Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Ontology is the philosophical study of being, existence, and reality.
I'm pretty sure that you linked Anselm's ontology, not yours.
I don't think you're lying, I think you literally don't know what you're talking about.
Ontology is not limited to questions about God.
I doubt there's anyone here who is unfamiliar with Anselm's argument, and its flaws. If you had truly researched it instead of just Googling it, you would be aware of its flaws as well, and wouldn't expect us to accept a flawed argument as evidence without dealing with those flaws.
This is a claim, and it's at odds with the evidence that the earth did not always harbor life.
So how would your beliefs change if scientists produce life in a lab from scratch?
You seem to have difficult and impossible confused. Did you know that we can make a bacteria genome from scratch in the lab (from biologically inert chemicals), insert it into a denucleated cell (that is, a freshly-dead cell due to having had its nucleus removed), and have the cell's metabolism resume and reproduce? We will probably achieve what you consider impossible in your lifetime.
It doesn't seem so plausible when our main problem with abiogenesis is that there are too many plausible explanations for how life could have arisen naturally, it's hard to determine billions of years later which one was actually the case, but at any rate, organic chemistry can explain several ways it could have happened. All it takes is one self-replicating molecule to get on the path to life.
You have not bothered to support any of your points. If you don't support them with reason, we don't need to use reason to dismiss them. We don't need to argue to justify ignoring a point for which you won't give us a single reason to believe its validity.
Repeating yourself isn't the same thing as responding.
If only that were true, you would be able to at least attempt to explain why God is a better explanation for consciousness than evolution, instead of just claiming it is.
I'm an optimist. I'm incredibly easy to satisfy. The right words from the right person, and I'm right back in church, working hard to convince myself of the reality of God.
Out of those two pages, what do you think was your best point in support of consciousness being evidence of God rather than natural processes?
Saying you gave the evidence is easy, anyone can say it. I notice that's your go to response, rather than presenting the evidence, or linking to the post in which you think you gave the evidence. It seems like you can't even recall your own post in which you said something to support one of your claims.
If it's not about you, don't get huffy when we ask you for something you think you've already done, just give it again rather than expect us to search the whole thread for something that might not even be there.
And for the record, I find it annoying when atheists play the 'but I already told you' game too, you know who you are.
That's the least wrong thing I've ever seen you post.
I don't see why I have to dig deeper, you claim to have done orginal research and when asked for it only show that you can Google, the fault is lying right there on the surface.
'Why not Krishna?' is my question. Because English.
Pretty much says everything I want to.
Ontology is not simply the study of whether god exists. Mick did not post any of 'his' ontology, merely an article outlining the thesis of someone else with absolutely no quantification.
Mick, I understand that you think you're right and everyone else is wrong. So, rather then flog a dead horse, I want you to promise me that whenever you post on another forum trying to show how what you've written is coherent and worth reading, please post a link to this thread so everyone else can at least try and see how futile talking to you appears to be.
Cheers.
I will do that, I always try and show two sites how the same debate is waging elsewhere. All kinds of things and methods can be used in this " Proof or not proof debate"; even computers;
Yesterday I posted a response to you where I specifically pointed out that I, pretty much alone among the people still talking to you, have been refraining from cursing in the hopes that it might cause you to pay attention to what I was saying in the spirit of actually taking the conversation somewhere. That post, along with the point I made in it, and a number of my other posts, was summarily ignored so you could accuse others of "dodging." That's an interesting contrast, don't you think?
In any case, I'd still like an answer to the point I raised there: you say that consciousness is evidence of god, because consciousness could not come from nothing. But didn't god's consciousness come from nothing? It has no designer, like you demand consciousness has to have, right? Even if you say it's eternal, that still means it comes from nothing. So doesn't that mean that you already believed in something that breaks the rules you wanted to set for everyone else, before you posted those rules?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
June 9, 2014 at 5:57 pm (This post was last modified: June 9, 2014 at 5:58 pm by mickiel.)
(June 9, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Mick, I'm disappointed.
Yesterday I posted a response to you where I specifically pointed out that I, pretty much alone among the people still talking to you, have been refraining from cursing in the hopes that it might cause you to pay attention to what I was saying in the spirit of actually taking the conversation somewhere. That post, along with the point I made in it, and a number of my other posts, was summarily ignored so you could accuse others of "dodging." That's an interesting contrast, don't you think?
In any case, I'd still like an answer to the point I raised there: you say that consciousness is evidence of god, because consciousness could not come from nothing. But didn't god's consciousness come from nothing? It has no designer, like you demand consciousness has to have, right? Even if you say it's eternal, that still means it comes from nothing. So doesn't that mean that you already believed in something that breaks the rules you wanted to set for everyone else, before you posted those rules?
No it does not; god gave himself consciousness; I just can't explain how. The bible describes god as " The beginning and the end", so we can say he has to have some kind of " Eternal beginning", but I doubt VERY seriously if he will ever reveal just how such an impossible thing could be. He IS the beginning, not the big bang, the big god! He IS the fiber of existence and the first of it.
I sure can't explain it.
Oh and thank you for withdrawing your cursing, I will be sure to honor you're every post from now on.
(June 9, 2014 at 5:57 pm)mickiel Wrote: No it does not; god gave himself consciousness; I just can't explain how. The bible describes god as " The beginning and the end", so we can say he has to have some kind of " Eternal beginning", but I doubt VERY seriously if he will ever reveal just how such an impossible thing could be. He IS the beginning, not the big bang, the big god! He IS the fiber of existence and the first of it.
I sure can't explain it.
So, if "I don't know," is an acceptable answer for you regarding this question on god without that being a disproof of god, then how come "I don't know," isn't an acceptable answer for a naturalistic explanation without completely discrediting that position to you?
On the one hand, what you've answered with here is a very important answer, because to honestly admit ignorance is the first step to gaining knowledge, and a big part of the scientific method. On the other, I don't understand why you're privileging god explanations, allowing them to be answered with "I don't know," while not extending the same courtesy to atheist or naturalist answers. I mean, in some respects the naturalist "I don't know" is actually stronger than the theist one, because at least the naturalist can point to demonstrably real and readily accessible evidence that might provide some form of answer, right?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(June 9, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Mick, I'm disappointed.
Yesterday I posted a response to you where I specifically pointed out that I, pretty much alone among the people still talking to you, have been refraining from cursing in the hopes that it might cause you to pay attention to what I was saying in the spirit of actually taking the conversation somewhere. That post, along with the point I made in it, and a number of my other posts, was summarily ignored so you could accuse others of "dodging." That's an interesting contrast, don't you think?
In any case, I'd still like an answer to the point I raised there: you say that consciousness is evidence of god, because consciousness could not come from nothing. But didn't god's consciousness come from nothing? It has no designer, like you demand consciousness has to have, right? Even if you say it's eternal, that still means it comes from nothing. So doesn't that mean that you already believed in something that breaks the rules you wanted to set for everyone else, before you posted those rules?
No it does not; god gave himself consciousness; I just can't explain how. The bible describes god as " The beginning and the end", so we can say he has to have some kind of " Eternal beginning", but I doubt VERY seriously if he will ever reveal just how such an impossible thing could be. He IS the beginning, not the big bang, the big god! He IS the fiber of existence and the first of it.
I sure can't explain it.
Oh and thank you for withdrawing your cursing, I will be sure to honor you're every post from now on.
Peace.
(June 9, 2014 at 6:06 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
(June 9, 2014 at 5:57 pm)mickiel Wrote: No it does not; god gave himself consciousness; I just can't explain how. The bible describes god as " The beginning and the end", so we can say he has to have some kind of " Eternal beginning", but I doubt VERY seriously if he will ever reveal just how such an impossible thing could be. He IS the beginning, not the big bang, the big god! He IS the fiber of existence and the first of it.
I sure can't explain it.
So, if "I don't know," is an acceptable answer for you regarding this question on god without that being a disproof of god, then how come "I don't know," isn't an acceptable answer for a naturalistic explanation without completely discrediting that position to you?
On the one hand, what you've answered with here is a very important answer, because to honestly admit ignorance is the first step to gaining knowledge, and a big part of the scientific method. On the other, I don't understand why you're privileging god explanations, allowing them to be answered with "I don't know," while not extending the same courtesy to atheist or naturalist answers. I mean, in some respects the naturalist "I don't know" is actually stronger than the theist one, because at least the naturalist can point to demonstrably real and readily accessible evidence that might provide some form of answer, right?
Well that's right, but were talking about god man! Were not informed on it; we really don't know much. Science can be cataloged, written down, booked, displayed on media screens, learned in school;
it ain't that way with god!
Its a whole different ball game, whole new standards; goodness, HE makes the standards; he IS the standard; its what a god does! Were not going to ever know everything about god! I mean this being IS life! IS power! IS law! We can't limit him, define him, constrain him, figure him out, we can't interview him, see him, hear him speak,
(June 9, 2014 at 6:16 pm)mickiel Wrote: Well that's right, but were talking about god man! Were not informed on it; we really don't know much. Science can be cataloged, written down, booked, displayed on media screens, learned in school;
it ain't that way with god!
Sure, but nobody here, or anywhere really, is claiming that science knows everything there is for it to know right now. There will always be new vistas of discovery for science, and the possibility of resolving those unknowns in the future; that's why the argument from ignorance is so fallacious, it assumes that we know everything we possibly can right this second, and that there's only one thing beyond that knowledge. But science doesn't know everything yet, and it will know more tomorrow than it does today; doesn't that make "I don't know" answers just as valid for us as they are for you?
Quote:Its a whole different ball game, whole new standards; goodness, HE makes the standards; he IS the standard; its what a god does! Were not going to ever know everything about god! I mean this being IS life! IS power! IS law! We can't limit him, define him, constrain him, figure him out, we can't interview him, see him, hear him speak,
such a being REDUCES us to " I don't know."
So then how do you know anything about him at all, if you can't define him? Isn't just calling it "him" defining him? After all, you've now defined him as male and not female, right?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(June 9, 2014 at 6:16 pm)mickiel Wrote: Well that's right, but were talking about god man! Were not informed on it; we really don't know much. Science can be cataloged, written down, booked, displayed on media screens, learned in school;
it ain't that way with god!
Sure, but nobody here, or anywhere really, is claiming that science knows everything there is for it to know right now. There will always be new vistas of discovery for science, and the possibility of resolving those unknowns in the future; that's why the argument from ignorance is so fallacious, it assumes that we know everything we possibly can right this second, and that there's only one thing beyond that knowledge. But science doesn't know everything yet, and it will know more tomorrow than it does today; doesn't that make "I don't know" answers just as valid for us as they are for you?
Yes they do.
Quote:Its a whole different ball game, whole new standards; goodness, HE makes the standards; he IS the standard; its what a god does! Were not going to ever know everything about god! I mean this being IS life! IS power! IS law! We can't limit him, define him, constrain him, figure him out, we can't interview him, see him, hear him speak,
such a being REDUCES us to " I don't know."
So then how do you know anything about him at all, if you can't define him? Isn't just calling it "him" defining him? After all, you've now defined him as male and not female, right?
He is not male or female, he is not human. And we know about him by what knowledge has been provided by every knowledge avialible to us.
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
