An unorthodox belief in God.

[mickiel]

I accept your reasons for belief, but I do not agree with them. I think a combination of Occam's Razor and de-constructing some of the arguments from ignorance could debilitate your thesis on a universal (i.e. non personal) level.

But as I've never seen you before, welcome to the forum

Well thank you. I think the existence of god has to be considered on a universal level; a bit of thinking beyond the norm.

[Anomalocaris]

I accept your reasons for belief, but I do not agree with them. I think a combination of Occam's Razor and de-constructing some of the arguments from ignorance could debilitate your thesis on a universal (i.e. non personal) level.

But as I've never seen you before, welcome to the forum

Well thank you. I think the existence of god has to be considered on a universal level; a bit of thinking beyond the norm.

No, a bit of wishing that is entirely normal for the unthinking.

Don't confuse infantile wishing and self justification with thinking.

[mickiel]

First things first: what you believe means exactly nothing. The only thing that matters here is what you can demonstrate to be true, and as of right now, we have plenty of evidence that evolution occurs and that we are evolved animals, and no evidence for anything else. Therefore, just on the weight of the evidence, evolution is sufficient to produce consciousness.

My beliefs mean nothing to you, but are of value to me. There is evidence that cats have 90% of our genes, cows 80%, a mouse 75%, and chickens and fruitflys 60%. In my view, that is evidence that a creator used the same ingredients in many of his creations. Evidence of a mind, a mind that knew what it was doing.

---

Well thank you. I think the existence of god has to be considered on a universal level; a bit of thinking beyond the norm.

No, a bit of wishing that is entirely normal for the unthinking.

Don't confuse infantile wishing and self justification with thinking.

I will not insult you in return, by implying you do not think, just because we disagree; I hold no need to insult what I disagree with. I consider you a guest on this thread, and refuse to insult my guest. Only understand them, in hopes they understand me.

[Esquilax]

My beliefs mean nothing to you, but are of value to me. There is evidence that cats have 90% of our genes, cows 80%, a mouse 75%, and chickens and fruitflys 60%. In my view, that is evidence that a creator used the same ingredients in many of his creations. Evidence of a mind, a mind that knew what it was doing.

Again, the fact that you can desperately retrofit your nebulous belief about god into known facts is not evidence of anything more than your willingness to bend to preserve your beliefs. I guarantee you that if we found out tomorrow that, in fact, every single animal on earth has a completely unique genetic structure with no overlap, you wouldn't count that as a disproof of god, and would instead be telling us how so many different and varied genetic codes must be evidence of a designer because it's all too complex.

I also not the lack of effort put into addressing any of the other contentions I raised. Most pertinently, for me at least, is my demonstration that five seconds on google could answer many of the questions (arguments from ignorance, rather) that you had about evolution. It's important that we address that topic, as I'm sure we'd all like to know just how interested you are in learning the truth of these matters, or whether you just wanted to preach at us.

[Anomalocaris]

You can swim in your own little make belief cosmology all you want. Don't pester us with it. We are moved by the sort of evidentiary evaluation which naturally leads to falsifiable, but as yet unfalsified, predictions.

We don't care for happy stories concocted to fit already made observations that can not demonstrate any deeper correlation with underlying reality by being able to make specific, unique, and falsifiable predictions of observations yet to be made.

[ThePinsir]

I am ignorant of many things, but my awareness grows annually. We can only be conscious of, those things we are conscious of. We live, and life is evidence of god in my view, we learn, and learning is evidence of god in my comprehension. And we argue according to what we are conscious of. We think and live and move and have our being. We are living beings; conscious beings; and I cannot see consciousness as a result of unconsciousness.

That is. This one, particular person doesn't know a natural process by which consciousness could have arisen. Therefore, God exists.

I guess it's time to close down this website - atheism just doesn't make any sense anymore.

the earth was obviously well suited for humans.

No, dude. Humans are well suited for earth. Do you even science? Do you even evolution? Do you even logic?

[mickiel]

Consciousness must be a spirit, as god must be one. It really has no location in the body, we just think its in our head, because we look through our eyes in retrospect, and think that we are thinking in our heads. There is nothing in the human head but skin and bones; there is no physical organ that we can call consciousness.

Consciousness is our link to god, I think the only link, and it can think for itself and misunderstand that link , kind of become a missing link. I don't view consciousness as emergent from tissue gathered over the years and explained into mental existence by scientific theory.

Again a point in gods direction.

[Losty]

I feel like repeating myself from the last thread, what debate? What is it that you think you're debating?

Go ahead and tell us how you feel if you really want to, but just saying what you believe is not a debate. And just telling us why you feel that way is not the same as evidence.

[Anomalocaris]

Do you realize repeating idiotic bare assertions will lead you nowhere, right?

How can you not go to church? The church and gathering of tea party are just about the only place where you are encouraged through calculatingly incited mass hysteria to think truth is nothing but vehemently and repeatedly states bare assertions.

You see, a concept needs to be testable to be taken seriously. Offering what seems like pat answers stolen off a cheat sheet of post hoc observations gets you nowhere.

Propose how your can be tested in a worthwhile way.

[Losty]

There is nothing in the human head but skin and bones

I had to chuckle at this one. Hehe :p