Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[ERLOS]

Yes, all findings in science are always tentative. If all you can do is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the scientific method you only shoot yourself in the foot. You tried to accuse others of your wrong doings. There is evidence for consciousness being a totally "mechanical" process. I can support my claims with evidence. What evidence is there for there being more to thought than just the physical?

I'm not a scientist. Got my own trade. But Roger Penronse seems to think it might be (more than just physical). I believe. He's a famous scientist.
http://m.nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute

Honestly I can't spend all day here ...

 

[SalixIncendium]

That is mostly word salad. Perhaps a little ranch dressing would work.

I'm less than impressed with your hand-waving rhetoric. It's bad form to insult the intelligence of another just because you lack the ability or desire to comprehend something. I'll thank you not to make that error again.

Meanwhile they the seat of consciousness may have been found:

https://www.sciencealert.com/harvar...pinpointed-the-neural-source-of-consciousness

Now do you have anything at all that supports something other than a physical origin of thought and consciousness?

Shopping Google for random articles, are we? I can play, too.

https://www.scienceandnonduality.co...nce-of-consciousness-in-ancient-india-part-1/

Don't like that one? How about...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/828324/Human-consciousness-universe-quantum-theory

The point is there is no "strong evidence" to draw the conclusion that consciousness is a product of the brain. There are simply hypotheses. The evidence you present is no "stronger" than the subjective evidence of the experience of a yogi or a mystic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not a scientist. Got my own trade. But Roger Penronse seems to think it might be (more than just physical). I believe. He's a famous scientist.
http://m.nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute

Honestly I can't spend all day here ...

So what? Roger Penrose's specialty is not thought. His opinion has no more weight than mine in this matter. You don't use a doctor as an "expert" on car repair. This is an appeal to authority fallacy.

All you have to do is to admit that you have nothing while those that oppose you do have evidence for their beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm less than impressed with your hand-waving rhetoric. It's bad form to insult the intelligence of another just because you lack the ability or desire to comprehend something. I'll thank you not to make that error again.

You were the one waving your hands, not me. Why do believers in woo always accuse others of their sins?

Shopping Google for random articles, are we? I can play, too.

https://www.scienceandnonduality.co...nce-of-consciousness-in-ancient-india-part-1/

Don't like that one? How about...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/828324/Human-consciousness-universe-quantum-theory

The point is there is no "strong evidence" to draw the conclusion that consciousness is a product of the brain. There are simply hypotheses. The evidence you present is no "stronger" than the subjective evidence of the experience of a yogi or a mystic.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You were the one waving your hands, not me. Why do believers in woo always accuse others of their sins?

Rather than making an attempt to understand what I originally stated, you call my post "word salad" and then you resort to an ad hominem fallacy.

If that's all you have for me, can we be done here?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rather than making an attempt to understand what I originally stated, you call my post "word salad" and then you resort to an ad hominem fallacy.

If that's all you have for me, can we be done here?

Sorry, there was no ad hominem. You did post word salad. That was an observation. There was nothing to understand. Then after that wild spate of hand waving you accused me of your sin.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is there any reason to think that God, if God exists, would want 100% of people in the world to believe in Him?

Yes: that’s how the character has often been written... like how Winnie the Pooh likes honey: he’s that way because the authors decided he would be that way.

Does there need to be a deeper reason?

If God wanted everyone to believe in Him, what do you think God would do in order to accomplish that?

As a starting point, consider things that are universally accepted as true. What convinced everyone that, say, rain is made out of water or that fire is hot? There are beliefs that everyone holds, so this suggests it’s definitely possible for everyone to believe in something.

As for the specifics of how a god could do this... if we’re talking about an all-knowing god, then it’s necessarily true that he knows how to do it even if we don’t... right?

Do you think that God can show up on earth? If so, how would God do that?

If “magic poofing” works as an explanation for everything else God does, why not this?

How would God create a universe? How would God communicate with prophets? Seems to me you’re asking others to clear a bar you haven’t cleared yourself.

 

[Sir Doom]

@Trailblazer
Regarding the self-centered:
Anyone who speaks on God's behalf seems to do so without any authority and is therefore attempting to borrow God's infallibility and paste it onto their own personal ideas in an effort to avoid any and all argument from critical evaluation if their message. In short, they are trying to sound right without being right.

Regarding humility:
I do value humility, but everything has its place. Arrogance has its uses, as well. Behavior is a tool box. Pick the tool to fit the work. In my current environment humility is often expected and is typically mimicked to that effect. I refuse to play that particular game.

I can see how it would seem humble to admit a lack of knowledge, but I really only do so out of a fierce desire to be right instead of just sounding right (as those I mentioned above). If I don't know, then saying so is correct and becomes another thing to be right about. Speculation notwithstanding.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Sorry, there was no ad hominem. You did post word salad. That was an observation. There was nothing to understand.

Ah, but there was. You continue to make the same error. But if you simply show the desire to understand and set aside your biases, I can help you to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm less than impressed with your hand-waving rhetoric. It's bad form to insult the intelligence of another just because you lack the ability or desire to comprehend something. I'll thank you not to make that error again.



Shopping Google for random articles, are we? I can play, too.

https://www.scienceandnonduality.co...nce-of-consciousness-in-ancient-india-part-1/

Don't like that one? How about...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/828324/Human-consciousness-universe-quantum-theory

The point is there is no "strong evidence" to draw the conclusion that consciousness is a product of the brain. There are simply hypotheses. The evidence you present is no "stronger" than the subjective evidence of the experience of a yogi or a mystic.

I have to add to my former answer. You do not realize it but you admitted that your beliefs are inferior in this post. Yes, what I have are hypotheses. But they are scientific hypotheses. That means that they are testable and are supported by evidence. A full answer does not exist yet that is why it is still in the realm of hypothesis. You appear to have nothing. You have no evidence. I have actual scientific evidence as shown in just that one article that I linked. It is a falsehood to equate the evidence I have with the woo based nonsense of a mystic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, but there was. You continue to make the same error. But if you simply show the desire to understand, I can help you learn.

If there is anything to understand then try again. Ease up on the flapping and support your claims.

 

[PureX]

Ah, but there was. You continue to make the same error. But if you simply show the desire to understand and set aside your biases, I can help you to learn.

The term "word salad" means that the accuser does not understand what's being said, and so assumes that nothing intelligible is being said. It's both irrational and dishonest to assume that if anything could be understood, it would have been, by the person making the accusation. But no one has ever accused the human ego of being rational, or of being honest.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I have to add to my former answer. You do not realize it but you admitted that your beliefs are inferior in this post.

Explain

Yes, what I have are hypotheses. But they are scientific hypotheses. That means that they are testable and are supported by evidence. A full answer does not exist yet that is why it is still in the realm of hypothesis. You appear to have nothing. You have no evidence. I have actual scientific evidence as shown in just that one article that I linked. It is a falsehood to equate the evidence I have with the woo based nonsense of a mystic.

What I have is subjective evidence based on my experiences. In my attempt to help you to learn and understand, you ever so arrogantly call my generous efforts "word salad" and dismiss them. Again, I can help you if you set aside your bias.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Is there any reason to think that God, if God exists, would want 100% of people in the world to believe in Him?

If God wanted everyone to believe in Him, what do you think God would do in order to accomplish that?

Do you think that God can show up on earth? If so, how would God do that?

God, as described by most religions, could easily reveal himself to everyone if he chose to. So, either this type of God doesn't exist, or he doesn't want everyone to believe in him, and thus hides himself.

 

[PureX]

God, as described by most religions, could easily reveal himself to everyone if he chose to.

Sure, but don't you think that's exactly why so many religions conceptualize and depict "God" in that way? After all, the whole point of religion is to provide a set of ideals and practices for the 'believer' to use to better recognize and understand their relationship to their "God". The point of religion is not to define God so much as it's to provide an idea of God to people that they can use, successfully, in their lives. Anyone who's interested in theology isn't going to allow a religion to define "God" for them. The place for religion is AFTER the theology, not before.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If there is anything to understand then try again. Ease up on the flapping and support your claims.

*smiles* Who is doing the flapping? It's not very fun being on the other side of what you commonly dish out, is it?

But I digress. Let's go back to what I said...

'Consciousness' is not 'mental ability' nor is it 'thought.' Consciousness is your existence before (or more accurately, behind) thought or the ability to perform mental processes. You are here before a thought arrives, and you are here after a thought has departed.

I am not my thoughts. I am not my body. I am not my mind. I simply am.

The observer is conscious, and in being conscious is consciousness. The observer needs only to observe, to be aware. No thought is required to observe. The observer exists before a thought, and remains after a thought.

Can you observe your thoughts? Who is it that is doing the observing? Who is it that exists before thought? Who is it that thinks? Who is it that is aware?

 

[SalixIncendium]

The term "word salad" means that the accuser does not understand what's being said, and so assumes that nothing intelligible is being said. It's both irrational and dishonest to assume that if anything could be understood, it would have been, by the person making the accusation. But no one has ever accused the human ego of being rational, or of being honest.

Indeed.

I do my best to be impeccable with my word. It's unfortunate that someone would simply assume something is unintelligible without asking for any elaboration and dismiss what is being said as 'word salad.' But like you said, that is a product of ego, which creates bias and causes one to closed-minded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The term "word salad" means that the accuser does not understand what's being said, and so assumes that nothing intelligible is being said. It's both irrational and dishonest to assume that if anything could be understood, it would have been, by the person making the accusation. But no one has ever accused the human ego of being rational, or of being honest.

Hardly. It is an indication that unsupported nonsense was posted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

*smiles* Who is doing the flapping? It's not very fun being on the other side of what you commonly dish out, is it?

But I digress. Let's go back to what I said...

You were. You made a series of unsupported statements and came to a unjustified conclusion.

The observer is conscious, and in being conscious is consciousness. The observer needs only to observe, to be aware. No thought is required to observe. The observer exists before a thought, and remains after a thought.

Flapping and nonsense again.

Can you observe your thoughts? Who is it that is doing the observing? Who is it that exists before thought? Who is it that thinks? Who is it that is aware?

Please. If you want to claim to have evidence or a reason to believe in what you believe you might want to back up a bit. In using the scientific method a hypothesis can be formed and it can be tested. That was done by the Harvard researchers in the article that I linked. They can claim to have evidence. You on the other hand only appear to be playing word games.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed.

I do my best to be impeccable with my word. It's unfortunate that someone would simply assume something is unintelligible without asking for any elaboration and dismiss what is being said as 'word salad.' But like you said, that is a product of ego, which creates bias and causes one to closed-minded.

That is a false accusation. There was no assumption. Your post was unsupported nonsense. It earned the dismissal given to it. I am far from close minded. If you can support your claims my mind can be changed.