Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 56830 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 #638 on: March 05, 2014, 02:47:49 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?
What do you know about it as far as we humans are concerned?
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2339
  • Darwins +434/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #639 on: March 05, 2014, 03:17:11 PM »
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.

So...life is conscious energy.  And consciousness is life.  That doesn't help to advance the conversation.

And I don't declare myself 'stupid' with any pretense of humility.  I'm essentially stupid - there is a large amount of knowledge that society has accumulated that I am rather ignorant of...my ability to understand and digest information is probably on par with the average person, which is to say rife with bias and error.  But if you want to think that I'm trying to trick you with some admission of self-deprecation as some kind of a gambit, go nuts.

You're chastised heavily - via karma or direct responses to you - because you are being a stubborn ass.  You do not appear to take into account the content of the posts directed at you in your replies.  You are either vehemently inflexible in the semantics of your posts (the whole 'theists know god, atheists don't' bullsh*t) or frustratingly vague (life is conscious is life is conscious is life is conscious, or your habit of making claims and, when pushed for clarity, you turn it around and ask others to define sh*t for you - sh*t that you already should have defined in your head prior to making said claim).

Basically, as far as I can tell, you are intentionally making no effort to improve your ability to communicate with others here.  And then you get kinda pissy about it when you're called out on that behavior.
"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

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

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 #640 on: March 05, 2014, 04:02:58 PM »
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.

So...life is conscious energy.  And consciousness is life.  That doesn't help to advance the conversation.

And I don't declare myself 'stupid' with any pretense of humility.  I'm essentially stupid - there is a large amount of knowledge that society has accumulated that I am rather ignorant of...my ability to understand and digest information is probably on par with the average person, which is to say rife with bias and error.  But if you want to think that I'm trying to trick you with some admission of self-deprecation as some kind of a gambit, go nuts.

You're chastised heavily - via karma or direct responses to you - because you are being a stubborn ass.  You do not appear to take into account the content of the posts directed at you in your replies.  You are either vehemently inflexible in the semantics of your posts (the whole 'theists know god, atheists don't' bullsh*t) or frustratingly vague (life is conscious is life is conscious is life is conscious, or your habit of making claims and, when pushed for clarity, you turn it around and ask others to define sh*t for you - sh*t that you already should have defined in your head prior to making said claim).

Basically, as far as I can tell, you are intentionally making no effort to improve your ability to communicate with others here.  And then you get kinda pissy about it when you're called out on that behavior.
Life is not a complex subject, nor is God or is consciousness. The simplest of people have very little problem understanding it. It is a problem for the more intellectualized that have issues with it. Not so. The critical thinkers, the expert scientists who drive this agenda or that.

Hey I am just vague because I have problems in figuring out how to answer the critical questions. Too stupid and intellectually bereft. Most ordinary people go to some church trying to better their lives and along comes some politician or wise ass and turns up the rhetoric, rallies them to his side gains their support with all their complex thinking bamboozles them with the writings of a book and use and abuse them for their goodness. Making all of them more and more into people like them -- critical thinkers, well schooled, got degrees and fancy tittles. But how has that evolved their humanity? How have they become more conscious of themselves All they end up doing it protecting number one. Where is the conscious awareness in that?
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #641 on: March 05, 2014, 06:35:52 PM »
^^^^^^

No, Jesuis, you are not stupid or intellectually bereft.  Your problem is you are trying to figure out bullshit told by bullshit artists and in the process you are wasting your potential.

I"m sure everything you've read sounds great, nice and very convincing, but it is a trick.  I've fell for tricks myself quite a few times and usually it ends up being a waste of time.  Don't worry about making this mistake, it happens to the best of us.

I apppologize to everyone that this post is off topic.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

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 #642 on: March 05, 2014, 08:13:35 PM »
^^^^^^
No, Jesuis, you are not stupid or intellectually bereft.  Your problem is you are trying to figure out bullshit told by bullshit artists and in the process you are wasting your potential.

I"m sure everything you've read sounds great, nice and very convincing, but it is a trick.  I've fell for tricks myself quite a few times and usually it ends up being a waste of time.  Don't worry about making this mistake, it happens to the best of us.

I apppologize to everyone that this post is off topic.
Well critical thinking demands that you produce the logical, rational thoughts and arguments that would aid your debate - rather than simply dismissing it as bullsh*t, I have presented what I am reading and thinking - so it is not like you do not know - at this point if you really have been down that road you know the problems that have led you to the door - But your unbiased illogical deductions thus does not give me any confidence in what you say. I get the impression you are just shrugging it off because it is either too hard or you never really cared about -- and your conclusions are not based on a logical rational deduction but based on something else. Where are the steps to your critical thinking.
Science is about the conscious observer. And you are not producing anything to show you know you are consciously aware or that life is.

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

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6207
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #643 on: March 06, 2014, 03:48:25 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.
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?

Still waiting for an answer to the question I posed.
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: 12681
  • Darwins +708/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #644 on: March 06, 2014, 09:19:43 AM »
Well critical thinking demands that you produce the logical, rational thoughts and arguments that would aid your debate

No.  You are mistaken.  Critical thinking means you question assumptions - including your own - and constantly ask "how do I know what I think I know"?  It is how you evaluate the truth of an idea. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

What you seem to be talking about - aiding your debate - more of a defensive act.  This would be apologetics.  It assumes your position is correct and sets about to find information that agrees with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics
this is a common error.  It is called confirmation bias.[1][2]  It is when you look for evidence to support your belief.  It is not a good method to use because it can lead to errors.

 1. http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm
 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
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 #645 on: March 06, 2014, 07:41:32 PM »
Still waiting for an answer to the question I posed.
Relative to human being:
A parent is regarded as a more moral conscious authority for the kid whose consciousness is looking for advice.
The People are always looking to the law to provide a moral and conscious decision for the greater good.
The human being is capable of being a Theist one who has the moral highest conscious awareness for those going to him for a higher solution to their dead end thinking.

The conscious awareness is scaled by humans seeking a higher perspective than a lower one that they have observed.
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 #646 on: March 06, 2014, 07:55:01 PM »
Well critical thinking demands that you produce the logical, rational thoughts and arguments that would aid your debate

No.  You are mistaken.  Critical thinking means you question assumptions - including your own - and constantly ask "how do I know what I think I know"?  It is how you evaluate the truth of an idea. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

What you seem to be talking about - aiding your debate - more of a defensive act.  This would be apologetics.  It assumes your position is correct and sets about to find information that agrees with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics
this is a common error.  It is called confirmation bias.[1][2]  It is when you look for evidence to support your belief.  It is not a good method to use because it can lead to errors.
 1. http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm
 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Well that is not the case. We are saying we observe individuals who can give a different advice based on more consciousness of that which we seek advice on. It depends on who is required to to the critical thinking and who is required to do the Apologetics. I am seeking your critical thinking process. I know exactly what I am asking for. It is when you find that you lack that info that you become apologetic.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6207
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #647 on: March 07, 2014, 04:56:02 AM »
Still waiting for an answer to the question I posed.

....and still waiting.  Here is my question, and Jesuis' response.


How do you measure the level of capability of knowing god that a dolphin displays?   
A parent is regarded as a more moral conscious authority for the kid whose consciousness is looking for advice.
The People are always looking to the law to provide a moral and conscious decision for the greater good.
The human being is capable of being a Theist one who has the moral highest conscious awareness for those going to him for a higher solution to their dead end thinking.
The conscious awareness is scaled by humans seeking a higher perspective than a lower one that they have observed.

I cannot see how that in ANY way answers my question.

There is a dolphin, there is a human.  How do you compare their level of capability to know god? 
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 #648 on: March 07, 2014, 10:42:57 PM »
Still waiting for an answer to the question I posed.

....and still waiting.  Here is my question, and Jesuis' response.


How do you measure the level of capability of knowing god that a dolphin displays?   
A parent is regarded as a more moral conscious authority for the kid whose consciousness is looking for advice.
The People are always looking to the law to provide a moral and conscious decision for the greater good.
The human being is capable of being a Theist one who has the moral highest conscious awareness for those going to him for a higher solution to their dead end thinking.
The conscious awareness is scaled by humans seeking a higher perspective than a lower one that they have observed.

I cannot see how that in ANY way answers my question.

There is a dolphin, there is a human.  How do you compare their level of capability to know god?
Lets go and talk to the dolphin. That should be enough.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6207
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #649 on: March 08, 2014, 01:28:36 AM »
Still waiting for an answer to the question I posed.
....and still waiting.  Here is my question, and Jesuis' response.

How do you measure the level of capability of knowing god that a dolphin displays?   
A parent is regarded as a more moral conscious authority for the kid whose consciousness is looking for advice.
The People are always looking to the law to provide a moral and conscious decision for the greater good.
The human being is capable of being a Theist one who has the moral highest conscious awareness for those going to him for a higher solution to their dead end thinking.
The conscious awareness is scaled by humans seeking a higher perspective than a lower one that they have observed.

I cannot see how that in ANY way answers my question.

There is a dolphin, there is a human.  How do you compare their level of capability to know god?
Lets go and talk to the dolphin. That should be enough.

And when you talk to the dolphin, how will you establish their level of capability to know god? 

You keep avoiding a considered answer to this one Jesuis - because, I suspect, you know that to answer honestly would force you to reveal the gaping holes in the woo you are trying to sell us.
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 #650 on: March 08, 2014, 03:38:01 AM »
Still waiting for an answer to the question I posed.
....and still waiting.  Here is my question, and Jesuis' response.

How do you measure the level of capability of knowing god that a dolphin displays?   
A parent is regarded as a more moral conscious authority for the kid whose consciousness is looking for advice.
The People are always looking to the law to provide a moral and conscious decision for the greater good.
The human being is capable of being a Theist one who has the moral highest conscious awareness for those going to him for a higher solution to their dead end thinking.
The conscious awareness is scaled by humans seeking a higher perspective than a lower one that they have observed.

I cannot see how that in ANY way answers my question.

There is a dolphin, there is a human.  How do you compare their level of capability to know god?
Lets go and talk to the dolphin. That should be enough.

And when you talk to the dolphin, how will you establish their level of capability to know god? 

You keep avoiding a considered answer to this one Jesuis - because, I suspect, you know that to answer honestly would force you to reveal the gaping holes in the woo you are trying to sell us.
It is well known that I am not very bright. Your questions delude me. I admit.
Its not that I am not answering you for what I think you are asking.
So make it clearer. I am honored to be in such a debate with such intellectuals as yourselves.

I thought that dolphin was your idea about the level of consciousness. But now it seems like I have again been deluded -- apparently it is mine and I want to talk to it -- which is nonsense of course. Its your suggestion and you want to talk to it. By so doing things would be clearer to me. Of course I already know it does not have the same level of consciousness but you apparently know more about something.

If only you can share your wisdom that would be great. I can google it if point me in the right direction. Just tell me where to look if you believe in what you want to say. Are you afraid?
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6207
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #651 on: March 08, 2014, 01:26:13 PM »
How do you measure the level of capability of knowing god that a dolphin displays?   
A parent is regarded as a more moral conscious authority for the kid whose consciousness is looking for advice.
The People are always looking to the law to provide a moral and conscious decision for the greater good.
The human being is capable of being a Theist one who has the moral highest conscious awareness for those going to him for a higher solution to their dead end thinking.
The conscious awareness is scaled by humans seeking a higher perspective than a lower one that they have observed.
I cannot see how that in ANY way answers my question.

There is a dolphin, there is a human.  How do you compare their level of capability to know god?
Lets go and talk to the dolphin. That should be enough.

And when you talk to the dolphin, how will you establish their level of capability to know god? 

You keep avoiding a considered answer to this one Jesuis - because, I suspect, you know that to answer honestly would force you to reveal the gaping holes in the woo you are trying to sell us.
It is well known that I am not very bright. Your questions delude me. I admit.
Its not that I am not answering you for what I think you are asking.
So make it clearer. I am honored to be in such a debate with such intellectuals as yourselves.

I thought that dolphin was your idea about the level of consciousness. But now it seems like I have again been deluded -- apparently it is mine and I want to talk to it -- which is nonsense of course. Its your suggestion and you want to talk to it. By so doing things would be clearer to me. Of course I already know it does not have the same level of consciousness but you apparently know more about something.

If only you can share your wisdom that would be great. I can google it if point me in the right direction. Just tell me where to look if you believe in what you want to say. Are you afraid?

Another bizarre dodge.  It's such a simple question. "when you talk to the dolphin, how will you establish their level of capability to know god? "

Don't read more into it than there is.  Just explain, step by step, how you evaluate a dolphin's ability to know god?
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 Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13016
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #652 on: March 08, 2014, 01:45:57 PM »
I thought dolphins are gods? Damn you ADAMS!

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


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 #653 on: March 08, 2014, 02:28:38 PM »
Another bizarre dodge.  It's such a simple question. "when you talk to the dolphin, how will you establish their level of capability to know god? "

Don't read more into it than there is.  Just explain, step by step, how you evaluate a dolphin's ability to know god?
I would not talk to the dolphin -- You would.. But I will observe whose consciousness is higher than the other.
How weird. I am not dodging anything because you claim I am.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #654 on: March 13, 2014, 05:15:36 PM »
^^^^^^
No, Jesuis, you are not stupid or intellectually bereft.  Your problem is you are trying to figure out bullshit told by bullshit artists and in the process you are wasting your potential.

I"m sure everything you've read sounds great, nice and very convincing, but it is a trick.  I've fell for tricks myself quite a few times and usually it ends up being a waste of time.  Don't worry about making this mistake, it happens to the best of us.

I apologize to everyone that this post is off topic.
Well critical thinking demands that you produce the logical, rational thoughts and arguments that would aid your debate -

I certainly agree with the part of your statement that I have bolded, the remainder however isn't enough really though.  It isn't simply enough to try to aid your debate, honest self reflection and attempt to defeat ones own argument is also necessary.  I'll go into critical thinking more later in this post.

rather than simply dismissing it as bullsh*t,

That is not what I am doing.  I am informing you of what I have discovered.  I don't simply dismiss things as bullshit, I figure out that things are bullshit and then throw them into the bullshit pile.  If you would like to correct my error, please do, who knows, maybe I threw a gold watch into the bullshit pile because I thought it was fake.

So far your attempts to correct my error only seem to reveal that the watch is indeed fake and it seems broken as well.

I have presented what I am reading and thinking - so it is not like you do not know - at this point if you really have been down that road you know the problems that have led you to the door -

Yes, I've thought about what you have presented.  I have carefully considered every post of yours that I have read (and I've read quite a few of them).  I have tried to use what you have presented in a logical, rational and thoughtful way with critical thinking.  Unfortunately, in my attempts to use what you have presented to defeat my arguments, all of what you have presented have crumbled like a building made of sand.  I'm sorry, living in a building made of sand is just not that appealing to me. 

Have you attempted to understand my arguments and use my arguments to defeat your currently held position?

I doubt that you have because you don't seem to address all of my points, rather you pick and choose little bits.  Me, I address all of your points fully and completely, giving full thought and consideration to what you present, and I even go as far as to assume I am wrong and try to use your argument to crush my currently held position.  Like I said, I honestly cannot, and it is not for a lack of trying.  So I need your help, either you can give me more information that logically and rationally functions as good quality arguments OR you can try to think about my responses to your posts and see if your position truly holds up the weight of logic and rationality.


But your unbiased illogical deductions thus does not give me any confidence in what you say.

Funny, I feel the same way about you.  Although at least I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe you're right.  You on the other hand have already admitted that you cannot accept that my position is correct. 

Yeah, you know what, it kind of seems like I am flexible and you are rigid.  Sorry.


I get the impression you are just shrugging it off because it is either too hard or you never really cared about --

Your impression is mistaken.  Perhaps you are projecting your own emotions onto me OR maybe it would be easier for you if I were close minded and you could ignore what I have to say.


and your conclusions are not based on a logical rational deduction but based on something else.

Anytime you would like to offer some logical rational deduction, be my guest.  I'm trying my best here to address all of your points honestly, show you my logical rational deductions and be as fair as possible but you keep responding with the same illogical arguments over and over.

FYI, you don't need to repeat your same arguments over and over, we get them, we just don't buy them.  We don't buy them because we figured out that they are bullshit arguments.


Where are the steps to your critical thinking.

Well first, I have to understand the opposing argument, so usually I'll ask questions, I'll go through the argument numerous times to try and insure that I comprehend the argument completely. 

Next I'll assume that my position is incorrect and the opposing argument is correct, I'll try to apply the argument to defeat my position and in the process of doing so I will either see problems in my position or the opposing argument.   To be fair, I try to assume my current position is incorrect and the opposing argument is correct.  This process may be repeated a few times just to be sure.  I'll also review my position again and the opposing argument to just be sure I understood both properly.  If an opposing argument can stand up to the challenge of being applied to multiple situations, logic and rationality  then it has a good chance of being adopted as my new position.

Then I'll review what is left again to see if it is functional or practical.  Any problems with the opposing argument will be raised as questions to see how the proponent of the opposing argument has addressed said problems.  If the proponent of the opposing argument offers solutions to the problems then the new opposing argument is again put through the critical thinking process.



Science is about the conscious observer.

Not really.  The conscious observer is involved in science but that is not exactly what science is about.  Science is about understanding how things work and using the scientific method to insure that the understandings are as accurate as possible.  Inaccurate understandings of how things work are useless.



And you are not producing anything to show you know you are consciously aware or that life is.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.  I could guess, but my guess would be that you are trying to insult me.

How can you assume that I'm not producing anything to show that I know I am consciously aware?  Or that life is? 

You see, this is the problem with your way of thinking.  Let me ask you a question.  If I agree with you that what you are saying is accurate and I can say things that match up with what you are saying, will you then conclude that I am consciously aware and that I am on a path to high consciousness in order to know "God"? This is your false dichotomy at work.  There is no possible way for me to disagree with you and have a high consciousness.

I could be completely consciously aware and fully know that life is consciously aware as well and you would have no clue that I did because your entire scheme is set up on whether I agree with you or not.

You've already admitted that you can't accept that my position might be correct.  Your argument is bullshit.  I am not simply dismissing it as bullshit, I've figured out that it is bullshit. 

You can either clarify what your argument is and address my points OR you can keep repeating things which I will figure out is more bullshit OR you can do some critical thinking of your own regarding my points and reconsider the position you hold.


« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 05:18:23 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6207
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #655 on: March 15, 2014, 05:38:29 AM »
Another bizarre dodge.  It's such a simple question. "when you talk to the dolphin, how will you establish their level of capability to know god? "

Don't read more into it than there is.  Just explain, step by step, how you evaluate a dolphin's ability to know god?
I would not talk to the dolphin -- You would.. But I will observe whose consciousness is higher than the other.
How weird. I am not dodging anything because you claim I am.

And HOW will you observe whose capability to know god is higher?  Specifically.  What will you look for?

I'm sure this sounds obvious to you.  But I think you will find, when you actually try to define "capability to know god", that it will be harder than you think.
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 nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6949
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #656 on: March 17, 2014, 10:48:09 AM »
Jesuis, scientists can monitor brain activity in animals and humans. Do you think that the brain activity would change in some way when the animal or human is "knowing god"?
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 Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1395
  • Darwins +103/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #657 on: March 17, 2014, 11:06:16 AM »
Do you think that the brain activity would change in some way when the animal or human is "knowing god"?

 Yes, it will flatline

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6949
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #658 on: March 17, 2014, 02:57:43 PM »
Do you think that the brain activity would change in some way when the animal or human is "knowing god"?

 Yes, it will flatline

Kinda like a PSA: "This is your brain; this is your brain on drugs god." We atheists should start running these on the religious channels....
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 #659 on: March 21, 2014, 02:28:30 AM »
Jesuis, scientists can monitor brain activity in animals and humans. Do you think that the brain activity would change in some way when the animal or human is "knowing god"?
No!
Scientists cannot monitor consciousness. Only that which is conscious can know that which is all conscious. Consciousness is not brain activity as some are being led to believe. A tree is conscious. Consciousness is the life giving principle. Where there is life observed and unobserved there is some level of consciousness in activity.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6207
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #660 on: March 21, 2014, 03:41:27 AM »
A tree is conscious.

Since you couldn't answer my questions about dolphins, I have no confidence you will be able to answer this, but here goes.

How do we measure consciousness in a tree?
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: 12681
  • Darwins +708/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #661 on: March 21, 2014, 08:28:49 AM »
Consciousness is not brain activity as some are being led to believe. A tree is conscious.

Jesuis,
You just made two, extraordinary, outrageous claims.  Please support them with evidence and links.  Right now.  Before you post anything else.

Thank you.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13016
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #662 on: March 21, 2014, 11:26:52 AM »
A tree is conscious.

Since you couldn't answer my questions about dolphins, I have no confidence you will be able to answer this, but here goes.

How do we measure consciousness in a tree?

By their roots! Ba-da-ching!

;)

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #663 on: March 27, 2014, 02:15:07 PM »
Hello all,
So many things has been said. So many wrong path has been taken.
I Believe that it makes more sense that God exist than that he doesn't.
Usually the debate I have with people IRL on that subject diverge on what "exist" mean.
For me, something exist as soon as it is named and has a definition. (something without a name does not exist)
Since God is a name and (for me) has the following definition : the one with all the qualities imaginable (the ultimate best). He does exist.

I'd be happy to read your thoughts and what exist and what does not. (Please be more on what exist than the other one, it's too easy to say "it doesn't exist!")

------------
"Curiosity is a willing, a proud, an eager confession of ignorance." - Rubinstein
You're worth more than my time

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2256
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #664 on: March 27, 2014, 02:42:59 PM »
For me, something exist as soon as it is named and has a definition. (something without a name does not exist)
Since God Blargh is a name and (for me) has the following definition : the one with all the qualities inferiorities imaginable (the ultimate worst). He does exist.

Does Blargh now exist?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #665 on: March 27, 2014, 02:50:28 PM »
Yes Blargh does now exist.
You're worth more than my time

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2339
  • Darwins +434/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #666 on: March 27, 2014, 02:55:57 PM »
For me, something exist as soon as it is named and has a definition. (something without a name does not exist)

Name of 'thingie':
Loc-Nar 5s

Definition of 'Loc-Nar 5s':
Talisman that actively prevents the existence of entities called 'god'.  Also has the side-effect of preventing the existence of Blarghs.

Does the Loc-Nar 5s exist?
"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

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/