Let's start at the beginning...How can something come from nothing? (religion, religions)

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Any peer-reviewed paper which doesn't include "god did it" in the explanation of results is another data point showing that god is unnecessary. At last count that would be, umm, all of them.

And before you claim that this is evidence for your "nature god", remember that science is all about excluding unnecessary assumptions. That's how and why science works. So when they chop that assumption down to "nature" because god doesn't add anything, don't complain about bias.

Science doesn't "work"...it just "figures out" what already is. And "proves" nothing...except that they were able to "discover" how things were designed to work to begin with. It's like archaeologists "discovering" some ancient civilization...they only found what, obviously, the people who originally lived there, and for generations after, knew all about.

Examining something for what and how it is at the time you are scoping it out doesn't prove or disprove how it came to be to begin with. So, that a paper doesn't address the origination of the matter and energy it is testing or researching doesn't mean a thing to "prove there is no God"...or that "God" was/is no factor in the matter or energy being examined.

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Quality of outcomes from the overall design of reality. It seems to have been fairly effective so far . . . especially if the desired outcome is quality of consciousness (spirituality)

You're equating spirituality with consciousness now? How do you come to the conclusion that consciousness is the "end product?" If there is one thing that the sciences have taught us, it is that humans are not special.

. . . NOT physicality. But you "physical" minds seem to have trouble with those concepts.

Ad hominem. "You're too stupid."

No First Cause argument . . . A simple acknowledgment that what you refuse to identify (or acknowledge) DOES EXIST . . . whatever you wish to think about it or call it.

Well then, the answer I provided for the question "why do things reproduce" is entirely valid, and you're moving goal posts in order to avoid that.

You cannot deliberately ignore something, then claim it doesn't exist and that our ignorance is a reason to not believe it exists (some BS fallacy).

Doesn't something have to be observable to be ignorable? What we observe lacks obvious design and obvious purpose. I'd go as far as to say it very much appears to have no design and no purpose.

Man up. God EXISTS (unlike your imaginary derisory foils)

Ad hominem. A priori arguments will get you no where. You've provided insufficient reason to accept your God.

whether in the limited version you prefer (but refuse even to acknowledge) or in any other possible configuration of attributes people wish to assign to Him (the part that seems to irritate you so much because of the irrationalities and absurdities within the myriad versions.)

Claiming "God is all" is a meaningless statement. The sole purpose of that statement is to have everybody agree that God exist because God is everything. We already have a word for that concept--it's called the universe. God is defined separately from the universe as something that is 1. supernatural 2. exists outside space-time.

Nothing in our experiences gives credence to either of those two possibilities. You can continue to play word games all you want, no one here is going to agree to your arbitrary redefining of a word to encompass to distinctly separate concepts.

More physical limitations . . . mind does NOT exist IN a brain

Ask any neuroscientist if they are distinctly separate. Know what answer you'll get?

. . . it is produced BY a series of chemical reactions located in a brain according to you.

According to neuroscience. The mind is just what we collectively call our memories, thoughts, and emotions. That is all the result of your brain--nothing more.

Chemical reactions are available to cells. What I am asking you is how does a mindless, purely competitive single cell striving only to survive and reproduce . . . NOT compete with the other cells fighting for the same resources?

Two organisms sharing a space benefit over one. They can equally use the resources and likewise guard against them. I'm not a microbiologist, so how exactly two cells benefit from each other is outside of my, as you say, pay-grade. However, organisms mutually benefiting one another is not a secret, or something exclusive to humans. Symbitotic relationships are present between members of a species as well as between species, and even between kingdoms.

Just getting that first multi-cellular organism presents a major hurdle for the survival/selection motif . . . let alone the complexity you say just managed to evolve without any template (design protocols).

The TOE pretty much details how this is possible.

There had to be an existing template of protocols for that to happen . . . for your "random processes" to discover or stumble upon.

Evolution isn't random, Mystic.

You know I am not a Creationist and I certainly would not use such inane arguments. Why only five nucleotides . . . in combinations of four for the design codes (DNA) and four for the activators (tRNA, mRNA, etc.) that actually represent a plethora of workable design outcomes?

I don't know, I'm not a geneticist. Do we have one resident?

::Sigh:: There is still the depression that contains the puddle that establishes its design, the atmospheric processes that produced the rain that filled the design to make the puddle . . . ah hell. . . it's pointless even to try to penetrate concrete that has set.

I'm not the one making arguments of irreducible complexity. You stated that DNA was too complex to have formed without design or purpose. Our working theories of abiogenesis offer some pretty good explanations of the first RNA.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Science doesn't "work"...it just "figures out" what already is.

And "proves" nothing...except that they were able to "discover" how things were designed to work to begin with.

It's like archaeologists "discovering" some ancient civilization...they only found what, obviously, the people who originally lived there, and for generations after, knew all about.

Examining something for what and how it is at the time you are scoping it out doesn't prove or disprove how it came to be to begin with. So, that a paper doesn't address the origination of the matter and energy it is testing or researching doesn't mean a thing to "prove there is no God"...or that "God" was/is no factor in the matter or energy being examined.

We now have excellent evidence of what the universe was like down to a few micro-seconds after the proposed Big Bang. This is because it was first hypothesized in several different models, and each predicted some very different outcomes. Then, armed with those, we went looking for those unique signatures that could only be explained if "such and such" actually happened. We eliminated some, others were examined in even more detail, with ever-more elegant and discriminating tools, and we've come to some pretty good, logical and supportable conclusions.

You suggest that we do it all in some disorganized, illogical, "Pin the Tail on the Weak Theory" process. Hah hah. Funny! But also, quite insulting, and demonstrative of a very scientifically illiterate mind.

And now, the Large Hadron Collider is looking for a tantalizing last bit of predicted information. What will you think if they confirm that?

Your obvious intent is to defend the old ideas no matter what, in the face of whatever facts and reasonable hypotheses arise. That will get harder and harder when, for instance, those British scientists create life in a lab test tube next year. Or the LH Collider confirms yet another prediction from a Big Bang event. Or when... well, you name it. The amazing scientific finds will just keep rolling in, I'm afraid, counter to the set-in-time biblical myth.

We know how Evolution works, for example, and we're working on the far more difficult questions of how life originally arose, or how the entire universe came to be. But if we abandon the supernatural and implausible for a moment, and try to ascertain some more rational means, we start to see patterns, realities, evidence and possibilities that fit the world we continue to investigate.

Your alternative, to drop to your knees in willing mindless supplication, is really no solution at all, and only perpetrates The Old Dark Way of fear and superstition. After all, even if your God did all this, He surely had to have some rational means to do it, now didn't He? We may just end up confirming him, but not by your ways of never even looking.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Konraden

You're equating spirituality with consciousness now? How do you come to the conclusion that consciousness is the "end product?" If there is one thing that the sciences have taught us, it is that humans are not special.

The very existence of our science and its results puts the lie to that absurd conclusion.

Ad hominem. "You're too stupid."

If you wish to consider yourself one of the physical minds that seem to be so limited . . . that is your self-identification. I made no ad hominem . . . just pointed out an apparent cognitive limitation of minds mired in physicality.

Well then, the answer I provided for the question "why do things reproduce" is entirely valid, and you're moving goal posts in order to avoid that.

No goal posts are being moved.

Doesn't something have to be observable to be ignorable? What we observe lacks obvious design and obvious purpose. I'd go as far as to say it very much appears to have no design and no purpose.

You have repeatedly said so without any support for the assertions and the very complexity and predictability of interactions belies your statement. The most you can claim is that you lack the ability or imagination to see any ultimate design or purpose . . hardly a sound scientific basis for your certainty (and that is NOT an ad hominem . . . just a restatement of your own admission.)

A priori arguments will get you no where. You've provided insufficient reason to accept your God.

I have pointed out the major fallacy in your use of imaginary creatures (derisory foils . . . a-la fairies, unicorns, etc.) . . . they have no equivalent basis (like "Nature" and its attributes) to predicate their existence on. So knock it off with the imaginary friend crap.

Claiming "God is all" is a meaningless statement. The sole purpose of that statement is to have everybody agree that God exist because God is everything. We already have a word for that concept--it's called the universe.

How is the "Universe is all" any less of a meaningless statement than "God is all"?

God is defined separately from the universe as something that is 1. supernatural 2. exists outside space-time.

Not by me. My defense is of PURE theism. Your preference (and that of your peers) to address religious concepts of God is noted and understood for obvious reasons.(Easy to refute). But there are so many descriptions of God . . . why single out the "supernatural" crap and the outside time-space nonsense? Could it be because you feel it bolsters your feeble defense of NOT God by trying to remove it from the science arena? Or could it be . . . SATAN!!

Nothing in our experiences gives credence to either of those two possibilities.

I agree . . . there is only ONE and they are exactly the same.

Ask any neuroscientist if they are distinctly separate. Know what answer you'll get?
According to neuroscience. The mind is just what we collectively call our memories, thoughts, and emotions. That is all the result of your brain--nothing more.

You are so enamored with it as a "product" of the brain . . . you keep arguing that indisputable point. No one disagrees that it is "produced" by the brain. The brain "accelerates" the energy of our consciousness to the square of the speed of light = pure energy. That energy is NOT in the brain . . . It is produced by it using the "inputs" that exist within the brain cells.

Two organisms sharing a space benefit over one. They can equally use the resources and likewise guard against them. I'm not a microbiologist, so how exactly two cells benefit from each other is outside of my, as you say, pay-grade. However, organisms mutually benefiting one another is not a secret, or something exclusive to humans. Symbiotic relationships are present between members of a species as well as between species, and even between kingdoms.

The TOE pretty much details how this is possible.

Sorry . . . no it doesn't. Ask one of your micro-biologist friends why the multi-cellular problem is such a sticky one for the survival/selection argument.

Evolution isn't random, Mystic.

I agree . . . but your compatriots don't. They believe mutations are random and survival selects via environment. I believe it is guided by design and survival selects by design via the environment.

I don't know, I'm not a geneticist. Do we have one resident?

Sorry . . more pay grade problems?

I'm not the one making arguments of irreducible complexity. You stated that DNA was too complex to have formed without design or purpose. Our working theories of abiogenesis offer some pretty good explanations of the first RNA.

No . . . they don't. I made no such irreducible complexity arguments. I said they are evidence that there is design built in to the very structure and essence of the universe via the universal field (my God's consciousness).

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The very existence of our science and its results puts the lie to that absurd conclusion.

So, you're equivocating spirtuality with consciousness? Further, what "lie"?

If you wish to consider yourself one of the physical minds that seem to be so limited . . . that is your self-identification. I made no ad hominem . . . just pointed out an apparent cognitive limitation of minds mired in physicality.

It's an ad hominem attack by definition, and it's quite obvious that you view anyone that doesn't adhere to your spiritualism as somehow intellectually inferior.

And yet you persist with arguments from ignorance.

No goal posts are being moved.

You asked why we reproduce. I provided a valid answer. You waved it off stating that the answer was a "it just is." You didn't ask why the first self-replicating molecules were self-replicating in the first place, or why biochemstiry even works in that fashion.

Which is why I said spare me the time and just pose your First Cause argument. You said there was no need for it, and here we are with you moving the goal line. We can argue each "what came before" point until we get to "I don't know," and you can throw God in there if you want, as you always do, but really. Spare me.

You have repeatedly said so without any support for the assertions and the very complexity and predictability of interactions belies your statement.

The universe is trying to kill you. That should be plenty to understand why there is no grand purpose to life. The transition from a singularity (A highly ordered entity) to this mess of matter we call galaxies, planets, stars, and what not, is evidence against a design.

The most you can claim is that you lack the ability or imagination to see any ultimate design or purpose . . hardly a sound scientific basis for your certainty (and that is NOT an ad hominem . . . just a restatement of your own admission.)

And by the same reasoning, you can only imagine an ultimate design or purpose, inability to distinguish ultimate design and purpose from lack of design and purpose.

Arguments from irreducible complexity are fallacies.

But if you want to get into this, the realization that you are not part of some grand scheme is the greatest self-awareness. Realizing you're just a speck of life on a speck of dirt in the speck of a galaxy floating around the universe is far more reasonable than the incredibly complex being that created this universe in the first place, itself without having been created.

But no, you're going to claim no such being exists, and that God = nature, which itself just boils down to you playing semantics and nobody is interested in arbitrarily redefining words to fit distinctly separate concepts.

I've seen all this before Mystic, come up with something new.

I have pointed out the major fallacy in your use of imaginary creatures (derisory foils . . . a-la fairies, unicorns, etc.) . . . they have no equivalent basis (like "Nature" and its attributes) to predicate their existence on. So knock it off with the imaginary friend crap.

And this entire thing is just a game of semantics. The concept of nature is wholly separate from the concept of God. You don't accept this and arbitrarily redefine words to fit your own theistic view. God is frequently defined as 1. supernatural and 2. creating the universe. If you are unhappy with this definition, perhaps you should be finding a different word that fits your belief, not trying to change definitions. I hear Native Americans have got some good geotheism.

How is the "Universe is all" any less of a meaningless statement than "God is all"?

We've gone over this, and we can in circles if you like about the difference between design and purpose versus no design and no purpose.

Not by me.

And there in lies the problem. Your refusal to accept the agreed upon terms and subsequent game of semantics.

My defense is of PURE theism. Your preference (and that of your peers) to address religious concepts of God is noted and understood for obvious reasons.(Easy to refute). But there are so many descriptions of God . . . why single out the "supernatural" crap and the outside time-space nonsense?Could it be because you feel it bolsters your feeble defense of NOT God by trying to remove it from the science arena? Or could it be . . . SATAN!!

Because, genius, we have a word for that, and it isn't God. The concepts are separate. Your refusal to accept that doesn't change the meaning of words or concepts.

I agree . . . there is only ONE and they are exactly the same.

Does this really bear repeating? God is defined as supernatural and outside of space-time. Referring to, ahem, nature as God is just a pedantic game of Semantics. Reconcile your Christianity some other way.

You are so enamored with it as a "product" of the brain . . . you keep arguing that indisputable point. No one disagrees that it is "produced" by the brain.

Glad we agree.

The brain "accelerates" the energy of our consciousness to the square of the speed of light = pure energy.

By that reasoning, everything is energy. I suppose that is what was so brilliant about Einstein's famous equation.

That energy is NOT in the brain . . . It is produced by it using the "inputs" that exist within the brain cells.

To bring up your old analogy, several notes make a song, but each not individually is just a sound. It takes several brain cells to make consciousness, but one neuron is just a transfer of energy.

What are you arguing?

Sorry . . . no it doesn't. Ask one of your micro-biologist friends why the multi-cellular problem is such a sticky one for the survival/selection argument.

Feel free to do so.

I agree . . . but your compatriots don't. They believe mutations are random and survival selects via environment.

That would make evolution a highly non-random process.

I believe it is guided by design and survival selects by design via the environment.

There is absolutely no reason to accept that line of thought. The rise of mammals is very much an accident, which is against the idea that consciousness is an ultimate end.

Sorry . . more pay grade problems?

That I don't know about everything about genetics? No, it's called being intellectually honest--try it some time.

No . . . they don't.

Peruse at your leisure.
The Origin of Life

I made no such irreducible complexity arguments. I said they are evidence that there is design built in to the very structure and essence of the universe via the universal field (my God's consciousness).

Irreducible complexity--All of that DNA being the way it is to you is inconceivable complex to have arrived through processes that don't show a design or purpose--what we call natural--is an argument from irreducible complexity.

The puddle analogy basically states that you're nothing thinking outside of the pothole. You're thinking that humans are too complex, and that all that DNA must have been built just the way it is for the express purpose of life. I fail to see the reasoning or evidence to support this.

[mmm...mabeynot]

I have been doing a little research (not much) on ameoba genomes. The ameoba dubia has 690 billion base pairs of DNA. The human has something like 6 billion nine hundred base pairs.

This really ticks me off!

I guess my evolution argument about genetic material being added is shot to h#ll.

I don't know how it supposed to work yet...but I'll keep looking.

[semperarmati]

Originally Posted by Graham222

Hi All

First time post. I'm open minded and my philosophy is "above all else, common sense should prevail", I am on a personal journey to find answers. Physicists tell us that energy cannot be created only transferred. So let's start at the beginning...How can something come from nothing?

In the world of physics, something can come from energy E = mc2 or m=E/c2

I've always wonder how the creationists say something something can just exist, it had to be created (and god is the creator) when talking about the Universe, but when you take the same argument and apply it to god, as in, well then who created god - they shreik and backpeddle. In one case it can't, in the other it can.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Konraden

So, you're equivocating spirtuality with consciousness? Further, what "lie"?

That humans are NOT special.

It's an ad hominem attack by definition, and it's quite obvious that you view anyone that doesn't adhere to your spiritualism as somehow intellectually inferior.

It is you who interjects the inferiority idea. I just said it was a limitation.

And yet you persist with arguments from ignorance.

Only because you wear the ignorance as a badge of honor and a shield (argumentum ad ignorantiam) against having to acknowledge the EXISTENCE of a God . . . which is disingenuous Your refusal to see or assign the attributes of the universe that enable science and evidence gathering as God-like, refusal to consider the Creation of life out of non-life as God-like, refusal to consider the established "laws" of physics as having a lawmaker, etc. . . . are just arrogant refusals to deal with what EXISTS . . . in defense of an asinine belief in absolutely NOTHING as the source of the very reality we inhabit.

You asked why we reproduce. I provided a valid answer. You waved it off stating that the answer was a "it just is." You didn't ask why the first self-replicating molecules were self-replicating in the first place, or why biochemstiry even works in that fashion.

Which is why I said spare me the time and just pose your First Cause argument. You said there was no need for it, and here we are with you moving the goal line. We can argue each "what came before" point until we get to "I don't know," and you can throw God in there if you want, as you always do, but really. Spare me.

We don't have to go any farther than where you already go and stop . . ."Nature" . . . but recognize it for what it IS instead of playing your little game of denial because the God concepts you are aware of are so obnoxious and unpalatable to you. Arequipa was at least honest in one of his posts in the Atheism forum. He admitted that to be honest, reasonable and fair about it would be too dangerous because the religious nutjobs would take advantage and pursue their agendas with even more vigor.

The universe is trying to kill you. That should be plenty to understand why there is no grand purpose to life. The transition from a singularity (A highly ordered entity) to this mess of matter we call galaxies, planets, stars, and what not, is evidence against a design.

A singularity is a mathematical fiction (like infinity). The ordering out of the purported chaos that a Big Bang would have caused is strong evidence of templates ("depressions") for the puddles to form.

Arguments from irreducible complexity are fallacies.

Fallacies seem to be your favorite refuge when you cannot refute the obvious. I did not mention irreducible complexity . . . you did trying to cast my arguments into something you can ignore and deny.

But if you want to get into this, the realization that you are not part of some grand scheme is the greatest self-awareness. Realizing you're just a speck of life on a speck of dirt in the speck of a galaxy floating around the universe is far more reasonable than the incredibly complex being that created this universe in the first place, itself without having been created.

But no, you're going to claim no such being exists, and that God = nature, which itself just boils down to you playing semantics and nobody is interested in arbitrarily redefining words to fit distinctly separate concepts.

You cast things in the most absurd ways to facilitate your rejection. Either you are incredibly dense or it is deliberate. The universal field that establishes the reality you want to be only a "speck" of is a real aspect to our scientific reality. In my view it is given a source (God's consciousness) for which we have proof of concept evidence in our own consciousnesses. This not pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking or implausible reasoning or fairy tales . . . no matter how much you would like to cast it as such.

I've seen all this before Mystic, come up with something new.
And this entire thing is just a game of semantics. The concept of nature is wholly separate from the concept of God. You don't accept this and arbitrarily redefine words to fit your own theistic view. God is frequently defined as 1. supernatural and 2. creating the universe. If you are unhappy with this definition, perhaps you should be finding a different word that fits your belief, not trying to change definitions. I hear Native Americans have got some good geotheism.
We've gone over this, and we can in circles if you like about the difference between design and purpose versus no design and no purpose.
And there in lies the problem. Your refusal to accept the agreed upon terms and subsequent game of semantics.
Because, genius, we have a word for that, and it isn't God. The concepts are separate. Your refusal to accept that doesn't change the meaning of words or concepts.
Does this really bear repeating? God is defined as supernatural and outside of space-time. Referring to, ahem, nature as God is just a pedantic game of Semantics. Reconcile your Christianity some other way.

I will let this little tirade focused entirely on semantics and definitions speak for itself about WHO is using semantics to bolster his argument that cannot be defended using the reality that EXISTS. Words are just labels for things in reality. You use the label "Nature" for the thing in reality that I use the label God for. The reality is the same. The god-like attributes are the same. Your only defense is to point to a fallacy (ironically enough) ad populum and charge me with playing semantic games . . . when you are resorting to semantics . . . NOT me.

Glad we agree.

Hardly . . . you believe the mind is in the brain. I know it is produced by the brain but is NOT in the brain.

The brain "accelerates" the energy of our consciousness to the square of the speed of light = pure energy.

By that reasoning, everything is energy. I suppose that is what was so brilliant about Einstein's famous equation.[/quote] Bingo. That is correct. Our reality is comprised of "aggregated standing wave form vibratory energy events" ("traffic jams").

That energy is NOT in the brain . . . It is produced by it using the "inputs" that exist within the brain cells.

To bring up your old analogy, several notes make a song, but each note individually is just a sound. It takes several brain cells to make consciousness, but one neuron is just a transfer of energy. [/quote]It is the aggregation of those individual "notes" that comprises the "melody" that is our "composite" consciousness (lumps of "instantaneous" awareness) we use to think with. Our consciousness forms in quantum time into these aggregate "lumps"(series of "notes") of pure energy that act as a composite energy form (not individual "notes"). It is that composite form of pure consciousness energy that exists permanently . . . outside the brain that produces it as part of the consciousness of the universe.

What are you arguing?
There is absolutely no reason to accept that line of thought. The rise of mammals is very much an accident, which is against the idea that consciousness is an ultimate end.

You really need to learn to reason with the big picture in mind. The rise of the mammals was the result of acts that occurred by your "Nature/Universe" God . . . wasn't it? That is actually God's consciousness. What if the "Giants" in the bible that were wiped out referred to the Dinosaurs? he, he, he I'm sorry. You are so difficult to reason with I have to try a little levity.

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

That humans are NOT special.

And you have reason to think that Humans are special?

It is you who interjects the inferiority idea. I just said it was a limitation.

The short time I've been on CD Forums has shown me just how much disdain you have for people who don't share your spiritualism.

Only because you wear the ignorance as a badge of honor and a shield (argumentum ad ignorantiam) against having to acknowledge the EXISTENCE of a God . . . which is disingenuous Your refusal to see or assign the attributes of the universe that enable science and evidence gathering as God-like, refusal to consider the Creation of life out of non-life as God-like, refusal to consider the established "laws" of physics as having a lawmaker, etc. . . . are just arrogant refusals to deal with what EXISTS . . . in defense of an asinine belief in absolutely NOTHING as the source of the very reality we inhabit.

Not once did I ever claim that nothing was the source of our reality. That's a strawman of theists. However, it is quite the argument from ignorance to throw your deity into whatever gaps in knowledge we have. I have a proof on this very thread that shows no need for an outside source. God is always defined as being said outside source. It is your refusal to accepted given terms that leads to your spats.

We don't have to go any farther than where you already go and stop . . ."Nature" . . . but recognize it for what it IS instead of playing your little game of denial because the God concepts you are aware of are so obnoxious and unpalatable to you. Arequipa was at least honest in one of his posts in the Atheism forum. He admitted that to be honest, reasonable and fair about it would be too dangerous because the religious nutjobs would take advantage and pursue their agendas with even more vigor.

What, to claim that a higher power is possible? Sure, but it is as ever highly unlikely to the point that the belief in which is entirely irrelevant to human existence, and more so, it begs the question "where did Higher Power come from?" Every argument used to argue for it's eternal non-space-time can be likewise applied to a natural (I.E. not God driven) universe existing eternally.

And, as Dawkins pointed out in his discussion with Ben Stein, exogenesis is certainly a possibility for life on Earth, but that life would have had to come from natural means, etc ad infinitum until you have a species of life that arouse without some sufficiently advance alien species. We have no reason to believe this.

A singularity is a mathematical fiction (like infinity). The ordering out of the purported chaos that a Big Bang would have caused is strong evidence of templates ("depressions") for the puddles to form.

And the matter in a black hole goes where? Gravity so powerful it folds in on itself?

Fallacies seem to be your favorite refuge when you cannot refute the obvious.

I'm not the one using them.

I did not mention irreducible complexity . . . you did trying to cast my arguments into something you can ignore and deny. You cast things in the most absurd ways to facilitate your rejection.

Again, I'm not the one claiming that genetic material works in a way too perfect to have come about through non-directed means. That is the qunitessential argument, and the puddle analogy explains why your argument fails to convince anyone here.

Either you are incredibly dense or it is deliberate. The universal field that establishes the reality you want to be only a "speck" of is a real aspect to our scientific reality. In my view it is given a source (God's consciousness) for which we have proof of concept evidence in our own consciousnesses. This not pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking or implausible reasoning or fairy tales . . . no matter how much you would like to cast it as such.

Actually, it is all of that. You still haven't presented any reasonable and logical arguments that suggest otherwise. You've constantly resorted to God of the Gaps fallacy. Come up with something new.

I will let this little tirade focused entirely on semantics and definitions speak for itself about WHO is using semantics to bolster his argument that cannot be defended using the reality that EXISTS.

Where do you get these ideas? You continue to state that the independent concept of Nature is equivalent to the independent concept of God--the entire communicating world separates these two concepts because they mean two very different things. Your refusal to play by the rules just makes you look like an asshat.

Calling Nature God or God Nature does not contribute at all to understanding your message. We have a definition of Nature that is entirely different and separate from that of God. If you don't want to bog down in semantics, quit arguing semantics.

Words are just labels for things in reality. You use the label "Nature" for the thing in reality that I use the label God for. The reality is the same. The god-like attributes are the same. Your only defense is to point to a fallacy (ironically enough) ad populum and charge me with playing semantic games . . . when you are resorting to semantics . . . NOT me.

Hardly . . . you believe the mind is in the brain. I know it is produced by the brain but is NOT in the brain.[/quote]

The brain produces the mind. The mind is merely our thoughts, feelings, and emotions. The brain produces those. Without your brain, you do not have any of those. Considering that you do not have a mind without your brain, it is sufficient to say that your mind and brain are the same thing.

Bingo. That is correct. Our reality is comprised of "aggregated standing wave form vibratory energy events" ("traffic jams").

It is the aggregation of those individual "notes" that comprises the "melody" that is our "composite" consciousness (lumps of "instantaneous" awareness) we use to think with. Our consciousness forms in quantum time into these aggregate "lumps"(series of "notes") of pure energy that act as a composite energy form (not individual "notes"). It is that composite form of pure consciousness energy that exists permanently . . . outside the brain that produces it as part of the consciousness of the universe. You really need to learn to reason with the big picture in mind.

Well. Here we go again with meaningless statements. Claiming everything is energy, while fascinating for physics, makes communicating ideas pretty difficult. You can't point to a dog, a rabbit, and a bolt of lightning and effectively communicate an idea by claiming they are all energy. Energy exists in a variety of forms. One of those forms is matter. Your brain forming the consciousness through electrical processes doesn't make your consciousness energy--it's an abstraction of what we consider to be a certain series of processes and behaviors shown by, at the very least, humans.

More importantly, what this means is that everything you consider to be yourself, you--your memories, emotions, thoughts, your consciousness--all disappears when you die because your brain is no longer capable of producing the electrical signals required to elicit those various behaviors and products of the brain.

I'm sure you'll disagree, to which I don't give a ****. Science is on my side, and you have oxygen-starved meditations on yours.

The rise of the mammals was the result of acts that occurred by your "Nature/Universe" God . . . wasn't it?

A random meteor strike wiping out 2\3rds of all life on Earth is hardly cause for claiming design or purpose.

That is actually God's consciousness. What if the "Giants" in the bible that were wiped out referred to the Dinosaurs? he, he, he I'm sorry. You are so difficult to reason with I have to try a little levity.

It might have something to do with your **** poor reasoning for your God's existence. Everything you have said has been either a game of semantics, or an argument from ignorance.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Konraden

And you have reason to think that Humans are special?

How many dolphin scientists do you know?

The short time I've been on CD Forums has shown me just how much disdain you have for people who don't share your spiritualism.

What you see as disdain is pure frustration at the conditioning that physicality imposes on the thought processes of so many.

Not once did I ever claim that nothing was the source of our reality. That's a strawman of theists.

You cannot PRETEND to remain neutral because of our ignorance . . . and then DENY that ALL the scientific evidence for WHAT/WHO you are pretending to be neutral about . . . is evidence of and a scientific BASIS for imputing God. That kind of "elephant in the room" denial can have only one motive . . . to prevent God from having a scientific basis that is superior to your imaginary derisory foils. The same can be said for your pitiful resort to God of the Gaps argument from ignorance nonsense.

However, it is quite the argument from ignorance to throw your deity into whatever gaps in knowledge we have. I have a proof on this very thread that shows no need for an outside source. God is always defined as being said outside source. It is your refusal to accepted given terms that leads to your spats.

You need to take a real logic course and learn what the fallacies can and cannot do. They are not blanket shields for all ignorance or lack of information. The vast majority of scientific hypotheses on the forefront of science are based on "Gaps" or argumentum ad ignorantiam!!

As to your other drivel . . . I refuse to debate definitions and semantics with you and your ad populum demand that God and Nature remain separate. There is no scientific basis for it and your "elephant in the room" supposedly neutral evidence that there is something god-like about our reality militates against any separation as well.

Again, I'm not the one claiming that genetic material works in a way too perfect to have come about through non-directed means. That is the qunitessential argument, and the puddle analogy explains why your argument fails to convince anyone here.

Well I'm not the one arguing it either. I said the existence of the design features themselves (codes, activators,etc.) argues against your NO DESIGN silliness.

Actually, it is all of that. You still haven't presented any reasonable and logical arguments that suggest otherwise. You've constantly resorted to God of the Gaps fallacy. Come up with something new.

As i have tried to explain to you . . . scientific hypotheses on the forefront of knowledge are ALWAYS "GAP-based" . . . NOT fallacies. You really do need that logic course.

Where do you get these ideas? You continue to state that the independent concept of Nature is equivalent to the independent concept of God--the entire communicating world separates these two concepts because they mean two very different things.

The entire world thought the world was flat . . . so what???

Your refusal to play by the rules just makes you look like an asshat.

I will let the lurkers make their own determination, thank you.

Calling Nature God or God Nature does not contribute at all to understanding your message. We have a definition of Nature that is entirely different and separate from that of God.

NO you don't . . . you want it to be so you can keep your "elephant in the room" evidence covered in ignorance and deny God.

If you don't want to bog down in semantics, quit arguing semantics.

YOU are the one depending on semantics to defend your position . . . NOT me.

The brain produces the mind. The mind is merely our thoughts, feelings, and emotions. The brain produces those. Without your brain, you do not have any of those. Considering that you do not have a mind without your brain, it is sufficient to say that your mind and brain are the same thing.

Of course NOT . . . that is like saying the "combustibles" used to "produce" a fire are the same thing as the "flames" they produced!!!It is the "flames of consciousness" that we use to think with. Our consciousness forms in quantum time into these "Flames" of pure energy that act as a composite energy form (our Self). It is that composite form of pure consciousness energy (Flames) that exists permanently . . . outside the brain that produces it as part of the consciousness of the universe.

Well. Here we go again with meaningless statements. Claiming everything is energy, while fascinating for physics, makes communicating ideas pretty difficult. You can't point to a dog, a rabbit, and a bolt of lightning and effectively communicate an idea by claiming they are all energy. Energy exists in a variety of forms. One of those forms is matter. Your brain forming the consciousness through electrical processes doesn't make your consciousness energy--it's an abstraction of what we consider to be a certain series of processes and behaviors shown by, at the very least, humans.

You may be just an abstraction . . . but I definitely am NOT.

More importantly, what this means is that everything you consider to be yourself, you--your memories, emotions, thoughts, your consciousness--all disappears when you die because your brain is no longer capable of producing the electrical signals required to elicit those various behaviors and products of the brain.

You repeatedly say this ignoring the fact that what has already been produced is not affected by death. The flames of a fire that were produced by combustibles do not disappear when the combustible material is gone. They have already joined the universe at large as light and infra-red radiation (perhaps warming someone at a campfire or whatever as they left the source of the fire).

I'm sure you'll disagree, to which I don't give a ****. Science is on my side, and you have oxygen-starved meditations on yours.

I have tried repeatedly to show you that science is on my side in this debate . . . you have definitions and religious BS and whatnot on yours.