So gerbils and robots are gods? They possess consciousness that is independent of human perception (in reality they don't but you want to claim that they do, so what the hell, why not). What do gerbils and robots have to say about the cosmos? Nothing. Your argument concerns gerbils and robots, things that can be demonstrated to exist, not disembodied consciousness. A poor attempt for the same reasons as before, and for the same reason since post #1. You have no argument.

Humanity and the english language have done no such thing. You're attempting to do such a thing and failing.

Rhythm: you are simply choosing not to buy my argument because you don't like my definitions, probably because admitting them would cause a bout of cognitive dissonance in you that would drive many men mad. The definitions and terms that are inserted into the argument have no bearing on whether the argument is valid as I have made the same argument about dicks and hands, the sun and direction, god and atheism, and breathing and lungs.. They may determine whether or not the argument is true, but the validity of the argument is a constant.

I have not claimed that the definitions are true, I admit I can not. We can not prove anything is objectively true outside of human consciousness. A belief that things are objectively true necessitates then a mechanism for them to be true, which is consciousness as a real property of the universe apart from human perception. A belief in such a mechanism is most correctly termed a belief in "God" by humanity.

(December 19, 2011 at 1:08 pm)amkerman Wrote: i have attempted to define "God" in it's most basic sense, consciousness as a real thing that exists apart from subjective human perception. consciousness is demonstrated in animals, science is attempting to demonstrate consciousness as being wholly unrelated to human perception through AI. really not that hard. You don't have to call it "God" if you don't want to, but humanity and the english language have labeled it as such.

You have attempted, and failed. End of story.

Humans are humans, robots are robots, gerbils are gerbils. We have defined those things as they are after observing them in the universe. A belief in something which has not been defined or observed in science for which there is no empirical evidence has been termed "God". In order to believe in objective reality and truth, a belief in what is most correctly termed "God" is necessary...

If this is somehow not logical someone explain why this is not the case.

I guess his talk is too advanced and/or too intelligent for us. )do I need a sarcasm tag on this one)

"In order to believe in objective reality and truth, a belief in what is most correctly termed "God" is necessary..."

Where do you get your "correctly" from save from a subjective source?

Cognitive dissonance usually requires cognition. But amkerman manages without it.

you state I have failed yet you offer no argument for how I have failed. Your statements are logically baseless. You're just angry bro. I have responded to all counter arguments logically and rationally. My argument has not been successfully refuted as of yet. So i persist in my contention that the argument is valid.

It is illogical for one to believe in objective truth or morality or reality while at the same time believing there is nothing that would correctly be termed "God" by humanity.

(December 19, 2011 at 1:18 pm)amkerman Wrote: Rhythm: you are simply choosing not to buy my argument because you don't like my definitions, probably because admitting them would cause a bout of cognitive dissonance in you that would drive many men mad. The definitions and terms that are inserted into the argument have no bearing on whether the argument is valid as I have made the same argument about dicks and hands, the sun and direction, god and atheism, and breathing and lungs.. They may determine whether or not the argument is true, but the validity of the argument is a constant.

Rhythm is not accepting your babbling, because your argument has not only been refuted, it has been exposed to be not an argument at all.

Please fix, hmmkay?

You have a goldfish memory, amker, which suits you, since we have been showing you:

A) That you do not have an argument, but rather a quarrel
B) That you have a loose grip on objective vs subjective as adjectives
C) That you do not understand the difference between true and real
D) That you bend anything you wish until it fits your definitions, after which you claim that you have shown the original refutation to be incorrect.

You've done nothing but embarrass yourself, bro.