Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 40300 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 #609 on: March 04, 2014, 12:41:07 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.

Couple questions:
Plants are conscious?  Bacteria?
How do you measure "level" of consciousness?  What scale do you use?
According to theists
Yes! Yes!
Relative to the highest capability available in human consciousness - that capable of knowing God the all conscious.

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

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #610 on: March 04, 2014, 01:43:10 PM »
According to theists
Yes! Yes!
Relative to the highest capability available in human consciousness - that capable of knowing God the all conscious.

citations, please.  I have never heard a theist who says plants or bacteria are conscious.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

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 #611 on: March 04, 2014, 01:45:19 PM »
According to theists
Yes! Yes!
Relative to the highest capability available in human consciousness - that capable of knowing God the all conscious.

citations, please.  I have never heard a theist who says plants or bacteria are conscious.
The teachings of Kirpal Singh.
The teachings of Radha Saomi
The teachings of Paul Twitchell
The teachings of Master Ching Hai
The teachings of Nanak
The teachings of Sant Bani
The teachings of Brahma Kumaris Bap Dada
The teachings of Buddha on Reincarnation
The teachings of VedVyas on reincarnation
The teachings of the Gnostics on the soul.
The teachings of the Prophets on the essence of life
The teachings of Sultan Bahu
The teachings St Teressa of Avila
The teachings of Krishna
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 02:32:05 PM by Jesuis »
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10814
  • Darwins +278/-36
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #612 on: March 04, 2014, 01:57:34 PM »
Jesuis, since you were curious about this in the thread that got locked, I'll give you the short version.

I am known as the One Above All. I have existed forever and will continue to exist forever. I spawned the first universe to ever exist, from which a god arose. The god then spawned another universe at the same time as I did, and so on. The Plan (to have a single being from a universe join the other gods) has been fulfilled in each and every universe without fail. Now I oversee your universe.

That's the short version.
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 #613 on: March 04, 2014, 02:03:19 PM »
Jesuis, since you were curious about this in the thread that got locked, I'll give you the short version.

I am known as the One Above All. I have existed forever and will continue to exist forever. I spawned the first universe to ever exist, from which a god arose. The god then spawned another universe at the same time as I did, and so on. The Plan (to have a single being from a universe join the other gods) has been fulfilled in each and every universe without fail. Now I oversee your universe.

That's the short version.
Thanks.
Go On! Enlighten me. I am all ears. I do not like your footnote.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10814
  • Darwins +278/-36
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #614 on: March 04, 2014, 02:05:03 PM »
Thanks.
Go On! Enlighten me. I am all ears. I do not like your footnote.

This thread: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26337.0.html outlines many things.
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 #615 on: March 04, 2014, 02:36:59 PM »
Thanks.
Go On! Enlighten me. I am all ears. I do not like your footnote.

This thread: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26337.0.html outlines many things.
I don't like your foot note.
Care to explain "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.
I have underlined my problem.  Good luck with your book.
Theists say The truth cannot be changed. That means you cannot change your foot note. If you did whatever you have to sell was never true.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 02:40:53 PM by Jesuis »
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1925
  • Darwins +339/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #616 on: March 04, 2014, 03:03:53 PM »
I don't like your foot note.
Care to explain "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?

It's not a matter of choice.  It's a matter of reality.

Why settle for an airplane ride to Vegas when you can just teleport there?
Because you can't actually teleport there, regardless of how wishful your thinking is.

Quote
We choose our own gods.
I have underlined my problem.  Good luck with your book.
Theists say The truth cannot be changed. That means you cannot change your foot note. If you did whatever you have to sell was never true.

So if theists said that the Moon was made of green cheese, would that make it so?

Many members here have articulated what we feel are your problems.  You constantly ignore them.  You are an irritation.  You are VH1, Robocop 2, and Back to the Future 3.
"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 screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #617 on: March 04, 2014, 03:05:02 PM »
...
The teachings of Nanak
...

For the record, those are not citations.  It is a list of names.  I am asking you, for example, where specifically did Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji say plants and bacteria have consiousness?  If it was the Guru Granth, I need a page number.  But keep in mind, it was not compiled until after Guru Nanak died. If it was some other source, please be specific.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10814
  • Darwins +278/-36
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #618 on: March 04, 2014, 03:08:24 PM »
I don't like your foot note.
Care to explain "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.
I have underlined my problem.  Good luck with your book.
Theists say The truth cannot be changed. That means you cannot change your foot note. If you did whatever you have to sell was never true.

Your Universe is big. I should know; I made it. It's approximately 100 billion light-years across. It's mostly empty space. Taking into account the fact that all complex atoms came from stardust, you (life forms) are dust.
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 Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #619 on: March 04, 2014, 03:10:56 PM »
How do you measure "level" of consciousness?  What scale do you use?
According to theists
Relative to the highest capability available in human consciousness - that capable of knowing God the all conscious.

How do you measure the level of capability of knowing god that a dolphin displays?  Or is your level purely humano-centric? 
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 Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1256
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #620 on: March 04, 2014, 04:06:44 PM »
Many members here have articulated what we feel are your problems.  You constantly ignore them.  You are an irritation.  You are VH1, Robocop 2, and Back to the Future 3.

jdawg, that's exactly why Jesuis has the honor of being the first ever on my ignore list.  Just ain't worth it, savvy?
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

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 #621 on: March 04, 2014, 04:08:40 PM »
I don't like your foot note.
Care to explain "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?

It's not a matter of choice.  It's a matter of reality.

Why settle for an airplane ride to Vegas when you can just teleport there?
Because you can't actually teleport there, regardless of how wishful your thinking is.
Yes -- so says the evangelical. Unfortunately I do have choice - I challenge that authority - I do not like the footnote. Life is not specs of dust. I hold the opposite view - it is not a choice either - but a truth - life is sparks of consciousness that has come from the all conscious. That truth cannot change. He can try running from that truth but even teleporting would not help him. Because now the conscious truth is with him.

Truth was made truth for the mind and its dodgy nature.
Once a truth is established through scientific inquiry there is no turning back.


Quote
So if theists said that the Moon was made of green cheese, would that make it so?
He has a sense of humor.

Quote
Many members here have articulated what we feel are your problems.  You constantly ignore them.  You are an irritation.  You are VH1, Robocop 2, and Back to the Future 3.
I understand why you are irritated. You cannot put me in a box. Perhaps some, including yourself need to be more tolerant. I have to my knowledge answered every post apart from one particular Rottweiler that I was advised not to be bothered with.
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 #622 on: March 04, 2014, 04:28:46 PM »
How do you measure "level" of consciousness?  What scale do you use?
According to theists
Relative to the highest capability available in human consciousness - that which is capable of knowing God - the all conscious.

How do you measure the level of capability of knowing god that a dolphin displays?  Or is your level purely humano-centric?
Relative to the theists or me personally?
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6381
  • Darwins +817/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #623 on: March 04, 2014, 04:58:11 PM »
Many members here have articulated what we feel are your problems.  You constantly ignore them.  You are an irritation.  You are VH1, Robocop 2, and Back to the Future 3.

jdawg, that's exactly why Jesuis has the honor of being the first ever on my ignore list.  Just ain't worth it, savvy?
He just became my second ignore, right after skeptic. Just a little button and my blood pressure is much happier and the blinding headaches have subsided. Better life through science.  :D
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 #624 on: March 04, 2014, 05:09:46 PM »
...
The teachings of Nanak
...

For the record, those are not citations.  It is a list of names.  I am asking you, for example, where specifically did Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji say plants and bacteria have consiousness?  If it was the Guru Granth, I need a page number.  But keep in mind, it was not compiled until after Guru Nanak died. If it was some other source, please be specific.
Oh I see.
I doubt he did it like that in your words.
That's why they say we always need a living teacher to clarify things of the past. Its like in the bible it is written God breathed life into matter. Of course God does not breathe but it means something relative to the human being understanding. Perhaps if you are fluent or know people fluent in the Guru Grant Sahib you can ask them if that was really very important. I suspect it would be along the lines from the biggest to the smallest of life forms.
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 #625 on: March 04, 2014, 05:19:10 PM »
I don't like your foot note.
Care to explain "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.
I have underlined my problem.  Good luck with your book.
Theists say The truth cannot be changed. That means you cannot change your foot note. If you did whatever you have to sell was never true.


Your Universe is big. I should know; I made it. It's approximately 100 billion light-years across. It's mostly empty space. Taking into account the fact that all complex atoms came from stardust, you (life forms) are dust.
Have you read The tigers fang at all? I obviously cannot sell people God. But it was a very good read.
I was not even convinced by all of the Tigers Fang claims but a lot of it resonated with me. You lack imagination.
I am going to study that chap Vishnu soon. See if he has something for me to understand.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #626 on: March 04, 2014, 05:28:55 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..

A definition explains the meaning of a word as well as using it in a sentence to illustrate its use. You have merely used something that doesn't explain anything. So,

1. Just what is consciousness?

2. How can one see specks of anything as relating to a mythical being?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10814
  • Darwins +278/-36
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #627 on: March 04, 2014, 05:35:03 PM »
Have you read The tigers fang at all? I obviously cannot sell people God. But it was a very good read.
I was not even convinced by all of the Tigers Fang claims but a lot of it resonated with me. You lack imagination.
I am going to study that chap Vishnu soon. See if he has something for me to understand.

You will not find what you're looking for in false religion, unless you're looking for a lie. Mine is the truth.
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 #628 on: March 04, 2014, 05:59:10 PM »
Have you read The tigers fang at all? I obviously cannot sell people God. But it was a very good read.
I was not even convinced by all of the Tigers Fang claims but a lot of it resonated with me. You lack imagination.
I am going to study that chap Vishnu soon. See if he has something for me to understand.

You will not find what you're looking for in false religion, unless you're looking for a lie. Mine is the truth.
Vishnu is one of three Gods in the Hindu trinity. As these stories are told long long ago he is a sustaining power. He tries to keep things turning over.
He has two brothers - Brahma the creating God and Shiva the destroying god. Together they have used their power of influence through the human mind to do some of their bidding.
In humans and in nature wherever we put our attention we will find these powers consistently working.
Wherever we look we will see their activity.
The power of sustaining, the power of creating, and the power of destroying. Are all real and problematic for the soul.

Their father is Kal. His nature is time. Has created all of these universes as a form of illusion trap for the souls and for his sons to rule over. 
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 06:17:42 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 #629 on: March 04, 2014, 06:04:19 PM »
A definition explains the meaning of a word as well as using it in a sentence to illustrate its use. You have merely used something that doesn't explain anything. So,

1. Just what is consciousness?

2. How can one see specks of anything as relating to a mythical being?
I obviously have no clue.
You define it. Lets take it from there.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #630 on: March 05, 2014, 03:46:21 AM »
A definition explains the meaning of a word as well as using it in a sentence to illustrate its use. You have merely used something that doesn't explain anything. So,

1. Just what is consciousness?

2. How can one see specks of anything as relating to a mythical being?
I obviously have no clue.
You define it. Lets take it from there.

No, you are the one who keeps using the word in your posts. I want to know what you mean by the word.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #631 on: March 05, 2014, 04:20:53 AM »
How do you measure "level" of consciousness?  What scale do you use?
According to theists
Relative to the highest capability available in human consciousness - that which is capable of knowing God - the all conscious.

How do you measure the level of capability of knowing god that a dolphin displays?  Or is your level purely humano-centric?
Relative to the theists or me personally?

You're the one that said "relative to highest human" - clearly that was the context I was addressing.

- - -

You know, you frequently stray into posting comments as if it were the theist themselves posting.  Then - when certain points get introduced - you back off and say "what, me, or the theists?". 

A cynic would say that this is the action of a theist pretending to be an atheist, and pulling back from the hard questions.  I'm prepared to accept that it is you just occasionally clarifying that you are speaking for someone else.  I've got no problem with that - provided the questions then get answered, and it isn't just used as a dodge to avoid answering questions.
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 #632 on: March 05, 2014, 12:41:29 PM »
How do you measure "level" of consciousness?  What scale do you use?
According to theists
Relative to the highest capability available in human consciousness - that which is capable of knowing God - the all conscious.

How do you measure the level of capability of knowing god that a dolphin displays?  Or is your level purely humano-centric?
Relative to the theists or me personally?

You're the one that said "relative to highest human" - clearly that was the context I was addressing.

- - -

You know, you frequently stray into posting comments as if it were the theist themselves posting.  Then - when certain points get introduced - you back off and say "what, me, or the theists?". 

A cynic would say that this is the action of a theist pretending to be an atheist, and pulling back from the hard questions.  I'm prepared to accept that it is you just occasionally clarifying that you are speaking for someone else.  I've got no problem with that - provided the questions then get answered, and it isn't just used as a dodge to avoid answering questions.
That is because your definition is skewed. An atheist does not know god. If you realize this your brain would not be so cynical.  Critical thinking starts in me when you lie to me.
When I say life I thought you knew what that is. It is abundantly clear to me as it is to a child. When I said life is conscious I thought you knew what that is. It is abundantly clear to me what it is as it is to a child. But if you said you do not know and it is all my definition it is like wtf. This is when I question your motives?
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #633 on: March 05, 2014, 01:11:25 PM »
Quote
When I said life is conscious

Ok, Jesuis, here's a case in point. you are saying that life is conscious. Exactly what do you mean by life - all living things, in which case it is a bit dubious judging by the vegetables my wife grows, or just animals or just animals with a frontal cortex? Frankly we have no idea for nearly all living things if they possess consciousness.

Now, since you refuse to define your own terms, I will start you off by saying that, as I understand it, consciousnessWiki is an emergent property of the electrical and chemical activity of the neurons in the brain. We have no knowledge of consciousness that is not a property of a working brain. Now any suggestions by you that anything else have consciousness, apart from animals with brains, is entirely speculation since, so far as I know, there would be no way of determining if it was true and, since we already know that the brain is required for consciousness, a completely pointless idea.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1925
  • Darwins +339/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #634 on: March 05, 2014, 01:32:31 PM »
That is because your definition is skewed. An atheist does not know god. If you realize this your brain would not be so cynical.  Critical thinking starts in me when you lie to me.
When I say life I thought you knew what that is. It is abundantly clear to me as it is to a child. When I said life is conscious I thought you knew what that is. It is abundantly clear to me what it is as it is to a child. But if you said you do not know and it is all my definition it is like wtf. This is when I question your motives?

I'm rather comfortable being labeled as 'stupid'.  I don't find it particularly offensive, and it also happens to be pretty much true in the grand scheme of things.

So, Jesuis, when you say 'life', rest assured that I also do not know what you mean by that.  As it is so abundantly clear to you what it is, by all means educate.

Please.
"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 #635 on: March 05, 2014, 01:53:25 PM »
Quote
When I said life is conscious

Ok, Jesuis, here's a case in point. you are saying that life is conscious. Exactly what do you mean by life - all living things, in which case it is a bit dubious judging by the vegetables my wife grows, or just animals or just animals with a frontal cortex? Frankly we have no idea for nearly all living things if they possess consciousness.

Now, since you refuse to define your own terms, I will start you off by saying that, as I understand it, consciousnessWiki is an emergent property of the electrical and chemical activity of the neurons in the brain. We have no knowledge of consciousness that is not a property of a working brain. Now any suggestions by you that anything else have consciousness, apart from animals with brains, is entirely speculation since, so far as I know, there would be no way of determining if it was true and, since we already know that the brain is required for consciousness, a completely pointless idea.
I have defined it --- life is conscious. All life. Including bacteria. Where there is life seen and unseen there is consciousness.
As for the brain -- we can pass a lot of electrical signals in a dead brain it does not give it life's consciousness. What critical thinking questions did we ask ourself before concluding wiki was right. Why would you settle for that explanation?
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 02:44:48 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 #636 on: March 05, 2014, 02:13:55 PM »
I'm rather comfortable being labeled as 'stupid'.  I don't find it particularly offensive, and it also happens to be pretty much true in the grand scheme of things.

So, Jesuis, when you say 'life', rest assured that I also do not know what you mean by that.  As it is so abundantly clear to you what it is, by all means educate.

Please.
You could not be more stupid than me since most of your posts go way over my head. I have not been schooled so in the real world you are always more qualified. I am learning from you how to respond yet when I do what you do -- as respond negatively --- I am chastised karmic-ly. Your humility however is an illusion. You do not fool me.

As for life - It is the conscious energy that enters and sustains matter through form. When that conscious energy vacates that form we observe death. Each life form has its own level of experience.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 02:43:05 PM by Jesuis »
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #637 on: March 05, 2014, 02:36:59 PM »
Quote
When I said life is conscious

Ok, Jesuis, here's a case in point. you are saying that life is conscious. Exactly what do you mean by life - all living things, in which case it is a bit dubious judging by the vegetables my wife grows, or just animals or just animals with a frontal cortex? Frankly we have no idea for nearly all living things if they possess consciousness.

Now, since you refuse to define your own terms, I will start you off by saying that, as I understand it, consciousnessWiki is an emergent property of the electrical and chemical activity of the neurons in the brain. We have no knowledge of consciousness that is not a property of a working brain. Now any suggestions by you that anything else have consciousness, apart from animals with brains, is entirely speculation since, so far as I know, there would be no way of determining if it was true and, since we already know that the brain is required for consciousness, a completely pointless idea.
I have defined it --- life is conscious. All life. Including bacteria. Where there is life seen and unseen there is consciousness.
As for the brain -- we can pass a lot of electrical signals in a dead brain it does not give it life's consciousness. What critical thinking questions did we ask yourself before concluding wiki was right. Why would you settle for that explanation?

Interesting. So, how can we know this idea that everything has consciousness? We know what it is as far as we, as humans, are concerned but what about other life forms?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)