Question about meaning and perception of reality from a theist.

[Shell B]

You are the one who is offering baseless assertions and presenting them as facts, not me.

Bullshit. You're the asshole who keeps starting threads based on your stupid-ass belief that god=sentience and that sentience is a universal constant.

Since you're being a cunt, I'll prove sentience is not a universal constant.

There are four universal constants, none of which are sentience. That was easy. Google it.

[amkerman]

Here I'll set up the argument again and someone can try to knock it down, again.

All of reality is experienced through consciousness.

THEREFORE: If you believe in reality you must believe consciousness is real.

Things that are real must exist apart from our observation of or ideas about what they are.

THEREFORE: If consciousness is real it must exist apart from sciences observation of or ideas about it.

The only things science believes exists apart from it's observation or ideas about are universal constants.

THEREFORE: If consciousness is real science believes it is a universal constant.

Universal constants are believed to be responsible for the creaton of the universe and everything within it.

THEREFORE: if consciousness is real it is responsible for the creation of the universe and everything within it.

If consciousness is responsible for the creation of the universe and everything within it, it could be called "God"

THEREFORE: If you believe in reality you must necessarily believe in "God".

[Perhaps]

This argument is like living in a bubble - you know a whole lot about the bubble and what's inside of it, and you may even be able to imagine what is outside of that bubble - but when it comes down to it, no body knows what is outside of it. 'Proofs' will always fail due to assumptions at their base - but at the same time, that doesn't mean they aren't 'really' true. How do you prove something exists? Not by assuming it, but you certainly can't say it doesn't exist - for that itself is an assumption. This is why most rational intellectuals who hold an atheist stance support that agnostic aspect as well - for they are humble enough to know that they cannot truly know.

[amkerman]

Shell: Science is exactly why I am making the argument. Reality is not subject to the limits of human knowledge...

You are still refusing to think for yourself.

New form of neo-atheism: "If you can't Google it it doesn't exist".
-I kinda like it.

[Shell B]

Here I'll set up the argument again and someone can try to knock it down, again.

All of reality is experienced through consciousness.

THEREFORE: If you believe in reality you must believe consciousness is real.

Eh, wrong. Killed it right there. No one must believe anything. You are operating under a heap of delusions.

1. That because you think it, other people must.
2. Experience=reality.
3. That reality requires anything as silly as a belief in it.
4. That's what real is not real unless you are experiencing it.

I know lifetime psychedelic drug users who would laugh at the absurdity of your assertions. You are jumping to "therefore" without every explaining why.

Yes, we experience reality through consciousness. That's as far as you got. It all fell apart on its own. No one has to knock it down. It is your delusion.

Perhaps, go "be the toaster" or something.

[amkerman]

I agree perhaps, and I make no claim that I can prove my very first premise. I make no claim that I can prove "God" as I have defined it, or that my definition of "God" is even accurate. I don't understand why people are claiming that I must prove something. My point is not to prove anything.

"This is why most rational intellectuals who hold an atheist stance support that agnostic aspect as well - for they are humble enough to know that they cannot truly know."
- which is why I believe atheism is another religion. It requires faith.

[Shell B]

Shell: Science is exactly why I am making the argument. Reality is not subject to the limits of human knowledge...

Strawman.

Yeah, it's not limited to your perception, either.

You are still refusing to think for yourself.

Suck a fart, you presumptuous little cunt.

New form of neo-atheism: "If you can't Google it it doesn't exist".
-I kinda like it.

And look at the monkey attributing one atheist's comment to all atheists. I kinda hate it. You are part of a collective. I am not, yet you say I do not think for myself. Your silly little argument is just a form of apologetics that atheists have been annihilating for decades. You are regurgitating old, shitty ideas.

At any rate, given that scientists defined universal constants and all of the equations categorized as such, I would say that a Google search turning up their findings would suffice. Unless, of course, you want to extend your bullshit. You can always act like you know better than people far more educated than yourself with I.Q.'s likely bigger than your paycheck. Being ignorant must be nice, ack. You can't spell, your grammar sucks, your an illogical little twat and yet you still find the time to look down on others. Good on you. Go join the legion of other apologists and their "individual thinking."

[Perhaps]

Here I'll set up the argument again and someone can try to knock it down, again.

All of reality is experienced through consciousness.

THEREFORE: If you believe in reality you must believe consciousness is real.

Eh, wrong. Killed it right there. No one must believe anything. You are operating under a heap of delusions.

1. That because you think it, other people must.
2. Experience=reality.
3. That reality requires anything as silly as a belief in it.
4. That's what real is not real unless you are experiencing it.

I know lifetime psychedelic drug users who would laugh at the absurdity of your assertions. You are jumping to "therefore" without every explaining why.

Yes, we experience reality through consciousness. That's as far as you got. It all fell apart on its own. No one has to knock it down. It is your delusion.

Perhaps, go "be the toaster" or something.

For the sake of an interesting conversation:

If you can make the claim that we experience reality, then you should be able to assert that reality is real. Correct?

From this you are then able to say that if reality is real because I experienced it, what allowed me to experience it? If that answer is consciousness then you are able to assume that the realness of reality presupposes consciousness existing. If something exists it is real by definition. We can continue from there I suppose.

[Edit] Shell, I don't think you need to be as harsh with him as you are being. Its a simple argument, it shouldn't include the person's character.

[Shell B]

I don't understand why people are claiming that I must prove something.

Uh, maybe your overuse of the terms "must" and "therefore" led you down that road. Fuck. If you had said, "this is what I think" instead of "this is the only logical way to think." you would have to prove nothing. Stop being a baby.

"This is why most rational intellectuals who hold an atheist stance support that agnostic aspect as well - for they are humble enough to know that they cannot truly know."
- which is why I believe atheism is another religion. It requires faith.

You all eat Creationist soup for breakfast and come vomit it up here. If one of you actually said something you didn't rip off from some other Creationist, I would shit my pants.

[Anomalocaris]

I agree perhaps, and I make no claim that I can prove my very first premise. I make no claim that I can prove "God" as I have defined it, or that my definition of "God" is even accurate. I don't understand why people are claiming that I must prove something. My point is not to prove anything.

In other words, not only have you come to our forum to fart, but you insist that you be allowed to fart from an upwind position from everyone else.

Not surprising for a Christian, since this is the totality of all the christianity has tried to do for 2000 years.

But this is not a christian forum, and we will shove something up your butt to stop you farting.