Sarkus, No you're not. You're being dishonest, by holding up the discussion with trivial points, when you know exactly what I mean. The definition is taken from MSN dictionary. Go argue with them. Not in the sense you or I are awake. Now quit stalling or end the discussion. Bollocks to all that. Produce evidence that consciousness comes from rocks, chemicals, water, etc.. Or substantiate your claim for it being a rational assumption. Life comes from matter is not a scientific fact. What is a scientific fact is that life comes from life. Life comes into being, it grows, it produces off-spring, hangs around, gets old, and dies. What off-spring does slightly acidic water leave? And by off-spring I mean its own kind. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You produce evidence, you're the one making the claim. If you have no evidence, then why is it THE rational assumption? Evidence? Evidence? No. Without consciousness there is no relevance, and therefore nothing exists. Explain to me how a falling tree can make a noise if there is no being to hear it. And quit stalling. Your just spouting your belief here. The belief that a gigantic consciousness percieves everything, and from that gives birth to units of consciousness is way more plausible than your belief. Without consciousness there is nothing. It's THE rational assumption. Well, you're using a priori assumption of matter, if you want to go down that road. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We cancel each other out, so what's your problem. jan.
I do NOT know exactly what you mean - that's the point. You are assuming I do - when clearly I don't. Are you incapable of providing a concise and non-referential definition? YOU are the one using the definition - so I am arguing with them. They are not scientists - nor are they philosophers. They use laymen terms that satisfy the masses. In what sense are you or I awake? There is no stalling - this is at the heart of the issue - that until you can even define consciousness adequately then there really is no moving forward - especially with someone who seems, as you do, to refuse to provide clarification when asked. Inanimate matter existed: scientific fact. Animate matter now exists: scientific fact. Ergo animate matter came from inanimate matter: rational assumption. Now unless you wish to show how this is not rational, please accept it and move on. You used the term "by-products" last time. Feel free to continually change the definitions you use. Certainly makes discussions with you that much more pointless. See above. Saying "quit stalling" when you refuse to listen to the response is tiresome. Noise is a conscious interpretation, so of course there would be no noise if there was no consciousness to "hear" it. But the tree still fell and produced vibrations in the air. Those vibrations had the potential to be heard. "way more plausible"???? To who? Where is your evidence that a "gigantic consciousness perceives everything"? And how is it more rational, let alone plausible? So are you now saying that you ARE using an a priori assumption of consciousness? So why did you initially say that you weren't using such a definition of "exist"? - it would have save a considerable amount of time if you had just been honest about your position from the getgo. So quit stalling and no bullshit, please. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sarkus, You mean, you need me to tell you something that you already know through first-hand experience? So you assume that consciousness can only reside in inanimate matter? Yet our bodies bear the physical and chemicals element found independantly in matter, including electricity, but yet to date no one has come forward and said 'here is actual consciousness. What, in inanimate matter even resembles consciousness, something that can, or has the potential to think let alone think for it self? It is a "rational assumption" based on your belief. It becomes irrational when you fail to understand that consciousness allows perception, movement, understanding, and organisation. Without consciousness the brain is dead to all of these. Then throw the towel in if you feel that way. I changed the term because on the surface it would seem didn't understand what I meant. But I'm quite sure you did. You said it yourself as in, "...if there was no consciousness to hear it", how can you say it has the potential to be heard? Saying consciousnes can evolve again, it did in the past, is to say the potential is in the inanimate matter. So you're saying that either matter is conscious, or there are elements within matter that are capable of producing consciousness. Yet where is the evidence for either of those options? Yes, because it does not change what consciousness is. Your belief assumes consciousness being physical, evolved, yet you cannot point to what it evolved from or into. It's the rational assumption. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm saying if you wish to go down that road, we cancel each other out, as you are doing the same thing. I'm not, but seeing as you're not prepared to answer any of the responses to your accusation, only responding with subjective belief, and taking it for granted that it is correct (dogmatic), i am merely looking at it another. jan.
Re. Atheists please answer this. When a statement like this is made, it becomes a surety to confound anyone, and is probably why the atheist population has exploded: Because it contains nothing which can be attached to, which is moral when examined, and is made with a total vacuum of historical back-up. Worse, it is bordering on manifest falsehood by virtue of its gross omissions: what is unique of one Jew among a million being killed by Rome - all of whom had greater faith than all christians combined? I say greater faith because of the time period of a peoples' belief and what they had to endure to uphold it. I say false becuase it omits the others killed in the very same space time and by the very same Romans and for the very same reason: Heresy. I say immoral because it does not honor those who solely battled Rome's flaunting of a peoples' right to have a belief and thereby one group of humanity alone and bravely protected this right for humanity as no other. It does not matter that a Christian may say whatever they like of their belief - they are still obligated to mention how a million also sacrificed their lives - its omission is a lie by omission however one moulds it - and anything which is even minutely untrue or lacking of truth cannot be enshrined as truth or good or Godly. And how does a Christian in Europe know a resurrection occured from so afar and when it contradicts both what the Jews and Arab people saw? - and what constitutes a resurrection - how many hours? Its one big mystery how this was ever acceted, and one religious group cannot speak in the same language of another: its like a zebra talking to a fish, and in a sense an even greater empass than two different species. Test this with a Christian and a Muslim - can they ever convince each other - even when talking of the same event in the same space-time? But one can see some light here and apply it to science and battle it with the hardiest of atheists and free thinkers forever: If a document gives millions of correct stats in its texts, of numbers, dates, distances, laws, the first alphabetical books, the most advanced and oldest calendar - and such stats seen throughout its verses - then we can certainly accept what bits that do not satisfy as credible may potentially be a lacking in the beholder. That plausability always remains. If the first two opening verses in Genesis says the universe is finite, then that the formless was turned to form - it impacts on a host of scientific premises accepted today. Because there can be no scientific laws unless the premise of the 'formless is first made able to be the formed' occurs - think about it carefully instead of a blind refutation phobia. Because laws are based on a complexity [formed; forming of; formations] - derived from random [formless, chaos and the void]. Its like saying we cannot make a car unless all the laws relating to car making are at hand: but no - that is wrong also because it goes much further than that. Genesis is saying, before we can make laws - the premise of making laws per se, as well as the premise of 'laws' must be at hand. This is clear when a finite realm is accepted - because it says at one time these factors did not exist! Here, the battle with atheists is they say that it all happens because of an old man with a long white beard whose name is: 'NATURE". Now the atheists become akin to any other religious belief: they cannot prove Mr. Nature or Mother Nature - and they thus like to start their arguement after this point! But when a finite realm is factored in [the opening preamble] - then it follows that at one time Mr. Nature did not exist!? Genesis wins! Q.E.D. Check mate. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Believing in a god is an unfalsifiable claim, so no. Many priests and bishops say just this. (they accept evolution). Atheism is NOT based on my own personal needs. I have weighed the evidence and found no significant evidence to prove any god exists so I decline to accept any god, the possibility is there, atheism is NOT an assertion.
There's a blatant glitch here. A Creator is a scientific premise; its negation is not scientific [CAUSE AND EFFECT] - unless dislodged by another transcending scientific premise. You have not provided this. The laws and processes we see can also be the effect of the Creator. A car manual does not negate the car maker - but if you find a car on Jupiter, then you may have a point. All science and math work this way. Galelio did not prove himself right just by rejecting - he actually proved his case by providing a transcending alternative! Yes, atheists can also be dumb! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It is also the easiest factor to exploit - because belief is an inherent and generic trait within all life. This is proven when we see Christians and Muslims equally upholding two totally contradicting beliefs - namely at least one is totally false! This is further manifest when both also impose do or die alternatives - and spiritual blackmail attached therein. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Religion makes people stupid. I can come to no other conclusion. Their worship of belief as a virtue makes them believe truly stupid things. I'm only thankful that with access to nuclear weapons, they will someday purge the planet of themselves. It's just too bad so many perfectly good people will die with them.
a creator is not a scientific premise. it's a supposition and many people do have theories based on supposition but most lucid scientists or atheists acknowledge that. you cannot prove that a god exist or not. either way, it's a speculation. the problem with theists is instead of saying "there may be a god", they say "there is a god and prove me wrong." totally ridiculous.
Atheism makes people stupid. I can come to no other conclusion. Their abhorrence of belief as a virtue makes them believe truly stupid things. I'm only thankful that with access to nuclear weapons, they will someday purge the planet of themselves. It's just too bad so many perfectly good people will die with them.
Not at all - I'm asking you to tell me precisely what you mean so that there is no misunderstanding. The fact that as yet you have failed to put any adequate (e.g. non-circular) definition behind the words you use seems to confirm that you are using words such as "consciousness", "awake", "aware" without actually understanding what it is you mean. So until you do it is you who are stalling, unless you expect me to use the words as I would, with the understanding I have - in which case your entire argument is flawed. But then since I have been saying that all along, and since you have disagreed, it should be quite clear even to you that our understandings of these terms differ. So I ask you again to provide an adequate definition. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You came to this conclusion from what I said?? Seems I've been giving you far too much credit for logic. Care to lead me through your thought process so that I might show your error? So no - I do not assume that, and I have never even suggested anything that should lead to you thinking I have that assumption. See above. As for inanimate matter having the potential to develop consciousness - it has potential to develop into animate matter, and from there to developing consciousness. Abiogenesis is working on establishing possible methods for the first part (inanimate to animate) and it is rational to assume evolution took care of the second part. But all this rather depends on your understanding of consciousness - but since you can't be bothered to provide an adequate working definition for me to begin to understand yours (given that I seem to be pointing out inconsistencies each time you add/amend your position)... :shrug: You do know that mechanical machines are capable of perception, movement, organisation etc? And yet you don't ascribe them with consciousness. Yes, they may have been created rather than went through a process of self-creation, but in and of themselves they have the attributes yet are not conscious. Again - more inconsistencies with your explanations. It is clear we are working from vastly different understandings of "consciousness"... but since you can't be bothered to provide an adequate working definition... etc. :shrug: I'm not in the guessing game, Jan: if you state something in good faith then I'll take it as being what you mean. Stand in a forest and wait for a tree to fall. Would you be able to hear it? Yes. Not really "producing consciousness". "Being conscious" is probably more apt. Consciousness, as I see it, is not a product but a state that matter exhibits... an animate pattern, if you will. The same way a wave is not a product but a specific pattern of motion. Again - this is a conclusion based on the evidence. The fact that we exist. That matter exists (irrespective of the form in which we perceive it). The rest is based on what is rational. Given that you have yet to provide an adequate definition for what "consciousness" is...? And the alternative - that consciousness evolved from inanimate matter, for example - how does that change what consciousness is? Or do you merely mean it requires a different understanding of consciousness to the one that you still haven't adequately defined? Which is why one can only reach conclusions based on rationality - and do not confuse conclusions with beliefs, as conclusions will change based on the evidence available. What it evolved from/into... I don't even know what humans evolved from several million years ago. But given the fact of evolution, and my understanding of consciousness (which is clearly different from yours, but since you can't be bothered to provide an adequate working definition... blah blah blah), it is the rational conclusion. If you think it is flawed / wrong then please do provide the evidence on which I can make a reassessment? So when you use the term "exist" you don't automatically assume "consciousness"? You can accept existence without consciousness??? 'Cos if you can then you are going back on most of what you have previously said. So which is it? Or is this a false dilemma and there is another option?
