Tercel

My objection to Koy is purely based on the obnoxious manner in which he presents the information. I post here because I enjoy discussing the subjects of theology, philosophy etc. I have found (after a very length trial period of many thousands of words) that do not enjoy discussion with Koy, hence I do not discuss anything with him. Intelligent discussion is based on mutual respect (or a least a suspension of disrespect), Koy does not seem capable of achieving this. If someone feels Koy has made good points, I would be happy to respond to those points if another poster wanted to rephrase them in a way more pleasant to read.
I am aware this makes me seem rather childish, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. In the past I, and other Christian posters here have made complaints to the moderators about Koy's behaviour. They saw fit to allow it to continue, that's fine it's their board. So most Christian posters on this board now simply boycott Koy's posts.

I must also say I'm rather disappointed with you guys, I'm not seeing much logical discussion of the subject (what there is of that, I'll respond to shortly), but rather I'm seeing a lot of the good old "Oh please... That simply CAN'T be correct because the conclusion disagrees with what I believe, and if you believed what I believed they you'd think that to!"

I've gotta love the statements of faith that consciousness is nothing special. (You know when atheists say "If only you'd read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" reminds me of "If only you'd read Evidence That Demands A Verdict then you'd know the Truth!") Fine, if consciousness is nothing special, you obviously won't mind me attributing it to the first cause. Right?

mike_decock

OK.

Would you be willing to expand on the nature of these other realms? Is it mor like alternate universes? Is it all part of the same universe-creating mind?

So you believe that our mind (consciousness) resides within our natural bodies during this life span and will continue? Do you hold this belief due to the evidence you have witnessed/experienced? Why do you reject materialistic/naturalistic explanations of your evidence?

Do you believe that our mind (consciousness) can/will be scientifically detected/observed? Do you believe that the universe-creating mind can/will be scientifically detected/observed?

-Mike...

Tercel

Ronin,
That's one vicious looking bunny you've got there! Are those things teeth? Is it canivorous or something?
I'm sorry, but it just doesn't look fluffy enough to me.

mike_decock

Positing that there must be a God because you don't understand how consciousness can be a natural phenomenon is an argument from incredulity.

Just because you don't know how to define consciousness or understand how it evolved, doesn't mean it can't be understood.

I'm not saying that consciousness is "nothing special", it certainly is and it is probably one of the most fascinating phenomena in the natural world. I'm saying that the existence of consciousness does not require you to assume a supernatural cause. Others (like Jaynes) have done a superb job defining what consciousness is and offers a convincing theory of how it evolved.

Ignorance isn't evidence.

-Mike...

emotional

They are alternate dimensions existing side-by-side with this one. They can be discerned, but not by the six senses. They are part of the universe-creating mind.



I believe there is a duplicate body, an etheric body, which comes out of the physical body after its death.



They imply there is no life after death, and the possibility that there is no life after death just scares me stiff.

(Lest you consider this emotional motive as evidence that I believe in false things, then I'd like to remind you: wishing something to be true does not make it false (or true either)).

I believe science can find it all. It just needs a refinement of techniques and instruments.

For more info, look into the Survivalist Links on my website.

mike_decock

OK, I think I understand your beliefs a little better. My apologies for assuming you are a theist

Now I just think you're a spiritualist

I actually do wish for an afterlife of some sort. I simply don't believe there is one because I haven't seen any convincing evidence to prove that there is one.

-Mike...

emotional

That's true. I don't like that label, it sound as if I were one of those who contact the dead, and I don't do that, but it fits

So badly needing to believe in the afterlife, I've been scouring the Internet and buying lots of books to convince myself of it. In the past I tried to bury my fear of death, but it was always there, and finally the news of the SARS outbreak broke the camel's back (I now know it doesn't have such a high mortality rate, but I didn't know when I first heard of it, so I rushed to find any life-after-death literature I could).

Tercel

Of course it does: A reasonable criteria for ruling out pink-fluffy-bunnies also rules out the universe as the first thing, but not God. I can understand why you'd find that conclusion difficult though.

I do have a problem with this yes, but it's not really my main problem.
I am always amused to see people assert that "Non-consciousness can give rise (insert ~wave hands~ here) to consciousness". (note the magic words "give rise" which claim so much yet reveal so little)

Nope. Nobody's any closer to working out the magic mechanism. The best people seem to be able to do is redefine "matter" until its so close to consciousness as makes no difference, so they can still claim to be materialists and yet are really pantheists.

As a person who's worked with computers most of my life and currently doing postgraduate study in computer science, I have never managed to work out how people could think what you apparently think.

Define consciousness? I'm not sure I want to do that, or even could. An awareness? Perception? Something like that.

I can cope with that, Christians don't last long around here unless they have a thick skin, since you atheists tend to be non-complementary. (Though even I don't appreciate being told I should be in a mental instituation along with all other theists) It's not that Koy said "Christianity is a cult" once, but that he repeats the statement ad nauseum throughout unrelated discussion. It is simply one of a number of things that have led me to conclude he simply gets enjoyment out of being obnoxious and has no real desire for rational discourse.

Tercel

Because God doesn't have arbitrary properties such as "pinkness" or "fluffiness" or "shape". All God has is purpose or awareness or consciousness - whatever name you happen to like for the phenomina.

Oh, yeah, the magical "none at all". How could I possibly forget that?

I see it's the "Oh, please" argument from incredularity. That's fine:
Oh, please.
Why is it atheists are so sure that consciousness is nothing mysterious despite the fact that we struggle to even describe it properly, never mind explain it.

That doesn't magically solve the problem of logic and true propositions. Mathematical theorems etc which can be proved true based on logical argument, are not material and hence technically "don't exist" according to a purely materialistic view of reality. And yet they are universal truths, which not only are real, but are real everywhere.

The predicable standard cop-out.
I see... laws don't "govern matter"... matter has nothing controlling it, it just magically governs itself... this magic causes matter to always behave in a way which conforms to these laws "describing" matter.
I'm afraid I've never really understood why something with nothing governing it, would "just so happen" to act in complete accordance with certain formula which might well be "mistaken" for actual rules governing it.

Amaranth

All right, I bit and went ahead and started looking around the second of those survivalist sites. Front page center was Victor Zammit and his "disprove the afterlife" challenge, which I have heard of before but never read. Cool beans, because he seems to be a big figure in this survivalist thing - two stones with one bird, reading his site, I thought.

My mistake, I suppose. The first story is nothing but ad populam propoganda for the masses - "Look at these numbers of believers! See, we are right!" It also quotes that "16% of hard core traditional scientists [state that they have been in contact with those who had crossed over]", supposedly taken from a Gallup poll (no link). Anyways, I wonder how Gallup identifies "hard core traditional scientists." I don't remember a "hard core democratic left" group in the last Bush popularity polls, for instance.

And how about this line:

Ok, that is flat out spooky. My mind is torn between images of burning heretics before cathoic bishops, and the last Soprano's episode.

Anyways, not to be deterred by one bad bit, I went on.

I made it about 100 words in.

The only thing clear here is the logical fallacy: non causa pro causa. My favorite. Ok, my favorite is ad hominem. It's so hard to choose just one

Anyways - I admit, I went looking for mistakes, but I was hoping to make it a bit further. Annoyed at the front page center stories on his site, I decided to look at his challenge...and notice it's descibed as:

Bring on the poison, please. Dump it in that well over there. Thanks.

Wait, you know what, it's a big well, so...

Yeah. There we go.

Emotional: This guy is becomming relatively obvious as a bad source. Point me towards a good one?

Amaranth