Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 33940 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10536
  • Darwins +263/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #580 on: February 23, 2014, 04:58:44 PM »
But you didn't say that being omniscient and omnipotent was anything close to perfect, you said that it was impossible; IE, not perfect.

I meant that if it were possible, it'd be the closest thing to "perfect" one could be.

There is no reason to think of the big bang as the beginning of "all" time and space as opposed to merely that of our own universe, ours is a merely 'possible' universe, then the cosmos as a whole is radically contingent. So far as we know, anything that is radically contingent requires an external force to preserve it in being and keep it from passing away into nothingness. Thus, there must be something beyond the material.

I asked for evidence. This is nothing. However, I am curious about something: define "radically contingent".

This observation probably won't be satisfying to you as you're a materialist and place a higher value on empirical evidence than theoretical logic, but that is the case I would make to demonstrate, (if nothing else) that belief in the non material is reasonable.

Is that what you think you did? I'd laugh, but... Well, right now I'm pissed at someone.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #581 on: February 23, 2014, 05:10:11 PM »
I meant that if it were possible, it'd be the closest thing to "perfect" one could be.

This is like saying that a square circle would be a more perfect shape, it wouldn't be a shape at all, it's impossible.

I asked for evidence. This is nothing. However, I am curious about something: define "radically contingent".

Wait, if you didn't understand some of the terms then why would you call it "nothing"? Why didn't you just ask me to clarify? This is where I start to find your materialism a little dogmatic. Radically contingent means "capable of being otherwise than it is"

This observation probably won't be satisfying to you as you're a materialist and place a higher value on empirical evidence than theoretical logic, but that is the case I would make to demonstrate, (if nothing else) that belief in the non material is reasonable.

Is that what you think you did? I'd laugh, but... Well, right now I'm pissed at someone.

I can see that we're engaged in a real exploration of an issue, and that you are perusing this out of a genuine sense of inquiry, and not in the spirit of sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and screaming "LALALALAL materialism is true and only empirical evidence matters LALALALA"... I'd qualify *sarcasm* but I want to go play League of Legends.
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10536
  • Darwins +263/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #582 on: February 23, 2014, 05:23:02 PM »
This is like saying that a square circle would be a more perfect shape, it wouldn't be a shape at all, it's impossible.

Good point.

Wait, if you didn't understand some of the terms then why would you call it "nothing"? Why didn't you just ask me to clarify?

I understand the individual words of the phrase, but not the phrase itself. Ergo, I classified it as "nothing" based on what evidence I had. Had I been wrong, I would say so.

This is where I start to find your materialism a little dogmatic.

Find it what you like. The truth is absolute and does not depend on our view of it.

Radically contingent means "capable of being otherwise than it is"

So radically contingent means "existing"? I sure hope not, because it would need an infinite series of creators. Unless you want to claim that a god cannot change, which would severely limit its potential and power.

I can see that we're engaged in a real exploration of an issue, and that you are perusing this out of a genuine sense of inquiry, and not in the spirit of sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and screaming "LALALALAL materialism is true and only empirical evidence matters LALALALA"... I'd qualify *sarcasm* but I want to go play League of Legends.

If you understood the level of my curiosity, you would not be making such a statement.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Darwins +68/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #583 on: February 23, 2014, 05:24:16 PM »
There is no reason to think of the big bang as the beginning of "all" time and space as opposed to merely that of our own universe, ours is a merely 'possible' universe, then the cosmos as a whole is radically contingent. So far as we know, anything that is radically contingent requires an external force to preserve it in being and keep it from passing away into nothingness. Thus, there must be something beyond the material.

This observation probably won't be satisfying to you as you're a materialist and place a higher value on empirical evidence than theoretical logic, but that is the case I would make to demonstrate, (if nothing else) that belief in the non material is reasonable.

First off, I'd like to ask what materialism entails here. Are we talking about things which have mass or are elementary particles included in it? Is energy material or is material a manifestation of potential energy? It's just that terms like materialism are thrown about the place without any real in depth description or definition.

Secondly, the Big Bang model neither proposes the beginning of all time and space nor the beginning of our own universe - it proposes the moment the universe began to expand. Whatever was there "before" this expansion is where the big question mark hangs. This is where the split really is.... and it's not between materialism and non materialism. No, it's broader than that - it's between naturalism and the supernatural. One labels anything "before" the Big Bang as as natural as anything that can be observed after the Big Bang. The other labels anything "before" the Big Bang as outside of nature, as if the Big Bang were a dividing line between what can potentially be perceived and what can never be perceived from this side of the line. Are either positions tenable beliefs?
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #584 on: February 23, 2014, 06:04:14 PM »
This is like saying that a square circle would be a more perfect shape, it wouldn't be a shape at all, it's impossible.


Good point.

Ergo, a square circle would not be a perfect shape and am omnipotent and omniscient God wouldn't be a perfect being, they are both impossible. "Shape" and "God" are not.

Wait, if you didn't understand some of the terms then why would you call it "nothing"? Why didn't you just ask me to clarify?

I understand the individual words of the phrase, but not the phrase itself. Ergo, I classified it as "nothing" based on what evidence I had. Had I been wrong, I would say so.

You started by saying that what I said was nothing, and THEN asked me to clarify a term. that is, you didn't understand what I was trying to say and dismissed it as if you did.

This is where I start to find your materialism a little dogmatic.

Find it what you like. The truth is absolute and does not depend on our view of it.

If your definition of "truth" is "dismissing opposing arguments out of hand", then I suppose that's true.

Radically contingent means "capable of being otherwise than it is"

So radically contingent means "existing"? I sure hope not, because it would need an infinite series of creators. Unless you want to claim that a god cannot change, which would severely limit its potential and power.

I didn't say anything about creation, in fact, in order to avoid begging the question, I assume that the cosmos has always existed and will always exist. I said that, because it is a merely possible" cosmos, it requires something to 'preserve' it in being.

I can see that we're engaged in a real exploration of an issue, and that you are perusing this out of a genuine sense of inquiry, and not in the spirit of sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and screaming "LALALALAL materialism is true and only empirical evidence matters LALALALA"... I'd qualify *sarcasm* but I want to go play League of Legends.



If you understood the level of my curiosity, you would not be making such a statement.

Considering the fact that your last reply asked me to clarify terms while at the same time insisting that I was saying nothing and telling me that you were an inch away at laughing me, I would never be able to tell if you had any real curiosity or not.
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #585 on: February 23, 2014, 06:09:32 PM »
Philosopher,

I'd like to query the question of materialism with you. Over however long science has been working - let's say since Newton, we have found great explanatory and utilitarian benefits from science which has, to date, been rooted in materialism. So far as I know, there is no reason for that other than the fact that anything supernatural seems to be found in ancient texts and  in stories and, to date, has not evidence in its support.

Given this, why is one not being reasonable in sticking with material explanations until anything new comes in to suggest otherwise. Of course, this rules out gods but that might not be a great loss,

First: I want to clarify that I don't think that materialism is unreasonable, not by a long shot. I find non-materialism more convincing, but by no means do I thin that materialism is unreasonable.

Second: Religion, spirituality and non-materialism have no practical usefulness. They are intellectual constructs that can be argued theoretically, but they have no practical application. I think this is one reason why the modern age has more or less dispensed with them.
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #586 on: February 23, 2014, 11:38:41 PM »
I think the modern age or new age is embracing all three aspects of human life - materialism, religion, and spirituality. I think the game of thrones has completed its cycle and the interaction of humans to solve human suffering has begun.
I think anyone with that agenda will become the new leaders of society, as we free people rid ourselves of the need for their inhumane protection.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10536
  • Darwins +263/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #587 on: February 24, 2014, 04:08:05 PM »
Ergo, a square circle would not be a perfect shape and am omnipotent and omniscient God wouldn't be a perfect being, they are both impossible. "Shape" and "God" are not.

Which only means the reason behind my definition of "God" is faulty. I still would only accept an omnipotent and omniscient being as a god.

You started by saying that what I said was nothing, and THEN asked me to clarify a term. that is, you didn't understand what I was trying to say and dismissed it as if you did.

I don't need to understand all of it to understand that it wasn't evidence. It was a baseless argument. No links to peer-reviewed papers. No statistics. Nothing. Just because I don't understand the entirety of something doesn't mean I can't draw conclusions from what I do know.

If your definition of "truth" is "dismissing opposing arguments out of hand", then I suppose that's true.

See above.

I didn't say anything about creation, in fact, in order to avoid begging the question, I assume that the cosmos has always existed and will always exist. I said that, because it is a merely possible" cosmos, it requires something to 'preserve' it in being.

The time frame of the cosmos is irrelevant. It can and does change, as we can see. It's expanding. New stars are formed. Older stars die. Black holes dissipate. Massive amounts of energy are emitted from every point in the Universe. Ergo, the cosmos is not "radically contingent", as you put it. In addition, if the cosmos has always and will always exist, it doesn't need a creator or "something" to "preserve" it.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #588 on: February 25, 2014, 05:12:31 PM »
We must evidently go beyond the mere word if we were to seek precision. We need to "know" what the process is for establishing the Probabilities of God's existence.

Words based on imaginary concepts grow into sentences.

The educated man will irritably assert that he knows what words mean, but in reality I have found that he mistakes his mastery of grammatical correctness for actual knowledge.

Words are not things.   

If we persists in maintaining an attitude of indifference towards the problems of meaning how do we proceed on the probabilities of Gods existence?

What method do we use?
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6200
  • Darwins +782/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #589 on: February 25, 2014, 05:28:29 PM »
I can't believe that Jesuis, who makes up sh!t right and left, and acts like reality changes based on his sayso, just said that "words are not things".

If only he acted on that.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +318/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #590 on: February 25, 2014, 05:35:42 PM »
I can't believe that Jesuis, who makes up sh!t right and left, and acts like reality changes based on his sayso, just said that "words are not things".

If only he acted on that.

I'm starting to think that Jesuis is a sales rep for Irony Meter vendors and is just trying to increase his bottom line by destroying all of the units currently in use.

And he's doing a damn good job.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6191
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #591 on: February 26, 2014, 04:33:55 AM »
The educated man will irritably assert that he knows what words mean, but in reality I have found that he mistakes his mastery of grammatical correctness for actual knowledge.

QFT
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11990
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #592 on: February 26, 2014, 09:00:37 AM »
The educated man will irritably assert that he knows what words mean, but in reality I have found that he mistakes his mastery of grammatical correctness for actual knowledge.

What will the uneducated man do? 

In my experience, he will also irritably assert he knows what words mean, with as much confidence or more than the educated man, and be fabulously wrong.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6200
  • Darwins +782/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #593 on: February 26, 2014, 11:43:53 AM »
The educated man will irritably assert that he knows what words mean, but in reality I have found that he mistakes his mastery of grammatical correctness for actual knowledge.

QFT

Damn straight. :angel:
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #594 on: March 01, 2014, 11:42:34 PM »

I'm starting to think that Jesuis is a sales rep for Irony Meter vendors and is just trying to increase his bottom line by destroying all of the units currently in use.

And he's doing a damn good job.
I have posted the names of two books to this thread. It changes everything. Evidence to my thinking.
Belief is now being accepted in the minds of those who were proponents of rational thought and critical thinking.

Apparently the scientific inquiry has all gone bye bye.
Now I am being asked to give up my quest in rational and critical and to believe what they say - accept their thinking because they say so. My thinking is wrong and theirs is right. How weird?

Tell me what you think this philosopher meant when he uttered these words.
 "Strive to give back the Divine in yourselves to the Divine in the All."

You can read his Persona on wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #595 on: March 01, 2014, 11:45:13 PM »
What will the uneducated man do? 
In my experience, he will also irritably assert he knows what words mean, with as much confidence or more than the educated man, and be fabulously wrong.
You know what they say - If anything can go wrong, it will.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6200
  • Darwins +782/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #596 on: March 02, 2014, 01:12:12 PM »
And if only Jesuis would give us a damn straight answer, I might start to believe. :angel:

He reminds me so much of those extremely trying students who did not come to class or do the reading, but who are intelligent enough to bs their way through an essay test question. They get a C or maybe even a B and laugh, thinking that they pulled something over on the teacher. "I passed, even though I didn't study! I just made up some sh!t and they bought it!"

They actually think this means they won something. Unfortunately this is the type of person who does well in the scammier areas of business and politics.  And of course, televangelism.....:P
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 01:18:06 PM by nogodsforme »
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6111
  • Darwins +685/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #597 on: March 02, 2014, 01:38:45 PM »
Tell me what you think this philosopher meant when he uttered these words.
 "Strive to give back the Divine in yourselves to the Divine in the All."

He erroneously thought that there was a divine. So he assigned it some importance.

Knowing that he was wrong, I don't bother.

Making up stuff is easy. Reality is harder. Most people never figure that out.

But at least you're serving as a good example of that naiveté, Jesuis. You doing it as a public service or something?
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #598 on: March 02, 2014, 08:49:37 PM »

He erroneously thought that there was a divine. So he assigned it some importance.

Knowing that he was wrong, I don't bother.

Making up stuff is easy. Reality is harder. Most people never figure that out.

But at least you're serving as a good example of that naiveté, Jesuis. You doing it as a public service or something?
You just made that up - unless you are a psychic time traveler.
Of course knowing would be much harder, but making stuff up about what is in someone else's mind is easy peasy. The problem is when you do it and do not know you did.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6111
  • Darwins +685/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #599 on: March 02, 2014, 09:09:43 PM »

He erroneously thought that there was a divine. So he assigned it some importance.

Knowing that he was wrong, I don't bother.

Making up stuff is easy. Reality is harder. Most people never figure that out.

But at least you're serving as a good example of that naiveté, Jesuis. You doing it as a public service or something?
You just made that up - unless you are a psychic time traveler.
Of course knowing would be much harder, but making stuff up about what is in someone else's mind is easy peasy. The problem is when you do it and do not know you did.

Nah, the problem is when you believe him. There is indeed wisdom out there, but it isn't about the divine, and apparently it is above your grade level.

Keep trying though. I'd hate to think you are going to be unfinished for your entire life.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #600 on: March 02, 2014, 09:25:15 PM »

He erroneously thought that there was a divine. So he assigned it some importance.

Knowing that he was wrong, I don't bother.

Making up stuff is easy. Reality is harder. Most people never figure that out.

But at least you're serving as a good example of that naiveté, Jesuis. You doing it as a public service or something?
You just made that up - unless you are a psychic time traveler.
Of course knowing would be much harder, but making stuff up about what is in someone else's mind is easy peasy. The problem is when you do it and do not know you did.

Nah, the problem is when you believe him. There is indeed wisdom out there, but it isn't about the divine, and apparently it is above your grade level.

Keep trying though. I'd hate to think you are going to be unfinished for your entire life.
You cannot "believe" him - you can only have information.  It is the information that is presented. Where is the belief generated? In your mind?  Theists say to keep an eye on that mind of yours. They do not like beliefs.
On this guy we are talking about - its only information. What do you think he was saying has nothing to do with your beliefs are. What is the information (words from his awareness) - that is being passed on via the medium of expression?
You would have to say ......
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 11:07:51 PM by Jesuis »
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #601 on: March 02, 2014, 11:03:54 PM »
I can't believe that Jesuis, who makes up sh!t right and left, and acts like reality changes based on his sayso, just said that "words are not things".

If only he acted on that.

God.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +318/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #602 on: March 03, 2014, 09:53:22 AM »
I can't believe that Jesuis, who makes up sh!t right and left, and acts like reality changes based on his sayso, just said that "words are not things".

If only he acted on that.

God.

DJ Qbert.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #603 on: March 03, 2014, 02:32:39 PM »
The Probabilities of God's existence comes is us understanding what consciousness is.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6191
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #604 on: March 03, 2014, 02:59:01 PM »
The Probabilities of God's existence comes is us understanding what consciousness is.

Cool.  Define it.  And provide evidence for any claims or assumptions you make while doing so.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #605 on: March 03, 2014, 09:32:10 PM »
The Probabilities of God's existence comes in us understanding what consciousness is.

Cool.  Define it.  And provide evidence for any claims or assumptions you make while doing so.
Life is conscious. Where there is consciousness there is life. The human life offers the highest level of conscious awareness. At its highest awareness it is aware of God.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1141
  • Darwins +82/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #606 on: March 04, 2014, 06:27:59 AM »
Life is conscious. Where there is consciousness there is life. The human life offers the highest level of conscious awareness. At its highest awareness it is aware of God.

Is the inverse of this also true i.e. where there isn't consciousness there is no life?
If so can you define what you think conscious is. And for that matter life.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6191
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #607 on: March 04, 2014, 08:35:48 AM »
Life is conscious. Where there is consciousness there is life. The human life offers the highest level of conscious awareness. At its highest awareness it is aware of God.

Couple questions:

Plants are conscious?  Bacteria?

How do you measure "level" of consciousness?  What scale do you use?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #608 on: March 04, 2014, 12:33:41 PM »
Life is conscious. Where there is consciousness there is life. The human life offers the highest level of conscious awareness. At its highest awareness it is aware of God.

Is the inverse of this also true i.e. where there isn't consciousness there is no life?
If so can you define what you think conscious is. And for that matter life.
Yes.
That which is more conscious observes that which is less conscious. 
The most conscious observes all specks of consciousness as specks of God.
At a physical level Life is specks of god enlivening matter in form..
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 12:43:39 PM by Jesuis »
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.