Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
oh, come on, skep.  That's not fair.  It is not that we don't like it.  It is that solipsism is a big bag of bullshit, an intellectual dead end, and it offers no actual insight or solution.  Okay, I cannot prove I am not a brain in a jar.  Now what?  How does that inform me?  What actions does that indicate I should take?  What does that explain?

I've asked you this before and I do not recall a response.

My position is not that an atheist must believe we are brains-in-jars. Nor is my position that I believe we are brains-in-jars.

My position is that a strict balls-to-the-wall materialistic atheist can not describe what things are like without using a mind to describe it. So the notion of "outside the mind" becomes meaningless. I believe God is the eternal perceiving mind that allows everything to exist even when we are not around to observe it.

Materialism stems from the assumption (not fact) that things exist independently of minds. If things can exist independently from minds, then who needs God as an explanation?

Since trying to describe the nature of something without using a mind is an impossible task, the problem is solved by positing the eternal mind. Can I prove this? No, I can not. but it makes a lot more sense to me than something existing independently of all minds.

Skep

If I get squished by a boulder, how important is it that I perceive that I've been squished by a boulder for it to be effective?

You seem to be saying that everything has to be perceived to exist. Whereas I think that things have to exist before we can perceive them. You think that there has to be some supreme mind perceiving or there wouldn't be anything. I think that there has to be stuff before minds can come in to being. Am I understanding your point of view correctly?
52
Chatter / Re: Guess what that word/phrase means in English
« Last post by Mrjason on Today at 10:42:04 AM »
Come on One, tell us the answer.
53
Chatter / Re: Are humans by nature monogamous?
« Last post by epidemic on Today at 10:40:50 AM »
well you know one here.

at least for the past 20+ years.
54
General Religious Discussion / Re: Human Rights.
« Last post by epidemic on Today at 10:39:19 AM »
...
Yes, the money is for the child, but if a woman can say she isn't financially or emotionally ready to be a parent then decide to not be a mother via abortion or adoption or what have you, based on equal protection under the law, men ought have the same right.
men should be able to terminate a pregnancy they contributed to?

No that violates the woman's rights to her body.  I think conceptually that a man should be able to early in the pregnancy sever ties.  This allows the woman to choose what to do with her body.

An example might be two people have sex and agree they both do not want to have kids.  The woman upon finding out she is pregnant tells the man she plans on having the kid.  This breaks the agreement, I believe the man should be able to sever financial ties since he has no choice to invade the woman's body.   She now must choose what method she will use to support her decision (adoption, single support,  or what ever)
55
Science / Re: Near Death Events Explained
« Last post by Mrjason on Today at 10:37:58 AM »
Don't know if folks have seen the results of Dr Parnia's study published in a journal

here is is for those interested.

http://www.horizonresearch.org/Uploads/Journal_Resuscitation__2_.pdf
56
General Religious Discussion / Christians are thieves!
« Last post by junebug72 on Today at 10:26:34 AM »
Give Islam back their God, please.
57
Religion In The News / Re: The US of Christianity
« Last post by Nam on Today at 10:18:29 AM »
Saw an article where white Christians are now the minority in 19 states.  Change is coming.  Is that why the GOP is fighting so hard to restrict voting?

They are the "white" party, holding the title at 90%[1]. Democrats are 60% (or less) white.

-Nam

 1. Gallup 89% in 2012, I figure they've rose 1% white since then, probably more
58
My position is not that an atheist must believe we are brains-in-jars. Nor is my position that I believe we are brains-in-jars.

My position is that a strict balls-to-the-wall materialistic atheist can not describe what things are like without using a mind to describe it.

...?  describing a thing is not the same as making a thing exist. For a mind to describe a thing, the thing needs to already exist.

So the notion of "outside the mind" becomes meaningless.

I don't think that is a valid conclusion.  Please connect the dots.

I believe God is the eternal perceiving mind that allows everything to exist even when we are not around to observe it.

This is another invalid conclusion.  You have not demonstrated that existence of things are impossible without a mind, nor have you demonstrated that god exists.   Yours is an argument made with the conclusion in mind. A Post hoc rationalization.

In fact, you admit as much here:
If things can exist independently from minds, then who needs God as an explanation?

You want there to be a god.  You are emotionally invested in it.  So you use this as a justification.  Try again.

59
Hi Ashley,

Welcome to our forum.  Thank you for posting.  Please familiarize yourself with this forum and the rules (linked in my sig).  It can often be... taxing on religious people and may require you make some adjustments. 



Well first off, God is supposedly going to "produce" himself and end the debate some day, but then everyone is going to die.

what a just and merciful god. 

With gods like that, who needs the devil? 

Secondly, I think maybe God had originally planned to be like the sun,

how is it possible that god's plans so often go awry?  curious, no?

they could have "knowledge" which I would assume means intelligence like God

Actually, it was "knowledge of Good and Evil", which is generally interpreted as moral judgment.  If you take genesis as meaningful, it means people have moral judgment equal to god.

I truly think God exists on an entirely different dimension than us (it would explain time and space constraints not applying to him)

you'd have to explain that further and I doubt you can.  There are people who can explain "other dimensions", but not many.  It requires a lot of esoteric math.  But it should actually be able to explain whether a guy with magical powers hiding out in one of these dimensions would be exempt from time and our space.

60
If things can exist independently from minds, then who needs God as an explanation?

Exactly!

By George, I think he's got it.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10