Theological Parodies (Creator, tradition, Revelation, prophet, atheist)

[UltraViolet]

Originally Posted by rojse

Personal experience would be a good start, because there is a lot of reliance upon this here.

I would say that we all form our beliefs on the basis of our own personal experiences.
What else would we form them on?

Originally Posted by rojse

Either God exists or he does not. If he does not, then I am right, and the question need not be asked. If he does exist, then God does not want to contact me, or has not been able to so that I could appreciate that he was. Either way shows that he is not worthy of my attention, seeing as though he has apparently decided, and been able, to present himself to millions of religious people.

Many non-religious people also have their own personal experience(s) of God(s) as well. The "God experience" is in no way bound to "religion", or religious concepts. (from the little I know of you here, I would say that YOUR WAY of viewing life/the world is complete without, and in fact only what it is, without any "realizations" of "God contact". Anything else would make you a different person, living a different reality. This seems to be your prefered reality, and so it is.)

Originally Posted by rojse

I have many logical arguments as to why God cannot exist. If you wish to discuss them, please start another thread or ask my by the internal mail system, because we are getting sidetracked from the question of the FSM..

You have many logical arguments as to why WHICH God cannot exist?
Which God concept do your logical arguments counter?
The christian God? Yet how many other God concepts are there.
You cannot possibly counter DIFFERENT concepts
with the same arguments.
There is no one all encompasing concept of "God".
Neither are your arguments all encompasing.
Really, if you are refuting the Christian concept of God,
you should preface your arguments in light of your SPECIFIC subject.

Originally Posted by rojse

You cannot prove something to someone who is not open to the idea that there is a possibility that they may be wrong,

Agreed. You also cannot share a new perspective with someone who looks at life (or a "subject") openly through only one lense, or another.

Originally Posted by rojse

and the caveats that are always developed in theology when a new logical argument against God is developed are nothing short of amazing.

True. And yet the same can be said for anyone who feels they need to hold to a position. (whatever it might be)

Originally Posted by rojse

I do not believe in things that I cannot support through facts or argument, so I do not see why you wish to compare your faith to my system of supported ideas. You believe in something that you cannot prove, except to yourself and anyone that agrees with you. If you ask for my opinion on a subject, I will tell you that I either do not know, or support my stance through facts, logic, or rational arguments..

No point in comparing realities based in/formed around completely different systems.
We all support our beliefs on one thing or another,
as well, we tend to lean on things that support our own beliefs.

Originally Posted by rojse

I have proved it to myself, and that is by far enough for me.

Since you choose to order your life by the god of Proof, then that CERTAINLY should be more than enough for you.

Originally Posted by rojse

Evidence of something is part of a proof. However, nothing can ever be conclusively proved, only proven until it is unreasonable to disbelieve.

It does no good however to imagine you are disproving an entire subject/concept,
when you are combating but one potential concept of the "subject" you are (blind-spottedly) "evidencing".

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

If neuronal activity is the inevitable outcome of mechanistic probabilities that are devoid of consciousness, consciousness is not really consciousness at all but an illusion.

Depends what you believe consciousness to be. Out of curiosity, what do you believe consciousness to be?

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone

You mean to say that they arose as the result of the interactions of people with nothing in common?

No. There was a period with no discernible entity that could be called England. Before the Earth was formed for instance. Now there is. England did not as a result defy the logic of 'nothing comes from nothing'.

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone

The problem of trying to create an objective theory of subjective experience has been labeled the "hard problem" of consciousness by David Chalmers

That doesn't render your objection sound though. You asserted that consciousness can not emerge from non-consciousness, but have not justified it. Granted it is a difficult question, especially from a materialistic/physicalist point of view. It's also quite fascinating, and from a non-mechanistic view it would seem hard to ever devise an answer.

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone

That's an assumption.

I accept that. I have difficulty ignoring it since single celled organisms exhibit none of the signs of consciousness (unless you take the philosophical approach that Dennett suggests when he said thermometers are conscious), and we were all single celled at some stage (another assumption). Do you find that unreasonable or unreasoned?

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Depends what you believe consciousness to be. Out of curiosity, what do you believe consciousness to be?

I haven't a clue. But self-consciousness seems to be a community consciousness; i.e., the part and the whole.

No. There was a period with no discernible entity that could be called England. Before the Earth was formed for instance. Now there is. England did not as a result defy the logic of 'nothing comes from nothing'.

I don't follow. Sounds to me like you're talking about evolution of matter rather than matter having become aware of consciousness.

That doesn't render your objection sound though. You asserted that consciousness can not emerge from non-consciousness, but have not justified it. Granted it is a difficult question, especially from a materialistic/physicalist point of view. It's also quite fascinating, and from a non-mechanistic view it would seem hard to ever devise an answer.

You're asserting consciousness emerged from matter, not me. As I said before, yours is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

Nevertheless, assuming consciousness rather than matter-energy as the ground of all being, I can say (and some have) the zero point field is an infinite field of information that the human brain can tap in to. That is, the infinite field of information is the ultimate cause of "matter" and organizes it in such a way that a reciprocal relationship is possible--self-consciousness, in other words.

Ironic, isn't it? The onus is on you to prove your assertion (being an extraordinary claim and all) but I've given you more than you've given me.

I accept that. I have difficulty ignoring it since single celled organisms exhibit none of the signs of consciousness (unless you take the philosophical approach that Dennett suggests when he said thermometers are conscious), and we were all single celled at some stage (another assumption). Do you find that unreasonable or unreasoned?

Unreasoned. Where does consciousness begin/end? Even elementary particles appear to conscious. It's even been postulated that quanta is a condensed form of information/consciousness.

As I posted in another thread: wouldn't it be better to find your own answers, to go further on your own path, rather than pausing to tear down the beliefs of others with information they've already considered? (It's obvious you didn't go to the link I provided, much less explore it)

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

You're asserting consciousness emerged from matter, not me. As I said before, yours is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

I happily admit that I am no position to demonstrate that/how consciousness emerged from matter. I'm merely stating that the grounds upon which you are rejecting the idea do not appear sound.

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone

Nevertheless, assuming consciousness rather than matter-energy as the ground of all being, I can say (and some have) the zero point field is an infinite field of information that the human brain can tap in to. That is, the infinite field of information is the ultimate cause of "matter" and organizes it in such a way that a reciprocal relationship is possible--self-consciousness, in other words.

Ironic, isn't it? The onus is on you to prove your assertion (being an extraordinary claim and all) but I've given you more than you've given me.

My impression is that you have a better grasp of these topics than I do, and while I do not readily accept your claims (or always understand them for that matter) I understand that they are more sophisticated than my own at this time. Until recently I had not even considered the idea that consciousness was a remarkable property (more remarkable than other adaptations) of humans and other animals...you may understand my surprise to read your suggestion that it is the foundation of all that exists. When I feel I have something to offer, I won't be shy.

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone

As I posted in another thread: wouldn't it be better to find your own answers, to go further on your own path, rather than pausing to tear down the beliefs of others with information they've already considered? (It's obvious you didn't go to the link I provided, much less explore it)

I'm not sure I've went out of my way to tear people down. I'm much more interested in trying to get my head around other people's beliefs. I must have missed that link. Sorry.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone

If neuronal activity is the inevitable outcome of mechanistic probabilities that are devoid of consciousness, consciousness is not really consciousness at all but an illusion.

I agree about the incoherency that you point out here but don't understand why we then need a non-mechanistic way of justifying the existence of consciousness. Why not conclude that consciousness is an illusion?

[WhiteSeal]

I think we've all forgotten the beginnings of this thread.
Are you trying to tell me that.....the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real? Liars. Everyone knows that's exactly what God would look like. Then again....there are so many of you to counter argue. My religion is falling to pieces around me.

The world loses more faithful people that way.

Religion is heavily flawed, everyone with a faith should realize that. Parodies point out irreparable flaws in religions, which is probably why people get mad at them. I find most to be hilarious. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true God, by the way.

[Fluffy]

If you believe that religion is flawed and use parody to justify belief in these flaws then your flaws are held on faith or confirmation bias. A parody should not be used to demonstrate a flaw but to discover whether a perceived flaw really is a flaw.

In other words the attitude that leads to their use should be exploratory, not goal-oriented.