Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[I_am_not_mafia]

It is obvious that all truth is not scientific. Examples: it is morally wrong to murder someone. It is true that humans are affected by natural beauty. Freedom is better than slavery.

Except those aren't truths. Not all humans are affected by natural beauty. Some are indifferent to it. It can't be a truth that it is morally wrong to murder someone, but also to go to war for a good cause. And not everyone does prefer freedom to slavery.

If I told you about a cannibal mother who ate her own children then you'd call her evil.  But many animals such as rats and mice do this. Is it was a moral truth not to kill your own children that existed even if humans did not, then how does this apply to other non-human animals?

If every human and every human record were erased, every one of the concepts you described would still exist. This is illustrated simply by the fact that if a new species evolved with the ability to reason, it would discover these very same things about reality (numbers, Pi ratios, logic, etc.). 

You absolutely cannot assume that. When I gave the example of an apple actually being referred to as a part of a tree, I was thinking in my head at the time that an alien might well think in those terms. Life and intelligence are forms of self organisation, this means that they increase entropy more so over the long term than if they did not develop. How they increase entropy depends on the environment in which they develop. This is why we can't be sure that we will even recognise extra-terrestial life or intelligence when we see it, because the environment it developed in may be so utterly different to what we expect.

Language, maths and logic are means by which a life form can be intelligent. Like with the development of life and intelligence, their use increase entropy over time more so than if they were not used. Again, the most efficacious way that entropy can be increased depends on the environment. Would a parts of an alien hive mind or super organism automatically have a sense of self? Would they need integers? There are scientific problems that our current forms of Maths and logic are not suitable for, so we invent other forms which are incompatible with what we already have. For example fuzzy logic is incompatible with first order predicate calculus because it does not have the values of true and false. So we cannot make any assumptions about how another intelligent species make think or what kind of logic or maths it might use, if any.

Again explain what an ethic is and how it can have an effect on the universe if there are no humans. Where did it come from? How did it come about? What does it consist of? Where does it get its energy from?

Depends on your view. My view is that most ethical truths are intuited. Others say they are reasoned. Either way, they are still ethical truths. It is wrong to murder, lie and steal. Ethics requires humans. 

So you didn't answer the question about what an ethic actually is, how it came about, what it consists of and where it gets its energy from. You need to answer all these if you are going to convince anyone that they can exist without humans (or even without other animals).

Instead you show us that your truths are specific to what you personally feel to be the case. Yet you have no way of determining whether you have these feelings because of something external to yourself or because of how your brain is wired through a combination of upbringing and evolution.

It is a fact that the physical brain is not the same thing as consciousness. Consciousness is an epiphenomenon. 

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain. Without the physical brain there would be no consciousness. There is plenty of evidence for this.

The natural world is any physical thing that exists that is subject to our laws of nature. I believe that natural events can have supernatural causes (definition of a miracle). Science is by definition the study of the natural world. Supernatural causes are outside it's ability to investigate or comment on. It can examine the effect--just not the cause. That is not special pleading. You are attempting to apply science beyond its definition. Why would you say that natural things do not affect the supernatural world? How do you know? 

I would say that by definition the supernatural world does not exist because it is not part of nature. If it existed, it would be part of nature. It is you that is equivocating by using an ambiguous term that cannot be defined. All you can do is say that the natural world is subject to natural laws and the supernatural world has supernatural causes. You are defining terms by themselves. What is the difference between natural and supernatural? You cannot say. Your ambiguous equivocation allows you to believe what you like.

[Little Rik]

You are the one who said that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
Bring the evidence that what you say is true.
After that we can continue the conversation.
OK?  

And after that please bring also the evidence that.......the consciousness is easy to destroy.  

This is obviously said by someone who has never been under general anesthetic. If you were still conscious under anesthetic you would certainly know about it while being cut up on the operating table. If consciousness is not a product of the brain then it should not matter what happens to the brain. But it does. The food you eat, or don't eat will affect your mental disposition. So will drugs. There are many documented cases in the scientific literature of people undergoing massive personality changes because of the brain damage that they have suffered. The most famous example being that of Phineas Gage.

Many people suffer fro neurodegenerative diseases. I myself suffer from Multiple Sclerosis and one of the most typical symptoms is optic neuritis. If you could see without the use of eyes, as people who believe in NDEs claim as they imagine floating off to place where their eyes are not present, then people suffering from MS would not suffer double vision when lesions occur in their optic nerves.

If the brain was not solely responsible for who and what we are, how we think and act and process sensory stimuli, then people with Alzheimers would not suffer from memory loss.

Scientists discover the on-off switch for human consciousness deep within the brain

Researchers at George Washington University are reporting that they’ve discovered the human consciousness on-off switch, deep within the brain. When this region of the brain, called the claustrum, is electrically stimulated, consciousness — self-awareness, sentience, whatever you want to call it — appears to turn off completely. When the stimulation is removed, consciousness returns. The claustrum seems to bind together all of our senses, perceptions, and computations into single, cohesive experience. This could have massive repercussions for people currently in a minimally conscious state (i.e. a coma), and for deciding once and for all which organisms are actually conscious.

It is quite obvious that when the body or the brain or both are in trouble also the consciousness get affected.

As the driver suffer when the vehicle get into an accident also the consciousness get affected when the body-brain get sick.

WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS IS A PRODUCT OF THE BRAIN OR THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS DIE AS YOU SAY?

[The Grand Nudger]

Thankfully, skulls are so dense (and some moreso than others........) that, like cars, they can be damaged without damaging their occupants.

[I_am_not_mafia]

It is quite obvious that when the body or the brain or both are in trouble also the consciousness get affected.

As the driver suffer when the vehicle get into an accident also the consciousness get affected when the body-brain get sick.

WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS IS A PRODUCT OF THE BRAIN OR THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS DIE AS YOU SAY?

OK, I see the problem here. Let's start with the basics show we?

---

---

[Whateverist]

This is obviously said by someone who has never been under general anesthetic. If you were still conscious under anesthetic you would certainly know about it while being cut up on the operating table. If consciousness is not a product of the brain then it should not matter what happens to the brain. But it does. The food you eat, or don't eat will affect your mental disposition. So will drugs. There are many documented cases in the scientific literature of people undergoing massive personality changes because of the brain damage that they have suffered. The most famous example being that of Phineas Gage.

Many people suffer fro neurodegenerative diseases. I myself suffer from Multiple Sclerosis and one of the most typical symptoms is optic neuritis. If you could see without the use of eyes, as people who believe in NDEs claim as they imagine floating off to place where their eyes are not present, then people suffering from MS would not suffer double vision when lesions occur in their optic nerves.

If the brain was not solely responsible for who and what we are, how we think and act and process sensory stimuli, then people with Alzheimers would not suffer from memory loss.

Scientists discover the on-off switch for human consciousness deep within the brain

It is quite obvious that when the body or the brain or both are in trouble also the consciousness get affected.

As the driver suffer when the vehicle get into an accident also the consciousness get affected when the body-brain get sick.

WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS IS A PRODUCT OF THE BRAIN OR THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS DIE AS YOU SAY?

Wow, did I just witness Rik adjust his 'thinking'?  Is this well supported in the intuitional science literature?

[Sal]

A believer making scientific work (if it can be called that) does so in spite of his beliefs; much the same way a, say, YEC geologists would make use of radiometric dating of rocks and by which would go against his YEC beliefs.

[Little Rik]

It is quite obvious that when the body or the brain or both are in trouble also the consciousness get affected.

As the driver suffer when the vehicle get into an accident also the consciousness get affected when the body-brain get sick.

WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS IS A PRODUCT OF THE BRAIN OR THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS DIE AS YOU SAY?

OK, I see the problem here. Let's start with the basics show we?

---

---

I already knew that you could not back up your statements with evidence.  

Have a good day in your world of fantasies and dogmas anyway.  

---

Thankfully, skulls are so dense (and some moreso than others........) that, like cars, they can be damaged without damaging their occupants.

Well, well Khem.  

It seems that something ABSTRACT as the consciousness can never be killed although it can lose or gain in power but I guess that you know for sure unlike Mathilda that the consciousness can die.    

Don't worry too much Khem.  
I am a very patient person.
I can wait until Christmas for your evidence.  

[I_am_not_mafia]

It's obvious that what anyone says to you Little Rik that you won't actually consider a proper response or try and refute it, you'll just dismiss it out of hand. That's not debate, that's just sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la la I'm not listening'. Therefore it's not worth bothering with you.

[Succubus]

It's obvious that what anyone says to you Little Rik that you won't actually consider a proper response or try and refute it, you'll just dismiss it out of hand. That's not debate, that's just sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la la I'm not listening'. Therefore it's not worth bothering with you.

It looks to me, he doesn’t even read the posts he responds to never mind comprehend them.

[Little Rik]

It's obvious that what anyone says to you Little Rik that you won't actually consider a proper response or try and refute it, you'll just dismiss it out of hand. That's not debate, that's just sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la la I'm not listening'. Therefore it's not worth bothering with you.

I do consider anything that is back up with evidence.
Unfortunately you came up with statements void of evidence that is why I can not consider what you say.  

The day you will back up your statements with evidence I promise that I will consider them.  

A golden tip Mat.
Next time you are interested in a debate instead saying.......the consciousness is a product of the brain or that the consciousness die .....you should say..........MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT......the consciousness is a product of the brain AND that the consciousness die.........

Got it?  

Here is a small list of atheists dogmas (Guesses or false ideas taken as golden truth).


1) Consciousness die when the body die.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) Our evolution comes thanks to previous generations.
4) Nobody created this universe and nobody run it.

---

It's obvious that what anyone says to you Little Rik that you won't actually consider a proper response or try and refute it, you'll just dismiss it out of hand. That's not debate, that's just sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la la I'm not listening'. Therefore it's not worth bothering with you.

It looks to me, he doesn’t even read the posts he responds to never mind comprehend them.

Well, well, well.  

This come from the guy who did not read my link that would answer his question about the not Christian historians and then ask the same question once again.