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 have repeatedly said science is not exclusive to atheism, I have repeatedly said you and other theists have extras you need to provide evidence for.
And no, naturalism sans gods matches 100% what we observe, so panentheism does not obliterate that evidence.
When what we observe is not 100% of Reality the illogic of this assertion becomes obvious. The blind monks and the elephant comes to mind. What we observe is less than 5% of our Reality and only from the vantage point of our solar system and small blue dot.
Quote:
We have also explained this, which is a problem for your thesis, not atheism.
This unmeasurable consciousness applies to you and your unverified opinion. But we have strong evidence this unmeasurable consciousness is a product of our brain until you provide credible for your belief.
Yes, as a product of the brain.
Asserting that something is a product of the brain is NOT a measurement of the phenomenon, just its source. There is no device available to measure the actual content of consciousness since it occurs as the composite of resonant synaptic firings of quanta and it exists as a single quantum entity at the quantum level (BEC).
This ambiguity should reveal to an open mind that this is WHY science cannot resolve the ontology issue as you presumptuously assert in favor of your atheism.
When what we observe is not 100% of Reality the illogic of this assertion becomes obvious. The blind monks and the elephant comes to mind. What we observe is less than 5% of our Reality and only from the vantage point of our solar system and small blue dot.Asserting that something is a product of the brain is NOT a measurement of the phenomenon, just its source. There is no device available to measure the actual content of consciousness since it occurs as the composite of resonant synaptic firings of quanta and it exists as a single quantum entity at the quantum level (BEC).
This ambiguity should reveal to an open mind that this is WHY science cannot resolve the ontology issue as you presumptuously assert in favor of your atheism.
Oh heck. Why not repeat myself as well...
It is what we do or conclude about what "science cannot resolve" that tends to be a choice or manner of thinking that distinguishes atheists from religious folks. One of the distinctions anyway, and the sort of ambiguity that leads many people to believe all manner of different things that can't be validated or reconciled. Ultimately leaving a wide open space to do that dance of what's fun to imagine and/or ponder, as we all might enjoy in our own personal ways.
What is truth, fact, and how to establish the likes is another matter altogether...
When what we observe is not 100% of Reality the illogic of this assertion becomes obvious. The blind monks and the elephant comes to mind. What we observe is less than 5% of our Reality and only from the vantage point of our solar system and small blue dot.
But we can not use what we do NOT know to make a conclusion. That is why I was only talking about what we DO observe.
And the 100% of your 5% is natural forces, never a god. And extrapolating from that is not irrational. That you do not understand this is your problem, not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Asserting ...
No one is asserting, stop making this constant dishonesty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
... that something is a product of the brain is NOT a measurement of the phenomenon, just its source. There is no device available to measure the actual content of consciousness ...
No one is talking about measuring consciousness, I am talking about the evidence we have that it is a product of the brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
... since it occurs as the composite of resonant synaptic firings of quanta and it exists as a single quantum entity at the quantum level (BEC).
Wow, your opinion without evidence stated as fact. We have never seen you do that before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This ambiguity should reveal to an open mind that this is WHY science cannot resolve the ontology issue as you presumptuously assert in favor of your atheism.
Again with the goal post moving. We do not need to resolve the issue to see where the balance of evidence is.
And no one is presumptuously asserting anything except you asserting consciousness 'occurs as the composite of resonant synaptic firings of quanta and it exists as a single quantum entity at the quantum level (BEC)', an opinion that ignores the many papers by neuroscientists.
When what we observe is not 100% of Reality the illogic of this assertion becomes obvious. The blind monks and the elephant comes to mind. What we observe is less than 5% of our Reality and only from the vantage point of our solar system and small blue dot.Asserting that something is a product of the brain is NOT a measurement of the phenomenon, just its source. There is no device available to measure the actual content of consciousness since it occurs as the composite of resonant synaptic firings of quanta and it exists as a single quantum entity at the quantum level (BEC).
This ambiguity should reveal to an open mind that this is WHY science cannot resolve the ontology issue as you presumptuously assert in favor of your atheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Harry, repetition simply does not work...
No matter who keeps repeating themselves (like all of us), or how many times. Just gets old is all.
That your ego and arrogance refuses to stop your desire to claim the default position despite this ambiguity (something I do NOT demand) reveals all anyone needs to know about your BS objective search for the truth. You want to limit the default truth to the observations of the monk whose hands are on the elephant's anus!! That's where your default emanates from and that's what gets old!
That your ego and arrogance refuses to stop your desire to claim the default position despite this ambiguity (something I do NOT demand) reveals all anyone needs to know about your BS objective search for the truth. You want to limit the default truth to the observations of the monk whose hands are on the elephant's anus!! That's where your default emanates from and that's what gets old!
I had a feeling you were here to just get into a fight, and now more than ever it's hard not to feel like you are a bitter, tired and sad example of someone who just wants to throw a tantrum and swing your bat wildly this way and that. To hit as many others as possible.
Perhaps it is my ego and arrogance that senses this truth, but either way my default position right now is to sign off from this poop soup for now and perhaps pick up where it's a little easier to breath in this forum tomorrow. Until then, here's hoping you get better soon!
But we can not use what we do NOT know to make a conclusion. That is why I was only talking about what we DO observe.
And the 100% of your 5% is natural forces, never a god. And extrapolating from that is not irrational. That you do not understand this is your problem, not mine.
The truly logical conclusion when the bulk of what you are trying to identify is NOT KNOWN is to restrict the CONCLUSION to "we do not know what the hell it is," and any other conclusions are restricted to the realm of BELIEF. You do NOT conclude the elephant's anus is 100% of what we measured, so it's an anus until proven otherwise. That just reveals you as an arrogant anus.
Quote:
No one is asserting, stop making this constant dishonesty.
No one is talking about measuring consciousness, I am talking about the evidence we have that it is a product of the brain.
Being a product of the brain supports neither of our BELIEFS because we do not know and cannot measure what the HELL it actually is. especially since it has attributes entirely unique and disparate from everything else we CAN measure. Hence, no default is possible about anything that involves the presence or absence of consciousness.
Quote:
Wow, your opinion without evidence stated as fact. We have never seen you do that before.
You and your compadres are the only ones asserting as facts their extrapolation about their BELIEFS. Remember this from above? "100% of your 5% is natural forces, never a god. And extrapolating from that is not irrational." You also deceitfully inserted my BELIEF about God in there comparing it to your FACT but unintentionally admitting your fact is also a BELIEF. I do not do any of those disingenuous (and self-deceptive) things. I make the science facts clear and distinct from my extrapolations from them and my beliefs about them.
Quote:
Again with the goal post moving. We do not need to resolve the issue to see where the balance of evidence is.
No goalposts have moved. You simply refuse to recognize the actual evidence required to identify with science the ontology of Reality. FYI, 100% of 5% gets you nowhere near the balance of evidence to CONCLUDE anything!
Quote:
And no one is presumptuously asserting anything except you asserting consciousness 'occurs as the composite of resonant synaptic firings of quanta and it exists as a single quantum entity at the quantum level (BEC)', an opinion that ignores the many papers by neuroscientists.
That is my extrapolation of the supporting science, NOT an assertion of fact. I use my extrapolation to highlight the existence of alternative interpretations precluding any conclusions about the default. I did not do what you did above by presumptuously using YOUR extrapolation as fact for your default conclusion nonsense.
Basically, cut the fat off of mystic's claim and his belief is that we may very well be in a living universe is plausible.
Based on the strength of evidence, that is a reasonable claim. Its a lot more reasonable then any deity claim.
If we shrink the volume from universal to Earth, then stating we are in a system that may be alive becomes more plausible than not. In fact, it becomes so plausible that "lacking belief" will need so real evidence and explaining.
Just saying "I don't believe you" just looks way to theist like. Because of the strength of evidence.
That your ego and arrogance refuses to stop your desire to claim the default position despite this ambiguity (something I do NOT demand) reveals all anyone needs to know about your BS objective search for the truth. You want to limit the default truth to the observations of the monk whose hands are on the elephant's anus!! That's where your default emanates from and that's what gets old!
The truly logical conclusion when the bulk of what you are trying to identify is NOT KNOWN is to restrict the CONCLUSION to "we do not know what the hell it is," and any other conclusions are restricted to the realm of BELIEF. You do NOT conclude the elephant's anus is 100% of what we measured, so it's an anus until proven otherwise. That just reveals you as an arrogant anus.
Being a product of the brain supports neither of our BELIEFS because we do not know and cannot measure what the HELL it actually is. especially since it has attributes entirely unique and disparate from everything else we CAN measure. Hence, no default is possible about anything that involves the presence or absence of consciousness.
You and your compadres are the only ones asserting as facts their extrapolation about their BELIEFS. Remember this from above? "100% of your 5% is natural forces, never a god. And extrapolating from that is not irrational." You also deceitfully inserted my BELIEF about God in there comparing it to your FACT but unintentionally admitting your fact is also a BELIEF. I do not do any of those disingenuous (and self-deceptive) things. I make the science facts clear and distinct from my extrapolations from them and my beliefs about them.
No goalposts have moved. You simply refuse to recognize the actual evidence required to identify with science the ontology of Reality. FYI, 100% of 5% gets you nowhere near the balance of evidence to CONCLUDE anything!
That is my extrapolation of the supporting science, NOT an assertion of fact. I use my extrapolation to highlight the existence of alternative interpretations precluding any conclusions about the default. I did not do what you did above by presumptuously using YOUR extrapolation as fact for your default conclusion nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I had a feeling you were here to just get into a fight, and now more than ever it's hard not to feel like you are a bitter, tired and sad example of someone who just wants to throw a tantrum and swing your bat wildly this way and that. To hit as many others as possible.
Perhaps it is my ego and arrogance that senses this truth, but either way my default position right now is to sign off from this poop soup for now and perhaps pick up where it's a little easier to breath in this forum tomorrow. Until then, here's hoping you get better soon!
Sincerely,
Learnme
I am not the one seeking to fight. I am in defense mode and have been for the past 13 years because of my religion and religious and spiritual views. I have been placed in the back of the R&S bus and even been assigned a specific seat (thread) that I must stay in. My views are discriminated against and assigned "separate toilet facilities, water fountains, and restaurant counter seats." They are not welcomed on any thread topic as derails and spam. I am beyond sick of it!
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.
