RE: Theory number 3.
October 29, 2012 at 1:10 am
(This post was last modified: October 29, 2012 at 1:24 am by Mystic.)
Apophenia, calm down. You are coming out very strong.
Yes I disagree with you, but not in the substance of what you said, but because none of it actually refutes what I said. There can be all sorts of levels of consciousness, I even said in the begining, you can call it 1% conscious. I didn't say because it's mysterious and I don't understand it must be impossible by process of mutations and evolution. This is a strawman.
Yes I am ignorant of this subject, which is why I said I have to go read about it, and I said it just seems to me to be the case, and why I personally am inclined to the idea of.
Did I even say I believe in the argument? Let alone others should accept it. I shared my personal view, and said since they seem true to me, it strengthens my hope. Did I say it's a conclusive argument?
What I mean by semi-ignorant as opposed to an argument from ignorance, is that an argument from ignorance says "how is it possible for this to go to step A to step B"...I'm not aware..therefore, it cannot happen. That's a complete argument from ignorance. And the problem of evil argument is in this form. What I formed is a paradox. Both of the premises that form the paradox seem true to me, but I don't know enough about it, to claim they are true.
And none of what you said is showing how you solve the issue yourself. I didn't even say it has to have concept of self or be aware it is aware.
And despite all those nice info, it doesn't address the argument. Painting a bunch of facts when none of them address the issue doesn't help the case. Or at least if they do have relevance, you should show it.
And the cut off point, I don't see how this even addresses what I'm saying at all.
You also seem upset that I don't believe in evolution, while at the same time you know I am ignorant of the subject in details (which I have stated I am in other posts). Am I suppose to just follow authority?
And who says I can't make any argument, if I don't know what I'm talking about? Suppose it is true and I am totally deluded in an argument, I better keep it to myself while it seems true to me, then have people refute it?
You know what a lot of people on Shiachat resorted to, when I showed problems with Quran. That I should basically go study all of hadiths and go investigate this issue with the scholars, and that until I do, I can't make an argument....
Yes I disagree with you, but not in the substance of what you said, but because none of it actually refutes what I said. There can be all sorts of levels of consciousness, I even said in the begining, you can call it 1% conscious. I didn't say because it's mysterious and I don't understand it must be impossible by process of mutations and evolution. This is a strawman.
Yes I am ignorant of this subject, which is why I said I have to go read about it, and I said it just seems to me to be the case, and why I personally am inclined to the idea of.
Did I even say I believe in the argument? Let alone others should accept it. I shared my personal view, and said since they seem true to me, it strengthens my hope. Did I say it's a conclusive argument?
What I mean by semi-ignorant as opposed to an argument from ignorance, is that an argument from ignorance says "how is it possible for this to go to step A to step B"...I'm not aware..therefore, it cannot happen. That's a complete argument from ignorance. And the problem of evil argument is in this form. What I formed is a paradox. Both of the premises that form the paradox seem true to me, but I don't know enough about it, to claim they are true.
And none of what you said is showing how you solve the issue yourself. I didn't even say it has to have concept of self or be aware it is aware.
And despite all those nice info, it doesn't address the argument. Painting a bunch of facts when none of them address the issue doesn't help the case. Or at least if they do have relevance, you should show it.
And the cut off point, I don't see how this even addresses what I'm saying at all.
You also seem upset that I don't believe in evolution, while at the same time you know I am ignorant of the subject in details (which I have stated I am in other posts). Am I suppose to just follow authority?
And who says I can't make any argument, if I don't know what I'm talking about? Suppose it is true and I am totally deluded in an argument, I better keep it to myself while it seems true to me, then have people refute it?
You know what a lot of people on Shiachat resorted to, when I showed problems with Quran. That I should basically go study all of hadiths and go investigate this issue with the scholars, and that until I do, I can't make an argument....
