Best Theistic Arguments

[Angrboda]

Since  the following dogmas are foundational to your "system," it is obvious that you practice a religion.

1. Vibrations are alive/conscious.
2. Energy is alive/conscious.
3. Inanimate matter is conscious.
4. Life cannot come from non-life.

Let us deal a bit at the time as the page is getting full so let us now deal with these last points.

As usual you vandalize my words and that is rather evil if done on purpose or stupid if done without understanding what i said.

Whatever.

1) I didn't say that inanimate matter is conscious.
I rather say that matter has got consciousness or it is made of consciousness and this consciousness is in a latent form which means that matter can not be aware of who she is.

To say ............Inanimate matter is conscious.......is like to say that matter can express herself which is not the case.

The stupidity lies in the original ideas, not my representation of them. There is no difference between saying that matter "has got consciousness" and that matter "is conscious." Moreover, since you yourself have said that consciousness is an abstract, and therefore non-physical, you are saying that the physical is made up of the non-physical, a contradiction. It's more a problem that your ideas are filled with metaphysical inconsistency and error. Wittgenstein has said that most philosophical problems are not problems of philosophy but problems of language. Your moronic dogmas are a case in point. You'd do well to heed Wittgenstein's words and pull your head out of your ass before you drown in your own shit.

2) The same goes for vibrations.

Also vibrations like everything in this universe has life in it.
Unlike matter which can not express herself because she reach the very bottom of creation vibrations express themselves with the movement and movement means life.
If on the other hand you may believe that this movement is cused by the creator then you can well kiss goodby to all atheistic ideas.
In any case you fail badly.

Motion by itself is not evidence that vibrations are alive, both as the motion may be caused by something independent of the vibration, such as a God, or motion may simply be an intrinsic feature of these vibrations without need for any life. You of course realize that vibration simply refers to a periodic aspect in the mathematical modeling of field interactions and not actual physical motion of course? Of course you don't. Regardless, my consciousness doesn't jiggle in my head. Does yours? If so, perhaps we have discovered the problem..... Life is defined variously but no definition I have read simply says, "motion." Motion is a property both of things known to be alive and not. If you simply define everything as being alive, you've suspended the role of motion in your argument and have simply done an end run around the meaning of words. See above about your use of language.

3) Energy - consciousness are the two sides of the same sheet.
One can not exist without the other.
Also energy move so like vibrations must have life in it.
The atheist idea that some sort of energy within the universe keep the system going and going is void of any evidence while the idea that energy has life in it make 100% sense.
Physical science sooner or later will come to this conclusion.

Promises of future discovery is not evidence. This consciousness and energy being two sides of the same sheet is taken straight from the writings of Sarkar without any justification on its own. From Sarkar's lips to your lips, without any thought or reason intervening. That is what is called dogma, and is not justification for belief. If you'd care to explain why Sarkar believes it, by all means do so. Otherwise you're just repeating dogma.

4) Life in this universe always come from life.
This is science yog.

Much as everything else here, this point has been discussed more fully in the evolution thread, and has already been more than adequately answered. You have no justification for your belief that life comes only from life, and therefore it's just dogma. Science for its part has neither concluded that life comes from non-life nor that it doesn't, so your claiming that it is science is just a lie which you keep repeating.

There is no such a thing as anything void of life.
Even matter has life in it even if it is in a latent form.  

Yes, we've been through all this in the evolution thread. Life in matter is both obvious and known, but at the same time hidden and incapable of being observed. No, your arguments, such as they are, either include falsehoods, fallacies, errors of reasoning, or simple misstatements of fact. This is because your explanations are nothing more than tissue thin rationalizations for your justification of believing these things which is really based primarily on the fact that your guru had asserted them. They are religious dogma, nothing more.

No, it actually doesn't, if for no other reason than among said 'drivel' was the point that you had not presented any actual evidence for the four dogmas I listed earlier, chief among them being that vibrations are alive.  So, no, you didn't answer everything.  But let's deal with what you did answer (below).

If you really think that vibrations are not alive then please tell me where they get the strength - motivation to move and be active or better say.....why they move at all?

What it is?
Entropy?

Again, these 'vibrations' are metaphorical, being periodic aspects of the interaction of fields. They require no 'motivation', and indeed if you could demonstrate that they had or needed motivation, you would have more of a point than you do. You assume that they need motivation because that is an aspect of your religious beliefs about what makes them behave as they do. There is no reason to believe that they need any such thing, or that such could not be supplied by an external force (like a God, or a field). And again, you tie yourself up in absurd juxtapositions of language. In our world of large scale objects, live things can sometimes differentiate themselves from things that aren't alive by moving. However, this is an illusion caused by the nature of our perception -- all things are 'alive' with motion, so your analogy between large scale objects and these subatomic vibrations is drawing on an analogy that isn't actually there. All things are 'alive' in that sense. In that sense, vibrating and alive simply become synonyms with no greater significance. It says nothing about whether they are 'alive' in the sense of being like things to which we normally attribute life and consciousness, like animals. You're using alive in the first sense, to conclude that things are alive in the second sense. That's an equivocation, it's fallacious, and your conclusion is therefore invalid. Remember Wittgenstein!

In the meantime please note that as the consciousness leave the body that is death so people who saw their body from above saw their dead body.
You can't be alive without your consciousness.
It would be a vehicle without the driver.
It would be just a piece of metal.
With the driver gone the vehicle has no life in it.

This is unsatisfactory for several reasons:
1) It's not clear that consciousness "leaves the body" in an OBE, both for reasons discussed and some not (see quote below for example);
2) Even if consciousness is displaced during an OBE, it's not clear that the relationship between consciousness and the body has in any significant sense been disrupted or ended by that displacement.  In particular, you claim both that consciousness is not physical and that it resides in the pineal gland.  What it means for something that is not physical to have a location I'll leave up to you, but regardless, from the putative position in the pineal gland, consciousness is not directly in contact with sufficient nerves to control the body, so according to your view, we are constantly "remotely controlling" the body/brain anyhow, so what does the actual distance matter?
3) It's not clear in what sense consciousness does constitute the "you," nor is it true that an absence of consciousness equals death.  We go to sleep each night without "dying";
4) As you can determine by looking up the relevant definitions, death is a permanent condition, not merely a transitory change in the relationship of one or more of a living organism's systems.  In particular, death entails the continuous loss of homeostasis, which is of particular note as the cells in the brain and the brain itself maintains relative homeostasis even in the absence of blood and oxygen for a considerable time.  At the very least, irretrievable loss of functional homeostasis does not occur.

So for these and undoubtedly other reasons, you are wrong in claiming that an OBE during an NDE is evidence that the person has died and is at that time "dead."

1) How on earth can you see your body from above like during an NDE and think that you are alive inside your body?
That is pure madness-insanity.

And yet you were given examples where that clearly was the case. Your incredulity is not an argument.

 

2) Your consciousness is you because this you stay with your consciousness not with your dead body.  

Your consciousness is you because it is your consciousness? Not only does that not make sense as a reason, at best, it's begging the question, and so your conclusion is nothing more than an assertion.

3) Death is irreversible once the brain cells are dead.
That however doesn't mean that death can occur once the consciousness has left the body.  

I can only assume you meant "that death cannot occur once consciousness has left the body." First, nobody is disputing that it can occur once consciousness has left the body, what is in dispute is whether death is necessarily the case if consciousness has left the body. Not only have you not given us reason for believing that, you haven't even shown that OBEs mean that consciousness has indeed left the body, even if you had given a meaningful definition of what that means (which you haven't). You're putting the cart before the horse and then doing nothing helpful to your case.

4) The consciousness sit in the pineal gland in the same way as you sit in the seat of your car.
Your body is the vehicle and YOU are the driver.
In order to progress you need a vehicle that take you from point A to point Z.
That is all natural.
Nothing strange with that.
Even if the consciousness is not directly in contact with sufficient nerves to control the body in one way or another it will.
Also the supreme commander is not in contact with simple soldiers yet the soldier get the message.
In this case through other officers.

Aside from the fact that this is just dogma, the normal officers in this case are the nerves, which in this case don't exist. If you are postulating some other intermediary than nerves, you need to explain yourself and justify the belief in them, otherwise, as noted, the consciousness is still remotely controlling the body, whether from the pineal gland or down the hall.

In addition, because you didn't refute all of the various strands of my counter-arguments, even if the attempts you had made were successful, the counter-argument as a whole would still hold and your argument that people are dead because consciousness, supposedly, has left the body, would, as an argument, fail.

OBErs who do not lose consciousness before their experiences often report watching their bodies continue to perform coordinated actions—as if they were still in control of their bodies—while nevertheless apparently viewing them from above. Recalling an OBE while on patrol for the first time, chasing an armed suspect, a police officer reported:

I promptly went out of my body and up into the air maybe 20 feet above the scene. I remained there, extremely calm, while I watched the entire procedure—including watching myself do exactly what I had been trained to do (Alvarado 183).

After the suspect had been restrained and the danger was over, the officer returned to normal consciousness. Another OBEr, who had been running for over 12 miles training for a marathon, reported:

I felt as if something was leaving my body, and although I was still running along looking at the scenery, I was looking at myself running as well (184).

This ability to simultaneously 'hover' above the scene and continue to function as if 'in' the body strongly suggests the hallucinatory nature of these experiences. In some sleep disorders, for instance, subjects are able to exhibit "directed" behavior—e.g., sleepwalking and sleep eating—even though they are evidently not normally conscious. Taking on an extraordinary new perspective while functioning normally otherwise makes much more sense if such experiences are occurring 'in' the body all along, rather than in some remote discarnate entity detached from the physical body.

Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences

Regardless of whether one accepts the author's interpretation of hallucination or not, it's evident that merely experiencing oneself as being conscious and viewing things from a perspective outside the body does not necessarily entail that consciousness is not still in contact with the body, still in control, and that life continues on more or less as normal, ignoring the specific weirdness of the perspective.

You still don't get it yog, do you?

In your case the body was still alive while in a real NDE the cheap body is dead as declared by a doctor.

When doctors declare a patient dead because of a lack of heartbeat, lung, or brain function, first of all, they are not doing so on the basis that consciousness has "left the body" so this argument of yours stands alone, independent of that one. When a doctor declares such a patient dead, they are making a 'prognosis', which is defined as, "a forecast of the likely course of a disease or ailment." In other words, the doctor is making a prediction, not declaring a specific fact. Doctors, like anyone else, are not infallible in their predictions, so all a doctor declaring somebody dead who later turns out not to be dead proves is that the doctor got it wrong. That you don't seem to "get it" is likely caused by the fact that you're an idiot.

It doesn't really matter whether you have never maintained that the evidence for the brain based nature of consciousness is conclusive or not.
As far as you give kudos to those who say these things you are part of the problem therefore if you do not back up with evidence these statements I have to deduce that you are full of BS.

"Tough titties for you, fish face!"