I'm not gonna even bother with this one. A waste of time.

(December 18, 2011 at 7:25 pm)amkerman Wrote: I was talking about you welsh cake. you were the one poster who actually honestly attacked my argument.

A minute ago you claimed one person addressed your argument whereas many people attacked you and asked who? Now you're saying I'm the sole perpetrator for *addressing your argument* and not you as a person when in actuality many have refuted your claims? You are really starting to bore me.

Quote:You claim that the fundamental forces of nature have nothing to do mental concepts of morals, yet you admit that fundamental forces of nature produced conscious thought, and in fact everything in the universe... Logically those forces then do in fact form our notions of morality.

Because one is specifically addressing what is biological, a by-product of brain electro-chemical signals that interpret information coming from our senses to allow us to interact with reality. The other is addressing fundamental interaction which is all to do with particle physics.

How elementary particles interact with one another says nothing about self awareness. That's no different than arguing that atoms themselves are alive and sentient. We are in a reality where its possible for life to arise from non-life, but you are asserting the end-result is responsible for the cause which is complete and utter nonsense and illogical. Consciousness can evolve but it is not the corner-stone of the cosmos as we know it, it is not a force. You are claiming that it is. Provide evidence for consciousness existing outside a mind. Kindly proceed to demonstrate how or stop wasting my time.

the application of my argument is rather simple, as I have tried to show by arguing that the beliefs of numerous different posters necessitated a belief in what would correctly be termed a monotheistic deity, even if that is not how one personally defined their belief.

Darwinning, take you analysis of the simple argument socrates is mortal.

The first statement: all men are mortal.

You claim that it is probably true, butt can not be proven with 100% certainty. agreed

Second statement: Socrates is a man.

you claimed that I should use the term "was". not true; you simply decided to assume a certain socrates. probably true. agreed.

Third statement: Socrates is mortal.

You claim that if the premisses are correct than this conclusion is likely correct. agreed.

My argument:

If, unlike yourself, you actually hold the beliefs that all men are mortal, that socrates is a man, or that Socrates is mortal, it necessitates a belief in something that would correctly be described as "God". While It is wholly rational not to hold any of those beliefs, to believe purely in probabilities, it is not logical. The human experience is something most would consider as true. When most people say or think something they don't properly describe that act as a "belief that I am probably saying or thinking that 'X'" they usually would assert that objectively the are actually saying or thinking it regardless of what they believe. but a belief that Anything is objectively and actually true or real necessarily stems from a belief in something for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence or data, i.e. God.

Therefor atheism, even if true, is illogical.

Didn't work the first time, still doesn't work. Still waiting for your argument. Everything appears to necessitate a belief in god to you. Why this is so has never been elaborated upon. Your statements apply to your beliefs, no connection has been shown to exist between them and anyone else, or the cosmos at large. Care to take a crack at that?

(December 19, 2011 at 10:21 am)amkerman Wrote: If, unlike yourself, you actually hold the beliefs that all men are mortal, that socrates is a man, or that Socrates is mortal, it necessitates a belief in something that would correctly be described as "God".

Let me repeat Zen Badger's question with regards to this claim.

Why?

welsh cake: NDE experiences, Cleeve Baxter, twin studies are a few examples of research that suggests consciousness exists separate from the mind, observations of animals besides humans too. But alas, you do not need to accept my premise to accept the validity of my argument. You are claiming that because consciousness is not a primary function of the universe my argument fails, when I never stated that it was. You keep wanting me to prove something to you... I don't get it, I have repeatedly stated I am incapable of proving anything to you, as I do not possess any evidence. You should probably just stop responding to me, I have nothing more to offer you than what I already have.

Is there any evidence demonstrating that consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems? none. It is simply a belief held by some within the scientific community which has never been explored. consciousness has never been proven (within mainstream science, that is) to actually "exist" at all. Holding a belief in such is therefore contrary to atheism. it would be a belief in some sort of knowledge which you could not possibly have as human beings. it would be a belief in "God".

Amkerman, may I suggest you go listen to Steve Novella's interview on consciousness and the mind in the Monster Talk episode entitled "Getting Into the Spirit of Things"?

(December 19, 2011 at 10:36 am)amkerman Wrote: Holding a belief in such is therefore contrary to atheism.

No.

(December 19, 2011 at 10:36 am)amkerman Wrote: it would be a belief in some sort of knowledge which you could not possibly have as human beings. it would be a belief in "God".

"It would be belief in flying Kiwi's, therefore God."

No.

response to zen badger and darwinning:

We can not scientifically define God as God has never been scientifically evidenced in our world. There is no basis in the observable world to make a claim of what God is. Therefore, humanity is left to define God in terms of ideas and beliefs.

Since no definition of God is inherently correct or not correct, a belief in anything for which there is no empirical scientific evidence or data to support must necessarily stem from a belief in something that would most correctly be described as "God".

Since there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support the fact that anything is 100% true outside our own limited perceptions, any belief in objective reality or truth then necessarily stems from a belief in what humanity has decided to term "God".

That is why.

---

you would believe in flying kiwi's darwinning, that would be "God" to you if that's what you believed. There is no scientific definition of God. God has not been considered by science. Flying Kiwi's work, so do spaghetti monsters. Once you define and claim to know exactly what "God" is, however, you quickly lose all credibility.

---

im listening to it now summerequeen

As soon as you went to NDE, your cracksmokery vented fully from your oven.

On the second day of xmas, a theist sent to me,
Two beloved turds,
And a dodo in a cedar tree.