An unorthodox belief in God.

[Bad Wolf]

I think this is the first time i've actually seen two theists argue, I was kind of expecting the equivalent of chimps throwing shit at each other, for some reason I don't think I will be disappointed.

[Mister Agenda]

Again, predictable. You appear to be completely unaware of the research in this field.

He seems to be completely unaware of sarcasm, too; and under the impression that he's succeeding at something. There are sign-language-using gorillas who show more evidence of posessing self-awareness than this man.

---

'Yet again, your evidence isn't being rejected because you haven't presented any.'--Mister Agenda

Once again:
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/genera...l-113.html

That isn't what evidence is, as has been explained. What would actually be evidence has been explained. Yet you post the same thing.

I'm beginning to think the reason you can't recognize consciousness in certain animals is because you don't actually possess it yourself. You lack the faculties to carry on a conversation at a third-grade level (my apologies to any third-graders who may be justifiably offended by that comparison) and don't even know when you're making a fool of yourself. Even animals can be embarassed when they do something stupid, but you sail on obliviously.

---

Because creation requires a mind, the universe has none.

This is a claim, not evidence. If you don't support it, we are justified in dismissing it out of hand as a bare assertion.

It requires planning, the universe itself has no self or plan

This is a claim, not evidence. If you don't support it, we are justified in dismissing it out of hand as a bare assertion.

It requires raw beginning birth power, the universe has none

This is a claim, not evidence. If you don't support it, we are justified in dismissing it out of hand as a bare assertion.

It requires laws, the universe had none before it was to be

Thanks for saying something different enough to require a different answer. Laws are descriptions of how the universe behaves. They don't apply before it exists, and if the universe behaved differently, it would just have different laws.

It requires reason, the universe cannot reason of itself
It requires ingredients, the universe prior had none
It requires knowledge, the universe has no knowledge
It requires experience, the universe had no experience

All: This is a claim, not evidence. If you don't support it, we are justified in dismissing it out of hand as a bare assertion.

It requires water, the universe had no water

We know how the universe got water. Learn some 5th-grade science, if you're able.

It requires matter, the universe had no matter
It requires gravity, the universe had none

This is a claim, not evidence. If you don't support it, we are justified in dismissing it out of hand as a bare assertion.

It requires chemicals, the universe had no chemicals

We know how the universe got chemicals. Learn some 5th-grade science, if you're able.

It required power to be maintained, the universe just had no such power.

This is a claim, not evidence. If you don't support it, we are justified in dismissing it out of hand as a bare assertion.

Its academic, there must be a God!

That sentence doesn't even make sense.

---

Riddle me this, how could abundant space come from absolute nothing?

What absolute nothing? We've never claimed there was ever absolutely nothing.

[Cato]

lmao ... if we need references as proof then maybe we, or the person that needs it, should shut the fuk up.

Talk about a dope. I didn't know until recently that it is considered kind of normal to have two accounts to berate somebody. A guy named tee-no taught me that. But I have limits. It aint all about me I guess.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Rampant.A.I.]

---

Mickie, I'll do you an enormous favor by ignoring the utter pretension you've shown over the past few pages and just focus on a couple of arguments in quick succession that caught my attention.

First, in your last reply to me you admit that "I don't know" answers are a legitimate course for us as much as they are for you; doesn't that completely capsize your claim that consciousness couldn't have evolved? Right now, the answer to the question of consciousness, as it is for the origins of the universe, life, and a lot of the other things you've attributed to god, would be better fitted to an "I don't know" answer, from all of us, and that's it. Because the truth is, you don't know the answer to those questions either, you're just pretending you do because you've got a pre-drawn conclusion you want to fit it all into. But now that we're allowing the correct answer- that nobody knows- into this, there's no excuse to be pushing god into those gaps in our knowledge. That's you not playing by the rules you want to set for everyone else.

I don't know the answers to those questions, and neither do you. That's it. Full stop.

Right?

(Be warned, if you say you do know, I'll be expecting an exhaustive, fully explanatory answer from you about how god crafted consciousness, the universe, and life. Because those are "how" questions, and just providing a "what" answer won't do, even if you could support it with evidence, which you haven't so far.)

As to your claims about animals not having consciousness, you're mistaking intelligence for consciousness. Just because animals aren't intelligent enough to speak our language- and hell, that's a bit arrogant of you, expecting that they either speak in a human tongue or they can't communicate at all, isn't it?- doesn't mean they aren't conscious; hell, there are plenty of humans who couldn't tell you half the things in your list for one reason or another, are they not conscious either?

The science demonstrates consciousness: what business do you have outright denying that?

Oh, and I know I said I wouldn't mention it, but please, stop with the poetry. :dodgy:

---

The request for me to stop the poetry is denied. Now, give me an exhaustive full explinatory reason why animals are conscious.

See links, dummy.

[Mister Agenda]

It's not believing in some sort of God that makes him religious, it's all the things he believes about that God.

Aren't those two ideas united? Because I thought that once you start believing in a creator you are already giving him an identity. Or in most cases you start believing in the identity it is teached to you from the religious people that you interact.

You may not have encountered people who believe in a nebulous, undefined God of whose purpose and will they don't claim to have knowledge. It's often phrased as 'I believe in...Something out there, behind all this, man.' Such people are usually not what could reasonably be described as 'religious'. I suppose they could be described as 'agnostic theists'.

Because people even believers at the beginning they also had many questions about god by natural curiosity. So they start either accepting or giving him attributes, about there is a purpose for their creations, and about there are things that your deity don't like, and about the elements that your deity represents.

That's very common, but it's not universal. Iceland, for instance, seems to be chock full of 'Somethingists'.

Could you explain yourself your statement because I'm confused. Tell me you are talking about mickiel or in general?

In general. Neither theism nor atheism are religions, they are differing opinions on one topic. Mere theism doesn't imply religion. Lots of people believe in 'some sort of God' without being religious.

Because I dunno if you are refuting what I just said because of his individual ideas or because you find my statement flawed and can't be applied to anyone.

I'm not sure it's flawed, but it can't be applied to everyone who believes there's a God.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Aren't those two ideas united? Because I thought that once you start believing in a creator you are already giving him an identity. Or in most cases you start believing in the identity it is teached to you from the religious people that you interact.

You may not have encountered people who believe in a nebulous, undefined God of whose purpose and will they don't claim to have knowledge. It's often phrased as 'I believe in...Something out there, behind all this, man.' Such people are usually not what could reasonably be described as 'religious'. I suppose they could be described as 'agnostic theists'.

Because people even believers at the beginning they also had many questions about god by natural curiosity. So they start either accepting or giving him attributes, about there is a purpose for their creations, and about there are things that your deity don't like, and about the elements that your deity represents.

That's very common, but it's not universal. Iceland, for instance, seems to be chock full of 'Somethingists'.

Could you explain yourself your statement because I'm confused. Tell me you are talking about mickiel or in general?

In general. Neither theism nor atheism are religions, they are differing opinions on one topic. Mere theism doesn't imply religion. Lots of people believe in 'some sort of God' without being religious.

Because I dunno if you are refuting what I just said because of his individual ideas or because you find my statement flawed and can't be applied to anyone.

I'm not sure it's flawed, but it can't be applied to everyone who believes there's a God.

Anyone who holds a belief that one religious text takes precedence over another does not fit in this category.

[Mister Agenda]

Please, don't try to manipulate an association between me and a hell monger. I am not Christian, mainly because I reject over 70& of their doctrines, this insane eternal hell torture is one of them, and atheist being condemned is another. Every atheist who ever lived and died was covered by the death of Christ, their salvation is based on that, not their predestined rejection of god.

I don't have much quarrel with Universalists usually, they're a nice bunch. Just noting that what makes someone a Christian is belief in the teachings of Jesus and that Jesus was the son of God or God incarnate whose blameless sacrifice gives salvation. Given over 30,000 denominations, pretty much everything else is up for grabs. So it's that part you should not believe if you're not a Christian.

I will deal with him myself. I got just as much in store for him, if he can take it, as I do for the atheist here. I am guessing the atheist here are strong enough to take it, because I am going to bang harder each week; I noticed some of you are bowing out already;

You'll see more of that as the boredom sets in.

can't say I blame you, some of you can sense what's coming;

Yeah, more spamming and trolling.

but first I am going to cripple you're often used shield of " Give me proof and evidence", you're get out of conversation, ( or jail card free), rehearsed request , that when given, you get lame about and use it again anyway; thinking all proof must be scientific, when all proof is no such limited thing.

It's actually how we get into conversation. We've gotten a lot of theists through here, but you're unique in your complete inability comprehend what an actual honest discussion should be like. Others show at least transient glimpses of awarenes and offer something that could possibly go somewhere, but you seem to be incapable of that.

And I am going to go into that.

Yeah, we never get people coming through here braggin' about what they're gonna do. You're a special snowflake.

My name is Michael Lesueur, email is listed on site, I post only under the name Mickiel; I need no alter ego to get this truth out. I believe in being for real.

I think you believe in being for real, but I don't think you know how.

You just get ready, because I am going to seriously push your trump card defense of asking for proof, asking for things that when you get it, you are pre primed to reject it any way.

Sure you are.

---

Anyone who holds a belief that one religious text takes precedence over another does not fit in this category.

Which was my original point. It's not his belief in God that makes him religious, it's his beliefs about God.

[Cato]

Now, give me an exhaustive full explinatory reason why animals are conscious.

My dining room table has never been happy to see me when I get home from work. My dogs on the other hand....

Certainly this is not definitive proof, but animals exhibiting emotion and intentionality is compelling. Nobody can deny their capacity to suffer. Some species can pass the mirror test for self awareness, something infant humans cannot do. Scientists are in consensus regarding animals having the right 'equipment' for consciousness.

From the Cambridge Declaration On Consciousness:

“The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDe...usness.pdf

[ShaMan]

Animals are not conscious, they are instinctly aware.

I have a differing experience from your own in this matter. Tell me, how did you arrive at this conclusion? Did you ask an animal? And what about plants - are they conscious?

These are sincere questions.

[JuliaL]

Mercy, there is such human chauvinism over consciousness.
Self aware neural nets aren't any more amazing assemblages of molecules useful to an organism than legs or fingers.
Self preservation is much easier when one recognizes there is a self to preserve. Natural selection takes it from there and keeps self awareness a highly preserved trait.
Why all the hubub? Bub?