reasoning.
Your bold is correct. You have it finally correct. OK, it refutes your own position, but eh, ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). It seems that you are just using the label to represent what exists and what happens as existing or happening without any God existing (which is classic begging the question since you can not claim that). You do this presumptuous demanding the default in most of your premises. But, until you independently support your presumptions, they will remain unsupported and unsupportable presumptions. 
