Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[The Cadet]

Fact: all you can prove is the existence of consciousness. Theory: God is the Eternal first cause which is conscious. Why would I not make that assumption?

Let's summarize this as a syllogism.

Premise 1: My conscious mind exists.
Conclusion: There is an eternal first cause which is conscious.

Here's a syllogism that makes just as much sense:

Premise 1: Zebras have stripes.
Conclusion: purple monkey dishwasher lemons

If the only thing you can prove is the existence of consciousness, how did you get from there to cause and effect? How did you get from there to the concept of a "first cause" (and how did you rule out infinite regress)? How did you establish that there was another conscience? And why would you make any assumption like this? Why is this assumption more important than, say, the assumption that our senses give us occasionally accurate sensory data? Where does this assumption get us, and why can we not shave it off with Occam's Razor?

 

[2 know him]

Let's summarize this as a syllogism.

Premise 1: My conscious mind exists.
Conclusion: There is an eternal first cause which is conscious.

Here's a syllogism that makes just as much sense:

Premise 1: Zebras have stripes.
Conclusion: purple monkey dishwasher lemons

If the only thing you can prove is the existence of consciousness, how did you get from there to cause and effect? How did you get from there to the concept of a "first cause" (and how did you rule out infinite regress)? How did you establish that there was another conscience? And why would you make any assumption like this? Why is this assumption more important than, say, the assumption that our senses give us occasionally accurate sensory data? Where does this assumption get us, and why can we not shave it off with Occam's Razor?

No sorry, but good try. If all you can prove is zebras, then there would be no monkeys, you have created monkeys from nothing, with no proof there are monkeys; first prove there are monkeys and we will then talk about them. I have premised my argument on the fact that consciousness exists, not on the theory that the universe exists outside of consciousness.

 

[Freodin]

No sorry, but good try. If all you can prove is zebras, then there would be no monkeys, you have created monkeys from nothing, with no proof there are monkeys; first prove there are monkeys and we will then talk about them. I have premised my argument on the fact that consciousness exists, not on the theory that the universe exists outside of consciousness.

If all you can prove is consciousness, then there would be no eternity nor causality, nor creation.

To adapt The Cadet's syllogism:
Premise: Zebras have stripes.
Conclusion: There is a striped, eternal creator.

By your own reasoning, your conclusion fails.

 

[The Cadet]

No sorry, but good try. If all you can prove is zebras, then there would be no monkeys, you have created monkeys from nothing, with no proof there are monkeys; first prove there are monkeys and we will then talk about them. I have premised my argument on the fact that consciousness exists, not on the theory that the universe exists outside of consciousness.

You're trying to paint my syllogism as an analogy for yours (like what Freodin actually tries to do). I'm not. I'm just trying to give you a good impression of how nonsensical your argument is. It simply does not follow from the premises. Consciousness exists, I will grant that. But this does not imply that there is an eternal consciousness, this does not imply a "first cause" or even the concept of a "cause", this doesn't imply any of the things you say. It is a non-sequitur - it simply does not follow.

 

[2 know him]

If all you can prove is consciousness, then there would be no eternity nor causality, nor creation.

To adapt The Cadet's syllogism:
Premise: Zebras have stripes.
Conclusion: There is a striped, eternal creator.

By your own reasoning, your conclusion fails.

There is a difference between what can be proven and what can be assumed based upon factual evidence.

So what can not be denied is our consciousness, but the limitation and the expanding of our conscious awareness speaks to finiteness of that consciousness. The fact that our consciousness exists tells us that it must have come from somewhere, the question is where?

What we have assumed is that the physical is what created us, as opposed to consciousness being the plain which we arrived from. To say my awareness is expanding speaks to my beginning and finiteness and it can reasonably be assumed therefor that I have a creator. The creation and the plain it exists on is all that is in question: not it's existence.

 

[2 know him]

You're trying to paint my syllogism as an analogy for yours (like what Freodin actually tries to do). I'm not. I'm just trying to give you a good impression of how nonsensical your argument is. It simply does not follow from the premises. Consciousness exists, I will grant that. But this does not imply that there is an eternal consciousness, this does not imply a "first cause" or even the concept of a "cause", this doesn't imply any of the things you say. It is a non-sequitur - it simply does not follow.

Your argument adds to my argument and is not at all equal to my argument as my argument uses provable facts (consciousness/zebras and their stripes) to form the bases for its premise, while you add monkeys, which don't actually exist, to try and prove an argument that is not at all equal to my argument: what do the monkeys represent in your argument to make it equate to mine?

 

[The Cadet]

The fact that our consciousness exists tells us that it must have come from somewhere

Please demonstrate this.

 

[2 know him]

Please demonstrate this.

Our conscious awareness is growing and growth indicates a beginning; what has a beginning must have a cause, the question is: what is that cause? Again I will state: since consciousness is all that we can know for sure, eternal consciousness is a theory based upon undeniable facts, while what you are seeing does not have the same certainty.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Our conscious awareness is growing and growth indicates a beginning; what has a beginning must have a cause, the question is: what is that cause? Again I will state: since consciousness is all that we can know for sure, eternal consciousness is a theory based upon undeniable facts, while what you are seeing does not have the same certainty.

That doesn't follow. Saying that consciousness is "all that we can know for sure" doesn't mean that it is a fact that consciousness must be caused by consciousness. Even if material causes are not "known for sure" (though this is not my view), there is still little reason to doubt their existence and their possible role in causing consciousness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Cadet]

Our conscious awareness is growing and growth indicates a beginning; what has a beginning must have a cause

Please demonstrate each of these three claims.

Look, if you're going to start from a position of solipsistic first principles, you have to start from there. You can't just assert things that we observe in reality to be true from first principles. I don't see how any of these claims can be considered valid independent of reality itself.

 

[2 know him]

That doesn't follow. Saying that consciousness is "all that we can know for sure" doesn't mean that it is a fact that consciousness must be caused by consciousness. Even if material causes are not "known for sure" (though this is not my view), there is still little reason to doubt their existence and their possible role in causing consciousness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It was assumed that God could not exist because there is no proof that God exists. For many years I have heard Atheists claim that there is no God. But can one be sure there is no God? If I have created the doubt in the idea of there not being a God then the objective is successful. But if God may exist, in what way or form might such an existence be? I have given a reasonable way for the concept of the Eternal to exist: on a plain of existence that many have not considered and to that end this thread is successful.

I hold to the belief that it is more reason to believe in the eternal existence of a conscious Creator than it is to believe in something that cannot be proven outside of consciousness. I know this world seems real to you and me and to you and me it is absolutely real, but so are our dreams: on the same bases; in the moment that we exist so does our reality and in that moment our reality cannot be denied to us. But can a person say that God cannot exist? On what bases? The universe we see cannot become from a void: science does not accept that and that is why science keeps looking for the answer to the cause of all things.

Can consciousness be the beginning of all that is? This premise actually has the makeup of plausibly being possible, where the physical universe you see doesn't. And if consciousness can exist on an eternal scale/plain, without having any conflict of reasoning as to its explaining what we see and where we came from, then how can one claim its impossibility?

Blessings to all you Atheists who have been converted to being agnostics and to all you agnostics who have been converted to theists and if there are any Atheist left: we are praying for you to become more honest; at best the Atheist should be left with doubt in their claims that there is no God and that should reclassify them as Agnostic.

 

[2 know him]

Please demonstrate each of these three claims.

Look, if you're going to start from a position of solipsistic first principles, you have to start from there. You can't just assert things that we observe in reality to be true from first principles. I don't see how any of these claims can be considered valid independent of reality itself.

And what do you consider reality: what you observe? Is that when your stoned or sober? Or is that when your dreaming or awake? or is that when your dead or alive? Wait, that reality is premature for you to be conscious of.

What you see is not reality, it is your reality and it proves nothing. All you have is Consciousness as a fact and that is all you can start from.

 

[The Cadet]

And what do you consider reality: what you observe? Is that when your stoned or sober? Or is that when your dreaming or awake? or is that when your dead or alive? Wait, that reality is premature for you to be conscious of.

What you see is not reality, it is your reality and it proves nothing. All you have is Consciousness as a fact and that is all you can start from.

And yet, for some reason, I'm willing to bet that most days, when you leave you home, you do it by the door, and not the attic window. I'm willing to bet that most times, you stop your car on a red light, rather than going through the intersection into oncoming traffic. I'd bet good money that you live your life as though you weren't a solipsist or a brain in a vat. This entire branch of philosophy adds up to just so much pointless navel-gazing, and as I pointed out, you're not even consistent within that. So kindly establish, independent of reality:

A) Our conscious awareness is growing (I don't even know what this is supposed to mean if we cannot accept our sensory data as legitimate)
B) Growth indicates a beginning
C) Beginnings must have causes

Because I don't think you can.

 

[Freodin]

And yet, for some reason, I'm willing to bet that most days, when you leave you home, you do it by the door, and not the attic window. I'm willing to bet that most times, you stop your car on a red light, rather than going through the intersection into oncoming traffic. I'd bet good money that you live your life as though you weren't a solipsist or a brain in a vat. This entire branch of philosophy adds up to just so much pointless navel-gazing, and as I pointed out, you're not even consistent within that. So kindly establish, independent of reality:

A) Our conscious awareness is growing
B) Growth indicates a beginning
C) Beginnings must have causes

Because I don't think you can.

I'd say he is not even aware of why he should.

As post #611 shows, he is more interested in proselytising than in logic and philosophy.

 

[Radrook]

And I'm saying that, till now, it is demonstrably the best and most reliable way to test such data.

You can show me wrong by sharing a method with a better track record.




How is it supported?



The difference is that Darwin's explanations were testable.

How is the fact that life comes only from previous life not testable?
It can logically be argued that every single time that your abiogenesis fails the fact that life comes only from life it is being tested and being proven right. Actually, it needs no such testing since obviously that's the way life naturally arises. The abiogenesis idea is simply the old Spontaneous Generation idea which was proven bogus in disguise.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evidence? Are you making a joke?

It is clearly posted as a speculation based on the idea of alternate realities postulated by your physicists.

That is the post I was referred to when I asked what evidence you had presented. Am I to assume that you have no evidence to present?

 

[Loudmouth]

The arguments for God are good ones, at least for consideration.

Once considered, they fall apart under scrutiny.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't say this and don't know many that do.

Every person who says that science can't test for God is saying that no evidence will change their mind.

But one must also keep in mind that evidence isn't proof. It may point us into a direction but that may be all. It's not an end all to the discussion.

Theistic claims don't even offer evidence.

I'm sorry but this is confusing to me. Maybe you can say it another way and just use the argument for God as an example.

Claim: God answers my prayers.

Experiment: People pray that other people will survive cancer.

Results: People who are prayed for have the same survival rate as those who weren't prayed for.

Conclusion: God still answers prayers.

Would you come to the same conclusion for a medicine that didn't appear to work?

 

[Loudmouth]

How is the fact that life comes only from previous life not testable?

Show us how you test it.

What experiment can demonstrate that no life in the history of the universe came from non-life?

Also, how many times has anyone observed a deity creating life?

 

[Radrook]

Show us how you test it.

What experiment can demonstrate that no life in the history of the universe came from non-life?
Also, how many times has anyone observed a deity creating life?

You are introducing a deity into it. I am not. I am only proposing that life comes only from life.

Also, you are avoiding the question. What keeps scientists from testing whether life comes only from life?
Every observation indicates otherwise.

Show you how to test it?

You are already testing it by trying to force nature into doing what it can't.

You once claimed that dirty rags produced mice and rotten food maggots right? Try something similar with abiogenesis. Let's see what results you get.