Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Colter]

[QUOTE="Colter, post: 69142900, member: 90929"
This is what I said: "Yes, one must be apart from the universe in order to be conscious of the universe."

I'm not apart from the universe, but I'm conscious of it.

If you are concious of the universe you are more than the mechanics of the universe.

 

[Colter]

"The cleverness and dexterity of the false philosophies of mechanism belie their very mechanistic contentions. The fatalistic agility of the mind of a materialist forever disproves his assertions that the universe is a blind and purposeless energy phenomenon" UB1955

 

[The Cadet]

"The cleverness and dexterity of the false philosophies of mechanism belie their very mechanistic contentions."

"I'm right even if every rational argument says I'm wrong."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"The cleverness and dexterity of the false philosophies of mechanism belie their very mechanistic contentions. The fatalistic agility of the mind of a materialist forever disproves his assertions that the universe is a blind and purposeless energy phenomenon" UB1955

It's as if you expect the UB to have some purchase on us.

 

[Colter]

"I'm right even if every rational argument says I'm wrong."

The term "rational" has limitations. If someone said 200 years ago man could send videos through the air, pay bills through the air, see his home from space on a plastic thing in his pocket, the first question might be, what's plastic? Followed by "none of that is rational" therefore it's absurd!

 

[Colter]

It's as if you expect the UB to have some purchase on us.

What I expect is perhaps foolish on my part, the idea that you are really a truth seeker. The UB is presenting philosophical ideas as well as purported revelation in it's organization of those ideas. It's as if you are afraid of ideas other than your own conclusions?

 

[The Cadet]

If someone said 200 years ago man could send videos through the air, pay bills through the air, see his home from space on a plastic thing in his pocket, the first question might be, what's plastic? Followed by "none of that is rational" therefore it's absurd!

If I just made all that crap up with absolutely nothing to back it, then yes, I'd be called absurd, and rightfully so! After all, I might as well be talking about magic! But if I then proceeded to explain in theory and demonstrate in practice the scientific principles on which each of these discoveries rely, then it would absolutely be rational to believe me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What I expect is perhaps foolish on my part, the idea that you are really a truth seeker. The UB is presenting philosophical ideas as well as purported revelation in it's organization of those ideas. It's as if you are afraid of ideas other than your own conclusions?

You think I'm afraid of the pseudo-profound? Don't confuse amusement for fear.

 

[Colter]

If I just made all that crap up with absolutely nothing to back it, then yes, I'd be called absurd, and rightfully so! After all, I might as well be talking about magic! But if I then proceeded to explain in theory and demonstrate in practice the scientific principles on which each of these discoveries rely, then it would absolutely be rational to believe me.

Well yea, that's a given. If you just made things up. Jesus proved his authority to teach by resurrecting a likeness of his mortal body from the dead. But to Jesus it wasn't magic, he knows how to do it. To God nothing is magic or a miracle, finite minds call the inexplicable magic. The Bantu tribe might think a Tylenol is a miracle or magic. It's not rational to them and they don't even have a wide enough intellectual platform to explain it to them.

 

[Colter]

You think I'm afraid of the pseudo-profound? Don't confuse amusement for fear.

That's a little paranoid don't you think? Besides, you are generally defensive about my quotes and don't respond directly to them so you leave it open to speculation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's a little paranoid don't you think? Besides, you are generally defensive about my quotes and don't respond directly to them so you leave it open to speculation.

I don't respond directly to Deepak Chopra quotes either.

 

[Colter]

I don't respond directly to Deepak Chopra quotes either.

But you do respond....just not to the ideas contained. I think it's best for you just not to respond if its that difficult.

 

[HitchSlap]

If you are concious of the universe you are more than the mechanics of the universe.

Nope, I'm just a part of it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But you do respond....just not to the ideas contained. I think it's best for you just not to respond if its that difficult.

I do respond to the ideas, by noting that while pretending to be deep, they are not even shallow (to paraphrase Nietzsche).

 

[Colter]

I do respond to the ideas, by noting that while pretending to be deep, they are not even shallow (to paraphrase Nietzsche).

Ok up there on your high horse, when something is good enough for your growing egotism to reply to, grace us with it.

 

[Colter]

Nope, I'm just a part of it.

That's an observation from the position of being apart from it. If you were just a part of the mechanistic universe you wouldn't observe it.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's an observation from the position of being apart from it. If you were just a part of the mechanistic universe you wouldn't observe it.

Why?

 

[Colter]

Why?

Because the thing observed is not the observer. That's the difference between a thing devoid of mind and consciousness that evaluates and values in contrast. The moon doesn't look at the earth and value its beauty, however a mind on the moon conscious of values might make such an observation. That's why I have been saying consciousness trancends the purely material. Man is more than a mechanism governed by the laws of math.

 

[HitchSlap]

Because the thing observed is not the observer. That's the difference between a thing devoid of mind and consciousness that evaluates and values in contrast. The moon doesn't look at the earth and value its beauty, however a mind on the moon conscious of values might make such an observation. That's why I have been saying consciousness trancends the purely material. Man is more than a mechanism governed by the laws of math.

Right. I observe the house I live in, yet recognize I am not my house. I didn't even transcend once to make this claim. Your attempt to reify "consciousness" is unnecessary when describing our observation of reality. Assuming you could establish anything is even able to "transcend," you still haven't adequately explained why it's necessary.

 

[Colter]

Right. I observe the house I live in, yet recognize I am not my house. I didn't even transcend once to make this claim. Your attempt to reify "consciousness" is unnecessary when describing our observation of reality. Assuming you could establish anything is even able to "transcend," you still haven't adequately explained why it's necessary.

I'm not talking about your house, I'm talking about the material that your brain is composed of including the energy that mind operates on. There are precise laws that govern those material things. Consciousness transects those material things, consciousness is liberated from the grasp of their material properties, consciousness is not effected by gravitational pull on those things.