fallacy analysis needed "faulty" Big bang article

[Davian]

Ok i will wait for that . The things i pointed out in your first argument about concsiousness that i called arbitrary i truly think are just that. Presupposing a brain to have consciousness is arbitrary because you dont have proof that mental states are brain states. This brings us to mind body dualism etc which is quite a topic.
I think consciousness is not even definable in a sufficient way,

If you cannot define "consciousness", how can you discuss it? You are admitting that you are not clear about what you mean by that word.

 

[True Scotsman]

If you cannot define "consciousness", how can you discuss it? You are admitting that you are not clear about what you mean by that word.

Great point, Davian.

 

[caspernl]

Great point, Davian.

i think youre forgetting that you where the one defining consciousness. I wasnt i just responded to it.

 

[caspernl]

consciousness of something (an object) as opposed to consciousness of nothing (no object)

In order to communicate with me you had to turn your question composed of a string of concepts into an objective form, of a sentence composed of symbols that could be perceived by my eyes (sense organs). This proves that consciousness requires objects.

So a question is a string of concepts, which are not objective because you say "string of concepts into an objective form" by your own definition strings of concepts are not objects. So by your own definition you can be conscious about things that are not objects.
Your arguing against yourself.

and something which exists to be conscious of other than itself.

I can think about something that doesnt exist, for instance a pink elephant.
By the above quote the "object" becomes a pysical thing.Which it doesnt have to be.

You claim that there is this consciousness somewhere that can exist without means, objects or content. Can you demonstrate that. Can you show me an example that is directly observable? One objective example is all you need to provide. If you can't then your evidence is purely arbitrary

Show me where i claim this?
Dont put words in my mouth.

This is exactly what you are doing with your arbitrary claim that a consciousness can exist without means, objects or content.

Yes that was my intention exactly, maybe you need to read my posts better.
Anyways you admitted that you started this so you are the one that need to have proof of your claim.Your ignoring this. Again your making the argument so you are the one that needs to proof things.

I'll explain later tonight why my concept of consciousness is not arbitrary and why the concept of "proof" presupposes it.

In order to do this you need to define what an object is.

Haha funny how two atheists cant beat one Christian ; )

 

[Davian]

..
In order to do this you need to define what an object is.

Haha funny how two atheists cant beat one Christian ; )

You said, "I think consciousness is not even definable in a sufficient way,"

What do you think you have "won" when you have admitted that you cannot define the terms that you are using? How can the discussion begin?

 

[caspernl]

You said, "I think consciousness is not even definable in a sufficient way,"

What do you think you have "won" when you have admitted that you cannot define the terms that you are using? How can the discussion begin?

I didn’t say anything about winning, and the discussion is not on consciousness itself.
My point is that consciousness is metaphysical and thus not phisical, And thus cant be proven or disproven. Its arbitrary. Scotsman clearly defined what consciousness is in his first argument and thus requires proof.He blames me for being arbitrary but his whole fallacy is based on just this.He didnt give me proof of these arbitrary statements on consciousness.Except it has something to do with objects. WHich acording to him has a wonky explaination.You made your point that i cant talk about consciousness. and the discussion cant begin.This is somewhat true if you want to discuss proof.If so then you need to proof your case.If you cant then you cant talk about consciousness either.
Te problem with Scotsman is is that he is making an argument from ignorance, this becomes clear by him not answering my counter statements, and by him cherry picking what he is going to answer and what he is going to "wipe" away with is arbitrary wand.
If you want to help him then pleas do so by all means but you should make your own case before you start attacking mine.

 

[Davian]

I didn’t say anything about winning, and the discussion is not on consciousness itself.
My point is that consciousness is metaphysical and thus not phisical, And thus cant be proven or disproven. Its arbitrary. Scotsman clearly defined what consciousness is in his first argument and thus requires proof.He blames me for being arbitrary but his whole fallacy is based on just this.He didnt give me proof of these arbitrary statements on consciousness.Except it has something to do with objects. WHich acording to him has a wonky explaination.You made your point that i cant talk about consciousness. and the discussion cant begin.This is somewhat true if you want to discuss proof.If so then you need to proof your case.If you cant then you cant talk about consciousness either.
Te problem with Scotsman is is that he is making an argument from ignorance, this becomes clear by him not answering my counter statements, and by him cherry picking what he is going to answer and what he is going to "wipe" away with is arbitrary wand.
If you want to help him then pleas do so by all means but you should make your own case before you start attacking mine.

I have no case to make, as the only "consciousness" that I am aware of is that which is defined within mainstream neuroscience.

You are claiming that "consciousness is metaphysical and thus not physical" and admit that you cannot prove it, disprove it, or even define it.

You have offered nothing to "attack". When you do figure out what you are talking about, let me know.

 

[caspernl]

I have no case to make, as the only "consciousness" that I am aware of is that which is defined within mainstream neuroscience.

You are claiming that "consciousness is metaphysical and thus not physical" and admit that you cannot prove it, disprove it, or even define it.

You have offered nothing to "attack". When you do figure out what you are talking about, let me know.

Well i wont because im not that interested in this whole discussion anyways. i was not the one who started this discussion. You where commenting on something specific i said in a string of arguments with Scotsman. I meant by making your case that its not fair for you to bud in at a random time.

i am fascinated tho why atheists are so active on christian forums when every post they make seems to suggest to christians that they are ignorant of the truth.If that was really true i dont think atheists would even be on this forum.this ofcourse is besides any point in this topic but maybe an interesting thing to keep in mind for any christian reading this.

All this aside i am going to stop arguing this because i feel it wont end.
I have shown where this argument from the atheistic side is making assumptions and my arguments have been cherry picked and ignored by scotsman.

I want to focus on studying about Jesus, this is very distracting.
If anybody can offer me some help on the first post pleas do.

 

[Davian]

Well i wont because im not that interested in this whole discussion anyways. i was not the one who started this discussion. You where commenting on something specific i said in a string of arguments with Scotsman. I meant by making your case that its not fair for you to bud in at a random time.

Life is not fair, and this is an open forum.

i am fascinated tho why atheists are so active on christian forums when every post they make seems to suggest to christians that they are ignorant of the truth.If that was really true i dont think atheists would even be on this forum.

I am here to talk to those that claim to know the truth, yet are unable to demonstrate it, and then proceed to develop vast, intricate rationales to explain why gods should not be considered imaginary.

On non-theistic sites, those people get shut down in short order for preaching.

this ofcourse is besides any point in this topic but maybe an interesting thing to keep in mind for any christian reading this.

All this aside i am going to stop arguing this because i feel it wont end.
I have shown where this argument from the atheistic side is making assumptions and my arguments have been cherry picked and ignored by scotsman.

I want to focus on studying about Jesus, this is very distracting.
If anybody can offer me some help on the first post pleas do.

I would, but I don't see what I can add that was not addressed in the second post.

 

[True Scotsman]

Caspernl,

Sorry for the long delays in responding. I am insanely busy with work and am having a hard time finding the time to sit down and respond in a significant way.

You wrote: So a question is a string of concepts, which are not objective because you say "string of concepts into an objective form" by your own definition strings of concepts are not objects. So by your own definition you can be conscious about things that are not objects.
Your arguing against yourself.

Not at all. Concepts are mental integrations of percepts or integrations of concepts that reference percepts. The concepts are themselves subjective but their referents are objective in the case of a valid concept. An invalid concept such as "God" is not tied to any objective reference and is therefore wholly subjective and arbitrary. By definition God is supposed to be imperceptible so there could not be any objective reference. for instance the concept "tree" references trees and trees exist in reality. The concept rock references rocks which exist in reality. Now once I have perceived a rock I can recall that percept. If I had never seen a rock then I couldn't do this. So no, I'm not arguing against myself. A string of concepts can be an object of consciousness when turned into a concrete form as in a written sentence or spoken words or bumps on a piece of paper as in braille.

You wrote: I can think about something that doesnt exist, for instance a pink elephant. By the above quote the "object" becomes a pysical thing.Which it doesnt have to be.

Yes you can think of all kinds of things that don't exist in reality but these are not objects of consciousness. They are subjective. You can do this by imagining. Your imagination can rearrange percepts and combine them to make imaginary creatures but these are imaginary and you can only do this because you have actually seen a real Elephant or a picture of one and you have seen the color pink. You can imagine a pink Elephant with yellow and red polka dots also and you can add some wings and maybe a pair of antlers but all of these things you already have concepts of from objective references. What you can't do is think of something totally new that you have never seen or heard of. Try it. No matter what you imagine it will be some combination of things you have seen. For most of my life I wondered why I could not do this and now that I have an objective theory of concepts I know why. You can imagine a Unicorn Caspernl, but you can't perceive an actual unicorn in reality.

I recommend that you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand. It may take a couple of readings to fully understand it but it will clear up all these confusions you have about concepts. You certainly won't find anything about them in the Bible.

I had written: You claim that there is this consciousness somewhere that can exist without means, objects or content. Can you demonstrate that. Can you show me an example that is directly observable? One objective example is all you need to provide. If you can't then your evidence is purely arbitrary


You responded: Show me where i claim this?
Dont put words in my mouth.

This is a valid charge and I should have said that the creationist who wrote the article claims this. Indeed every argument for a creator God claims this. No, not explicitly, but implicitly because if God is said to be a consciousness which created everything distinct from itself then at some point there was this consciousness without objects. God is supposed to be incorporeal so then it has no sense organs or means of consciousness and without objects to be conscious of and no means of consciousness it could have no contents of consciousness.

So if you believe in a creator God who created everything distinct from itself then you do claim that there existed a consciousness without means, content or objects. Such a thing is a contradiction. Contradictions don't exist.

I had written: I'll explain later tonight why my concept of consciousness is not arbitrary and why the concept of "proof" presupposes it.

You responded: In order to do this you need to define what an object is.

Haha funny how two atheists cant beat one Christian ; )

An object Caspernl is something that exists and is directly observable. The mouse on my desk is an object. The tree at the end of my sidewalk is an object. The letters appearing on my screen as I type them are all objects. Actions can also be objects of consciousness. I am observing my mind as it acts to think of what to say in this response. I can watch someone fishing. I can watch someone throwing a baseball. I can't observe any of these actions before they occur. A unicorn isn't an object. Fairies, gods and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow aren't objective. They're subjective.

You also asked me to define consciousness and you admitted that you think it can not be defined. I find this absolutely stunning. It is the first premise, the starting point of you worldview and you can't define it?

If you're looking for me to define consciousness in terms of some antecedent concepts, I can't do that. Consciousness is an axiomatic concept. It can only be defined ostensively. There is only one concept more fundamental and that is "existence". In grasping that things exist we also grasp that we possess consciousness. Before we could know that we are conscious we would have to first be conscious of something external to us. That is why the concept of a consciousness conscious only of itself is a contradiction and commits the fallacy of pure self-reference. Conscious of itself doing what? Blank out.

So here is the definition of consciousness: It is the faculty that perceives that which exists.

It should be clear why the concept of consciousness as the faculty that perceives that which exists, or objects, is not an arbitrary concept. In case it's not I'll spell it out for you. Consciousness is directly observable. It exists in reality and can be observed through introspection. When I'm conscious, I'm always conscious of an object.

You had also asked me to prove consciousness exists. Oh, the irony. Caspernl, the concept of proof wrests on and indeed would be meaningless without consciousness. Consciousness is an axiomatic concept. In order to prove anything you would first have to be conscious of something.

You wrote: I want to focus on studying about Jesus, this is very distracting. If anybody can offer me some help on the first post pleas do.

You said in your OP that you wanted help in analyzing an argument for fallacies. I pointed out a fundamental fallacy in the articles' argument and now you say that you want to study about Jesus. I don't know why you'd want to find some fallacies and ignore others. It's clear that you don't really want to learn about logic and reason. It's clear to me that you are more interested in protecting your confessional investment in your faith. I know you desperately want to take the discussion away from the insurmountable flaw that I have pointed out. You want to quibble over definitions and motivations, anything to distract us from this issue I have raised. It's clear that you have no answer to it. That should be a real red flag for you.

As to why Atheists would want to come onto a Christian forum, I can't speak for others but I do it for entirely selfish reasons. I love and care about ideas. I find it enjoyable to help people to untangle the messes created by the irrational epistemology of religion. I know first hand what it can do to a mind. Someone helped me to see the fundamental errors that I was making and the mass of contradictions in my worldview that I didn't even know were there simply because I listed to the preacher when he told me not to question and to "just have faith". I'm simply trying to pay it forward.
__________________

 

[Dave Ellis]

First off, I congratulate you for going out of your way to learn about logical fallacies, and to examine the arguments put forward in a skeptical and rational view.

The truth has nothing to hide from an honest evaluation of the facts, and no matter where your exploration may take you, I think it's commendable you are attempting to take an honest crack at figuring out what is and what is not true.

Now on to your post: (Sorry, the quote function isn't working, so I'll have to write it without quotes)


In the bit about the Kalam argument, the flaw in reasoning comes from the unjustified assertion that the cause of the universe is a conscious and all powerful creator being.

Even if we grant the basic argument that:
1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist

Therefore

3: The universe has a cause

You can only state that the universe has a cause. Nowhere are you justified in attributing characteristics to what that cause is.

People like William Lane Craig try to get around that by claiming that god "didn't begin to exist" and is therefore uncaused. However, he is simply making an unjustified assertion there, and committing a special pleading fallacy.


Going later into your post, you mentioned that the big bang is only hypothetical and can't be proven, that's actually incorrect. We can prove the big bang happened, however as of yet we can't definitively say what caused it to happen.

If you'd like to research more on that, I'd recommend a book by Lawrence Krauss called "A Universe from Nothing", it's also available in audiobook form which makes it a lot quicker and easier to digest I find. Here's a condensed version in lecture form if you want to check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

Getting back on point though, we don't know definitively what "sparked" the big bang. We know the laws of physics allow for the big bang to occur naturally, but we can't definitively prove that's what happened.

But that being said, we have no reason at all to assert that a god did it. Even if a god actually exists and actually sparked the big bang, we still have no justification as of yet to claim that's what happened. We simply don't have the evidence to back that claim. So, to assert it was a god that did it is an argument from ignorance fallacy (unless you can show with evidence that your claim is correct).

Anyway, that's it for now!

 

[caspernl]

First off, I congratulate you for going out of your way to learn about logical fallacies, and to examine the arguments put forward in a skeptical and rational view.

The truth has nothing to hide from an honest evaluation of the facts, and no matter where your exploration may take you, I think it's commendable you are attempting to take an honest crack at figuring out what is and what is not true.

Now on to your post: (Sorry, the quote function isn't working, so I'll have to write it without quotes)


In the bit about the Kalam argument, the flaw in reasoning comes from the unjustified assertion that the cause of the universe is a conscious and all powerful creator being.

Even if we grant the basic argument that:
1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist

Therefore

3: The universe has a cause

You can only state that the universe has a cause. Nowhere are you justified in attributing characteristics to what that cause is.

People like William Lane Craig try to get around that by claiming that god "didn't begin to exist" and is therefore uncaused. However, he is simply making an unjustified assertion there, and committing a special pleading fallacy.


Going later into your post, you mentioned that the big bang is only hypothetical and can't be proven, that's actually incorrect. We can prove the big bang happened, however as of yet we can't definitively say what caused it to happen.

If you'd like to research more on that, I'd recommend a book by Lawrence Krauss called "A Universe from Nothing", it's also available in audiobook form which makes it a lot quicker and easier to digest I find. Here's a condensed version in lecture form if you want to check it out:

Getting back on point though, we don't know definitively what "sparked" the big bang. We know the laws of physics allow for the big bang to occur naturally, but we can't definitively prove that's what happened.

But that being said, we have no reason at all to assert that a god did it. Even if a god actually exists and actually sparked the big bang, we still have no justification as of yet to claim that's what happened. We simply don't have the evidence to back that claim. So, to assert it was a god that did it is an argument from ignorance fallacy (unless you can show with evidence that your claim is correct).

Anyway, that's it for now!

Thank you for your post, its kind off a breath of fresh air in this partially failed topic.
You seem honest and i would like to ask you some things about your post.

You can only state that the universe has a cause. Nowhere are you justified in attributing characteristics to what that cause is.

People like William Lane Craig try to get around that by claiming that god "didn't begin to exist" and is therefore uncaused. However, he is simply making an unjustified assertion there, and committing a special pleading fallacy.

Ill be honest in that i dont believe the big bang to be true, and i do believe that God is an uncaused being.
Its not a empty unfounded claim but its an assessment of the bible.
Feel free to comment about this.

But besides this i do not see that it is a fallacy to believe that God is the uncaused cause of the big bang (which again i dont believe).

You can only state that the universe has a cause. Nowhere are you justified in attributing characteristics to what that cause is.

I agree with this in respect that you can state for a fact. And i cannot state for a fact that God is the cause of the universe. But i can state i believe God is the uncaused cause.
Would you agree that this is not a fallacy?
What i am getting at is that personal belief is not a fallacy if it is not proven to be true.
I think Dr Craig is not making a claim, i think his thinking is based on the bible's description of what God is. I am not thinking he is pulling this out of nowhere just as a "Cop out" so to speak.He never says that kalam proves there to be a God.He just says that his argument is correct. And he believes the Big bang whitin this argument needs a cause outside itself which i agree with.
SO i agree that God lies outside kalams argument.But i think that the argument is underpinned by the claim that nothing cannot create something.Which i believe to be true. I then believe that God is the uncaused cause. WHy would this be a fallacy? Again it is an unproven statement. But i dont see anyway this could be a fallacy.

Im sorry for being so specific but i am just interested in logical fallacy's.
So i am saying that an argument for ignorance is only this when there is ignorance involved.I was making a statement that a poster here argued from ignorance because he wiped my arguments of the table as hypothetical but he started the conversation upon an argument based on hypotheticals.I tried to help him somewhat to start about Kalam.
So i am not claiming Kalams argument necessitates a God. But i believe this is the best explanation.

And on the special pleading fallacy, its not special pleading its just a hypothetical argument.The validity of the argument he makes doesn’t rest on special pleading. He again doesnt try to go around Kalams argument he just explains the biblical view of God lies within the validity of Kalams argument. Saying the big bang came out of nothing does not.
Maybe the distinction here is impossibility’s and hypotheticals.

You say that we can prove that the big bang happened.Pleas present that proof. Im not trying to attack you on this but this statement begs for proof.

We know the laws of physics allow for the big bang to occur naturally, but we can't definitively prove that's what happened.

You cant prove it happened at all. Unless of course you have that proof.

Ill await your response, because i am very interested in your reactions. In the meantime have a nice holiday time.

 

[caspernl]

Sorry i dont want to keep editting my post.( one more comment) on your special pleading why is talking about an uncaused cause special pleading? the other option would be an infinite regress of things.Which in my eyes is ridiculous.

 

[Sean Robson]

(one more comment) on your special pleading why is talking about an uncaused cause special pleading?

I think what he is meaning is...

It is special pleading to claim that EVERYthing necessitates a cause....except God.

As per Dr Craig's style of apologetics.

 

[caspernl]

I think what he is meaning is...

It is special pleading to claim that EVERYthing necessitates a cause....except God.

As per Dr Craig's style of apologetics.

Everything that begins to exist necessitates a cause.

 

[Sean Robson]

Everything that begins to exist necessitates a cause.

I inadvertently omitted the words (that begins to exist) but I think you catch my drift.

 

[caspernl]

I inadvertently omitted the words (that begins to exist) but I think you catch my drift.

No i dont catch your drift. Learn Kalams cosmological argument correctly before you start commenting on it.

 

[ranunculus]

Can reality be divided into 2 sets, things that begin to exist and things that don't begin to exist?

 

[caspernl]

Can reality be divided into 2 sets, things that begin to exist and things that don't begin to exist?

This is not a topic about your questions, i outlined everything in my first post.With all respect start your own topic about questions you have on reality.

 

[caspernl]

Caspernl,

Sorry for the long delays in responding. I am insanely busy with work and am having a hard time finding the time to sit down and respond in a significant way.

You wrote: So a question is a string of concepts, which are not objective because you say "string of concepts into an objective form" by your own definition strings of concepts are not objects. So by your own definition you can be conscious about things that are not objects.
Your arguing against yourself.

Not at all. Concepts are mental integrations of percepts or integrations of concepts that reference percepts. The concepts are themselves subjective but their referents are objective in the case of a valid concept. An invalid concept such as "God" is not tied to any objective reference and is therefore wholly subjective and arbitrary. By definition God is supposed to be imperceptible so there could not be any objective reference. for instance the concept "tree" references trees and trees exist in reality. The concept rock references rocks which exist in reality. Now once I have perceived a rock I can recall that percept. If I had never seen a rock then I couldn't do this. So no, I'm not arguing against myself. A string of concepts can be an object of consciousness when turned into a concrete form as in a written sentence or spoken words or bumps on a piece of paper as in braille.

You wrote: I can think about something that doesnt exist, for instance a pink elephant. By the above quote the "object" becomes a pysical thing.Which it doesnt have to be.

Yes you can think of all kinds of things that don't exist in reality but these are not objects of consciousness. They are subjective. You can do this by imagining. Your imagination can rearrange percepts and combine them to make imaginary creatures but these are imaginary and you can only do this because you have actually seen a real Elephant or a picture of one and you have seen the color pink. You can imagine a pink Elephant with yellow and red polka dots also and you can add some wings and maybe a pair of antlers but all of these things you already have concepts of from objective references. What you can't do is think of something totally new that you have never seen or heard of. Try it. No matter what you imagine it will be some combination of things you have seen. For most of my life I wondered why I could not do this and now that I have an objective theory of concepts I know why. You can imagine a Unicorn Caspernl, but you can't perceive an actual unicorn in reality.

I recommend that you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand. It may take a couple of readings to fully understand it but it will clear up all these confusions you have about concepts. You certainly won't find anything about them in the Bible.

I had written: You claim that there is this consciousness somewhere that can exist without means, objects or content. Can you demonstrate that. Can you show me an example that is directly observable? One objective example is all you need to provide. If you can't then your evidence is purely arbitrary


You responded: Show me where i claim this?
Dont put words in my mouth.

This is a valid charge and I should have said that the creationist who wrote the article claims this. Indeed every argument for a creator God claims this. No, not explicitly, but implicitly because if God is said to be a consciousness which created everything distinct from itself then at some point there was this consciousness without objects. God is supposed to be incorporeal so then it has no sense organs or means of consciousness and without objects to be conscious of and no means of consciousness it could have no contents of consciousness.

So if you believe in a creator God who created everything distinct from itself then you do claim that there existed a consciousness without means, content or objects. Such a thing is a contradiction. Contradictions don't exist.

I had written: I'll explain later tonight why my concept of consciousness is not arbitrary and why the concept of "proof" presupposes it.

You responded: In order to do this you need to define what an object is.

Haha funny how two atheists cant beat one Christian ; )

An object Caspernl is something that exists and is directly observable. The mouse on my desk is an object. The tree at the end of my sidewalk is an object. The letters appearing on my screen as I type them are all objects. Actions can also be objects of consciousness. I am observing my mind as it acts to think of what to say in this response. I can watch someone fishing. I can watch someone throwing a baseball. I can't observe any of these actions before they occur. A unicorn isn't an object. Fairies, gods and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow aren't objective. They're subjective.

You also asked me to define consciousness and you admitted that you think it can not be defined. I find this absolutely stunning. It is the first premise, the starting point of you worldview and you can't define it?

If you're looking for me to define consciousness in terms of some antecedent concepts, I can't do that. Consciousness is an axiomatic concept. It can only be defined ostensively. There is only one concept more fundamental and that is "existence". In grasping that things exist we also grasp that we possess consciousness. Before we could know that we are conscious we would have to first be conscious of something external to us. That is why the concept of a consciousness conscious only of itself is a contradiction and commits the fallacy of pure self-reference. Conscious of itself doing what? Blank out.

So here is the definition of consciousness: It is the faculty that perceives that which exists.

It should be clear why the concept of consciousness as the faculty that perceives that which exists, or objects, is not an arbitrary concept. In case it's not I'll spell it out for you. Consciousness is directly observable. It exists in reality and can be observed through introspection. When I'm conscious, I'm always conscious of an object.

You had also asked me to prove consciousness exists. Oh, the irony. Caspernl, the concept of proof wrests on and indeed would be meaningless without consciousness. Consciousness is an axiomatic concept. In order to prove anything you would first have to be conscious of something.

You wrote: I want to focus on studying about Jesus, this is very distracting. If anybody can offer me some help on the first post pleas do.

You said in your OP that you wanted help in analyzing an argument for fallacies. I pointed out a fundamental fallacy in the articles' argument and now you say that you want to study about Jesus. I don't know why you'd want to find some fallacies and ignore others. It's clear that you don't really want to learn about logic and reason. It's clear to me that you are more interested in protecting your confessional investment in your faith. I know you desperately want to take the discussion away from the insurmountable flaw that I have pointed out. You want to quibble over definitions and motivations, anything to distract us from this issue I have raised. It's clear that you have no answer to it. That should be a real red flag for you.

As to why Atheists would want to come onto a Christian forum, I can't speak for others but I do it for entirely selfish reasons. I love and care about ideas. I find it enjoyable to help people to untangle the messes created by the irrational epistemology of religion. I know first hand what it can do to a mind. Someone helped me to see the fundamental errors that I was making and the mass of contradictions in my worldview that I didn't even know were there simply because I listed to the preacher when he told me not to question and to "just have faith". I'm simply trying to pay it forward.
__________________

Your not explaining how your statements on consciousness are not arbitrary. The ones i pointed out.YOu made a statement that every argument for god makes the self reference fallacy.Then you base this on arbitrary statements.The burden of proof is on you.SO i am still waiting for this.

And i take offence to the statements you make on why i believe in God.The fact that you fell from your faith because you where indoctrinated by this phisicalistic bull doesnt mean you have to pay this forward to me.Since i havent asked for this.The same as that i am not going to push my faith down your throath. And remarks about ministers saying "just have faith"is also bull. All the ministers i have talked to have said pursue your questions. DOnt have blind faith.

It's clear that you don't really want to learn about logic and reason. It's clear to me that you are more interested in protecting your confessional investment in your faith. I know you desperately want to take the discussion away from the insurmountable flaw that I have pointed out.

I take offence to this because in the whole topic you nit pick and ignore my statements because there so called arbitrary and not worth considering.The problem is that your first fallacy is based on arbitrary statements of consciousness.You can give me ten books on your view of consciousness but that does not take away the fact that it is just as unprovable as my claims.But wait you refuse to counter my claims on there arbitrarybess so you circumvented that. Now your saying its clear i dont want to learn about logic.
This is an ad hominem attack. You know what i want and think now?

You clearly define consciousness with ayn rand or whatever. There is no proof of this its all arbitrary.If you want to accept this as true thats your choice but forcing it to be true makes you the leader of the argumental "arena".You say what is proven or not because you say so.Its an argument from ignorance.

Yes you can think of all kinds of things that don't exist in reality but these are not objects of consciousness. They are subjective. You can do this by imagining. Your imagination can rearrange percepts and combine them to make imaginary creatures but these are imaginary and you can only do this because you have actually seen a real Elephant or a picture of one and you have seen the color pink.

You cant prove to me anything about consciousness. Since it is not physical thus not provable by your standard.So my view on consciousness is just as valid as your view.I dont understand why you take ayn rands view on consciousness as true but not mine.Since there is no proof for both views.It just tells me that you have a double standard on arguments.
Again you dont constitute what is true and not, proof does.
You dont want to argue about my arbitrary arguments and your arguments are not arbitrary because i am to stupid to see there not?

So you can define an object as you see fit for your believe in atheism but this is no proof.Again please give me PROOF as to why your arguments on consciousness are not arbitrary. i mistakenly said define an object i would agree with that. But i should have said what is the proof of your definition of this object?

God is above our consciousness, he is even more then just consciousness.He is a spirit being.He surely isnt bound by thinking of things that are created since he just "is". You can say thinking about things is only possible because of objects in this created world. This is arbitrary.Mental states are different than brain states because there metaphysical. the cannot come to exist out of physical parts.
Belittling God to just consciousness is arbitrary and saying he is conscious just like us is arbitrary. The maker of the house is bigger then the house.
Don’t try to fit him in your view of consciousness.Thats why God said dont make images of me.
My statement focussing on Jesus is about me investing in my faith.This topic was not to discuss Ayn rand or whatever stuff you believe it was about my first post. My walk with Jesus is involved around this first post.