Starboy

Why is it so hard for people to admit that they just don't know? God or pre-big bang or whatever people want to believe for which there is not much evidence to decide one way or the other. Perhaps we will never know the origins of the universe, perhaps we will figure it out. If we do manage to figure it out my bet is that it will blow away all of our pre-conceived notions.

Starboy

Rhea

Tercel, your theory is a textbook example of pot-kettle-black.

"You can't claim an uncaused first thing, but I can, because I believe mine"

It just doesn't make any sense. It seems your main problem is that you don't understand how consciousness can come from non-consciousness.

But in today's age, doesn't that seem like an antiquated claim?

Humans can take silicone, some gold, a little bit of selenium or gallium arsenide or whatever they're using these days, and by arranging them in certain patterns, cause a thing to start functioning that is capable of observing and doing new things based on those observations.

What is consciousness? Maybe you'd better define that. But I honestly don't know how a modern human with access to a computer can be amazed by inanimate things becoming active.

You may claim, "yes but they had a driver - a causer" but that is not the critical factor. The same result could occur no matter how the assembly takes place. It's not the assembler that is the key, it is the assembly. The fact that one step is driving the next step (humans are manufacturing the chips) does not imbue the process with a requirement of a causer. In this case it just happens to make the process happen more quickly.


...

Tercel, you do yourself a disservice by not responding to Koy. He has some piercing questions that shout for answers.

To be cut by a statement that "Christianity is a cult" seems to border on ridiculous. Seriously, think about that. What is a cult? Well, regardless, Koy asks some pertinent questions (not impertinent LOL).

mike_decock

How is "God" any less arbitrary than "The Pink Fluffy Bunny"? You can assign whatever properties to either one to fill in whatever gaps of knowledge we currently have (first cause, blah, blah, blah).

The "First Cause" is unknown. There may have been none at all. Ignorance of the "First Cause" isn't proof, it's ignorance.

Oh, please

Why do Theists think that consciousness is such a mystical, "supernatural" phenomenon?

Just read something like The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes to get a better understanding of what consciousness is and how it could have evolved.

Because we can deal with metaphors of real objects in our own "Mind-Space" to produce concepts and solve problems. Jaynes' book covers the process quite well.

Laws don't "govern matter". Laws of Physics don't prescribe the behavior of matter, they describe behavior. Don't confuse Laws of Physics with Legal Laws.

1. The existence of God can easily be discounted, just like any other mythological construct. The complete absence of evidence is proof enough that there is no God. There is no theological consensus on what said mythological construct will do for you in the future. There is no need to disprove your opinion.

2. Consciousness is material. It can be observed as brain activity. It's an electro-chemical process. When your body dies, this process stops. These observations have been made often enough to take know that "after you die, you (your consciousness) cease to exist.

-Mike...

Amaranth

Um...well Tercel, I'd respond, but nearly everything I'd say has been said, and said better than I could present, by either Mike, Rhea, or Starboy. No point being redundant, eh?

Anyways, thanks for clearing up the "necessary" thing: The concept makes sense now that I'm fully awake again. Oh, and Magic still goes on quite strong. Blue player, myself

Amaranth

Ronin

So little credit is ever given to the arts.

emotional

So illogical one simply doesn't know where to begin...



Maybe you didn't need parents to exist either.



Bifurcation fallacy: either "God" or "matter" always existed. I believe in neither. In the beginning there was energy, which configured itself into mind, which created matter out of existing energy.

I'm sorry but I don't take your word for it. This is a doctrine I was taught from early childhood, and I used to believe in it (like anyone would any indoctrination), but I don't believe in it anymore. Do yourself a favour and find someone else to indoctrinate in your nihilistic worldview.

mike_decock

Matter is energy. There's no need to assume a creative "mind".

-Mike...

christ-on-a-stick

Rhea said: I agree 100%.

emotional

Matter is a form of energy. One form of energy.

You mean you have no need to assume a creative mind. You believe matter preceded mind. I think this is an irrational assumption. Mind preceded matter. It is by being infused with the imperative of mind that matter combines and forms such wonderful shapes of us. Matter is animated by mind.

Starboy

Cool! Make my computer jump around on my desk (without your body, just your mind).