The joys of life without God

Haven't you figured it out yet? Lightee is not conscious!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Funkstar

Of course its wrong - just as we can see that even on sciforums its not uncommon for a user to enlist several sockpuppets (false identities) in an attempt to establish their actual self (even though it is only conceptualized self as opposed to self as context), even if one only has sockpuppets to go by, its still prett obvious that somewhere someone must actually exist

- my point however was that the grounds that you determine for evidence of god (the reductionist model of empirical evidence) does not even allow for the proof of consciousness - evidence of consciousness in scientific circles comes from the philosophical aspects of human psychology - which is grounded in behaviouralism as opposed to reductionism

What will one see if they have rose coloured glasses on? In other words in th eultimate issue it is not appropriate to examine the nature of consciousness as context without first addressing one's own consciousness

If a plastic model of the universe was discovered, would you think that someone had manufactured it or that it had evolved through blind interactions of nature?
The general principle is if it is obvious that simple things require intelligence, why is it obvious (particularly in the absence of evidence) that things that are uncountably million s of times more complex do not require intelligence?

They are labelled as self organizing simply because the forces that direct they are unseen (any fundamental axiom of physics requires a "mysterious" quality to be axiomatic - like gravity for example - physics can't tell us why gravity is there), this is actually an example of, as you previously stated,

Just because you personally are ignorant of the mechanisms involved doesn't mean that it isn't mechanistic. Your personal incredulence carries no weight at all as a formal argument.

You cannot use a star as an example because there are just simply too many unanswered questions (ie axioms) innvolved in the explanation to be clear evidence of self organization

even thunder relies on axioms

Not sure what you mean here - do you mean that neither religion or science are orthogonal (meaning bereft of inebrieties) or that comparitatively religion and science are not orthogonal (they are capable of existing in a unified medium)? Or do you mean something else?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you sorry idiot! I've been here quite longer than your sorry ass, hardly a troll!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

dipshit!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

With evolution nothing is constant

If you have been around longer than me it seems more likely that you may have evolved into a troll, since the distinct changes in evolution are visible over long periods of time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(actually I mentioned trolling specifically, not sock puppeting)

 

It seems lightgigantic is turning to comedy to cover the idiotic nature of his arguments. That's one method to get them to stop laughing at you.

 

LOL

Am I the only one who got a kick out of that reply??

 

No but I think it was worthless to coment! Funny though