An unorthodox belief in God.

[Losty]

I think, Mickiel, that what you've posted there is another argument from ignorance or indeed an argument from personal incredulity.

We can evidence that the brain is what creates 'consciousness' quite simply. A person who has suffered brain death has no consciousness. A person that has suffered a stroke, or brain damage with a very obvious part of the brain being damaged or lost, can sometimes suffer a sever difference in their personality, or indeed forget 'who' they are.

If you're arguing that consciousness is some sort of evidence of a higher plane of existence then I will have to ask for evidence or deduce the claim is irresolvable and reject it.

Saying something must be because you think (want) it to be is not conducive to good debate.

The evidence I like using is " Civilization", excuse me for using caps again, a habit. I think some 30-50,00 years ago, god created adam, the first human he gave consciousness. Knowing that is not accepted here, lets just say whenever civilization began to emerge. I think it emerged BECAUSE god gave those humans consciousness. He did not give it fully to primordial humans.

The evidence fidel, is the obvious change in humanity, the curve it took. When primordial man basically died out after the ice age and the dawn of adam, its as if we took a dramatic left turn and exploded into a totally new direction; now we were thinking! And I think civilization is one of the evidence for consciousness, and again god.

Saying what you think isn't evidence. It's just, what you think. That does not in any way make it evidence.

[ThePinsir]

"God of the Gaps" is what you're doing. You take a phenomenon in the natural world, say lightning. For a long time people didn't know what caused it - so they thought it was caused by a god. Or a hurricane - surely only a god's wrath can provoke such a storm. Eventually science figured it out, and people no longer attribute lightning or hurricanes to gods. God is filling the GAPS in human knowledge. As science makes more and more discoveries, god is pushed further and further back into smaller and smaller gaps. Even the diversity of life, and the seeming perfection and "design" of each species, has been explained in science (by evolution), and so gods can't even take credit for that.

And it applies not only to past issues, but present ones as well. Say DNA. We don't quite yet know exactly how DNA formed (though we have some really good ideas). So creationists say it's so complicated that it can't possibly exist without a god - that's lazy. It just means we need to do the research!

And when we do unravel the mysteries of DNA, god will be pushed into yet a smaller gap. Where will he hide then? At the origins of the universe? Well we've pretty much got that covered, to.

I hope you see my point. Gaps aren't evidence, yo.

[mickiel]

I will do a three second google search and post LITERALLY the first result, OK??

Again, I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with the "god of the gaps" argument. What you're doing is saying "I don't understand X, or scientists don't yet understand X completely, therefore, god did it."

If something is complicated and hard to figure out, we don't give up and say it's a miracle. The best and brightest scientists roll up their sleeves, do the research, and figure it out. What you're suggesting is intellectually lazy and an argument from ignorance, nothing more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_o...production

BAM. Took three seconds. It's incredible what you can learn if you take the time to look, rather than using gods to fill the gaps in your knowledge.

I am suggesting no such thing, in fact I view intelligence as evidence for god, and agree with intelligent research. I have seen absolutely no well researched evidence that proves god does not exist; none! All the evidence I have seen keeps suggesting that he does. Explain to me how intelligence evolved from nothing. Use your science and explain it to me.

[Losty]

Oh I do all those things, and have no need to imply that you do not. Secondly I believe in God because of females, either human or animal. I view reproduction as a design that was instant, or else how could two vegetable pod anti sexual beings procreate? If evolution defined includes animal to human development, what were the first two animal things like? And why must we accept there were two of them?

Was the first thingy male? How and why did a female emerge? And if imagination permits, why would they think of a thing like mating? And how long did it take before nature figured out how to design a female womb, and the process of spermodazoa just appear?

No, I think females were designed, because reproduction is just too well done, and too important for any first being to not have and expect to continue without offspring. Again a point to god.

Thingys are always male. Ladies do not have thingys. We have hoohahs.

[mickiel]

The evidence I like using is " Civilization", excuse me for using caps again, a habit. I think some 30-50,00 years ago, god created adam, the first human he gave consciousness. Knowing that is not accepted here, lets just say whenever civilization began to emerge. I think it emerged BECAUSE god gave those humans consciousness. He did not give it fully to primordial humans.

The evidence fidel, is the obvious change in humanity, the curve it took. When primordial man basically died out after the ice age and the dawn of adam, its as if we took a dramatic left turn and exploded into a totally new direction; now we were thinking! And I think civilization is one of the evidence for consciousness, and again god.

Saying what you think isn't evidence. It's just, what you think. That does not in any way make it evidence.

Its factual history, its not what I think. Its right there in history, the dawn of civilization.

---

Oh I do all those things, and have no need to imply that you do not. Secondly I believe in God because of females, either human or animal. I view reproduction as a design that was instant, or else how could two vegetable pod anti sexual beings procreate? If evolution defined includes animal to human development, what were the first two animal things like? And why must we accept there were two of them?

Was the first thingy male? How and why did a female emerge? And if imagination permits, why would they think of a thing like mating? And how long did it take before nature figured out how to design a female womb, and the process of spermodazoa just appear?

No, I think females were designed, because reproduction is just too well done, and too important for any first being to not have and expect to continue without offspring. Again a point to god.

Thingys are always male. Ladies do not have thingys. We have hoohahs.

[ThePinsir]

I am suggesting no such thing, in fact I view intelligence as evidence for god, and agree with intelligent research. I have seen absolutely no well researched evidence that proves god does not exist; none! All the evidence I have seen keeps suggesting that he does. Explain to me how intelligence evolved from nothing. Use your science and explain it to me.

If I do, will you actually look at it, analyze it, think about it for yourself, and if you find it convincing, accept what the evidence suggests?

Or if I do, will you just brush it off and ignore it - resorting to tired apologetics?

Cognitive dissonance can be really uncomfortable, yo.

[btw, not MY science. I'm a science enthusiast, not a scientist.]

[Cato]

Legit question for you: are you familiar with the "god of the gaps" concept??

I'm sorry, no I am not familiar with it.

Never heard of the "god of the gaps" argument?

Are you this guy?

[mickiel]

"God of the Gaps" is what you're doing. You take a phenomenon in the natural world, say lightning. For a long time people didn't know what caused it - so they thought it was caused by a god. Or a hurricane - surely only a god's wrath can provoke such a storm. Eventually science figured it out, and people no longer attribute lightning or hurricanes to gods. God is filling the GAPS in human knowledge. As science makes more and more discoveries, god is pushed further and further back into smaller and smaller gaps. Even the diversity of life, and the seeming perfection and "design" of each species, has been explained in science (by evolution), and so gods can't even take credit for that.

And it applies not only to past issues, but present ones as well. Say DNA. We don't quite yet know exactly how DNA formed (though we have some really good ideas). So creationists say it's so complicated that it can't possibly exist without a god - that's lazy. It just means we need to do the research!

And when we do unravel the mysteries of DNA, god will be pushed into yet a smaller gap. Where will he hide then? At the origins of the universe? Well we've pretty much got that covered, to.

I hope you see my point. Gaps aren't evidence, yo.

I see you're point, but I still disagree; science will continue to take us up, but god is up there somewhere, so science will eventually lead itself and us to god, not push him away. Science can only help explain what has happened, what was done; it got done by a doer!

[Napoléon]

I see you're point, but I still disagree; science will continue to take us up, but god is up there somewhere, so science will eventually lead itself and us to god, not push him away. Science can only help explain what has happened, what was done; it got done by a doer!

When we get to that day, I'll accept him as my lord and saviour.

Until then all you're doing is blowing hot air out your ass.

[Chas]

Now the universe is far more than dimes on the ground, but I can see deliberate design in it. I can see an anthropic type of principle, which is just more evidence of a god in my view. If the dimes were not balanced by some precise force, it could not be done. If the earth was closer to the sun, it would be too hot and we would not exist. If it was much further away, we could not exist.

No, things in our reality are too deliberate , the earth was obviously well suited for humans.

No, no, and no.

Life is suited to the earth. You have the cart before the horse.