Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Atheism is illogical because...
To know there is no God one would have to know and experience all things, . .
I appreciate the effort, but you can't seem to get past one problem: assertions are just that, assertions. Claiming you have the Truth is not evidence that you have the Truth.
All of the evidence is consistent with our consciousness being the physical property of our brains. When you damage the brain you damage consciousness. You can alter consciousness by altering the chemistry of the brain.
Why do insist on "asserting" that my beliefs are assertions?
What's true for me may not be true for you, but this has no effect on what's absolutely true simply because we are subjective and can not have an effect on absolute truth, if we could effect absolute truth, then that truth would not be absolute. I "believe" in an absolute truth, do you?
Do you know what the most important lesson is from 83,000 brain scans? Take a look.
I know that fMRI can predict what a person is thinking.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/409705/mind-reading-with-functional-mri/
I know that we can map consciousness by mapping brain injury.
http://news.illinois.edu/news/12/0410braininjury_AronBarbey.html
That is very strong evidence.
Strong evidence for what? Consciousness?
Evidence that the brain is the seat of consciousness. The consciousness is the product of the brain.
Because they are.
What's absolutely true has nothing to do with the ability to assert that you have the absolute truth. Believing something to be true does not make it true.
Can you answere this question: do you believe in an absolute truth?
Or do you choose to withhold belief until the absolute truth is presented?
Consider this, when the absolute truth is presented to you, in that moment you'll realize that withholding belief in absolute truth is actually the ultimate disception.
What objective criteria do we use to determine if something is absolute truth?
This is exactly why we must believe. We can't be absolutely objective we can only be subjectively objective, which is not absolute.
So in reality "objectivity" does not exist, there's either absolute objectivity or there's subjective objectivity. If objectivity does exist beyond our subjective minds, it must be absolute and unalterable. If it is alterable then it becomes subjective. So in order to determine if absolute truth exists you must first believe in it, in order to determine that it does not exist you must not believe in it. This is all I have to offer, my beliefs. If you continue to not understand my beliefs, it must be because you don't want to understand them, if you don't want to understand them, then I'm going to move on.
I await your presentation of some testable, falsifiable evidence.
But this is not the Christian "God", is it?
I didn't think so. But, feel free to respond with some empty argumentation if you feel it necessary.
Anything else? Hate, Jealousy, Rage? How do we test this? How is it falsifiable?
Why can you Christians not reach a consensus among yourselves?
The only "mind" than I am aware of is that which is an emergent property of a brain. What does this god use for a brain?
Why not just follow the evidence?
I did not think you had anything.Technically that isn't even necessary to demonstrate the *possibility* that the universe is aware. You'll have to concede the "possibility" aspect sooner or later, with or without "evidence" to support it.
Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.Well, let's see...
The "Christian" God both communicates with, and has an effect on humans.
Right. Some people get hit by lightning.The universe definitely has a tangible effect on humans,
Allegedly "living".and a living universe that operates on EM fields,
Or, not.much like the intelligent structures of our brains,
A communication process that you cannot show exists,just might help to explain that communication process, perhaps even in purely empirical terms.
I would not put forth your credulousness as support for your ideas.I don't see why not. As long as you don't mistake the little sliver of the universe that is visible to us from Earth, I really don't see why not.
I started two whole treads on Panetheism for you peruse and comment on at your leisure. No point in hijacking this tread about 'possibilities". Panetheism is in fact an *empirical* possibility, not just *any* type of possibility.
Different goalposts.How is the existence of love falsifiable?
His post implied that modern cosmology was limited to atheism and scientists. What I implied back, and say to you: if you cannot convince your fellow Christians of the veracity of your personal cosmology claims, why take it to the unbelievers? Sort it out among yourselves.Why would you expect that in the first place?
You sentence is semantically broken. Do those that do not collect stamps have a consensus on everything that they believe/lack belief in?Do atheist have a consensus on *everything* that they believe/lack belief in?
I did not think you had anything.
Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.
Right. Some people get hit by lightning.
lol.
Allegedly "living".
Or, not.
A communication process that you cannot show exists,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?