Best Theistic Arguments

[Angrboda]

Wrong again yog.  


You can have something but you may not be aware of.
That is what matter have.
Being made of the same factors that are in all other form of life matter got to have consciousness that however doesn't mean that she is aware of.
Awareness come after evolution take place and because matter hasn't yet gone through the evolution process is obvious that she does not have any awareness of what she is.  

By definition, you cannot have consciousness and not be aware of it.  If you are talking about something other than consciousness as such, you're talking about something that on the surface of it, is not consciousness.  Your claim in the evolution thread is that whatever it is that is in vibrations is the same stuff that is in the human mind, but is simply in a different form.  This is about evidence, remember, not simply about what you believe.  You're welcome to believe whatever you want about matter and its relationship to other things such as evolved beings, as long as you lack evidence for your belief, it is just dogma. What you have presented is nothing more than an assertion that the two are the same quantity.

Motion by itself is not evidence that vibrations are alive, both as the motion may be caused by something independent of the vibration, such as a God, or motion may simply be an intrinsic feature of these vibrations without need for any life.  You of course realize that vibration simply refers to a periodic aspect in the mathematical modeling of field interactions and not actual physical motion of course?  Of course you don't.  Regardless, my consciousness doesn't jiggle in my head.  Does yours?  If so, perhaps we have discovered the problem.....  Life is defined variously but no definition I have read simply says, "motion."  Motion is a property both of things known to be alive and not.  If you simply define everything as being alive, you've suspended the role of motion in your argument and have simply done an end run around the meaning of words.  See above about your use of language.

Suppose for a sec. that motion is not enough to say that vibrations are alive or not.
Now let us add something to this motion.
Let us add the fact that the bodies in which these vibrations exist are capable of giving new life.
So this plus motion is a clear evidence that vibrations are alive.

The fact that a composite thing, such as an alive body, possesses a capacity does not show that its parts contain this property.  I am or was capable of getting pregnant and bearing a child.  That by itself doesn't mean that my fingers or my foot is capable of getting pregnant and giving birth.  That's the fallacy of division and renders your conclusion invalid.

Promises of future discovery is not evidence.  This consciousness and energy being two sides of the same sheet is taken straight from the writings of Sarkar without any justification on its own.  From Sarkar's lips to your lips, without any thought or reason intervening.  That is what is called dogma, and is not justification for belief.  If you'd care to explain why Sarkar believes it, by all means do so.  Otherwise you're just repeating dogma.

It doesn't really need Sarkar to prove that consciousness and energy are the two sides of the same sheet.  
You can easily see in everyday life.
Take your car.
In it there is a lot of energy but this energy is unable to do anything unless you direct it to act or to express her potential.
Or take your computer.
Until you direct it to do something nothing happen so it is clear that energy plus consciousness must go hand in hand in order to do something.

Although low form of lives act according mother nature instinct the rule is the same which is that consciousness and energy always go hand in hand.  

In the first place, the latter doesn't follow from the former.  Regardless, we have plenty of examples of the contrary.  Two planets placed near each other will move toward each other by gravitational attraction.  Steel ball bearings placed near a magnet will move toward the magnet.  So, your generalization simply doesn't hold.  Like your other beliefs, you have no valid justification for your belief.  Moreover, if Sarkar did not give reasons for his claim, and you believed it simply on the basis of his say so, that is the very essence of dogma.  Your attempt to provide ad hoc rationalizations for your prior belief is simply irrelevant.

Much as everything else here, this point has been discussed more fully in the evolution thread, and has already been more than adequately answered.  You have no justification for your belief that life comes only from life, and therefore it's just dogma.  Science for its part has neither concluded that life comes from non-life nor that it doesn't, so your claiming that it is science is just a lie which you keep repeating.

Fail for the hundred times yog.  

Science has established that everything is made of vibrations.  
Bodies in which these vibrations exist are capable of giving life therefore is quite clear that to give life a body full of vibration is essential.

Without vibrations there would not be a body.
No matter, no veg. life, no animal life, no human life, nothing, not even the universe because even the universe is made of vibrations.
Nothing at all, so life wouldn't be there without vibrations.

From here is obvious that vibrations must be alive.  

Besides being answered above, it simply doesn't follow that because life is necessarily dependent on the existence of vibrations that therefore the vibrations themselves are alive.

Yes, we've been through all this in the evolution thread.  Life in matter is both obvious and known, but at the same time hidden and incapable of being observed.   No, your arguments, such as they are, either include falsehoods, fallacies, errors of reasoning, or simple misstatements of fact.  This is because your explanations are nothing more than tissue thin rationalizations for your justification of believing these things which is really based primarily on the fact that your guru had asserted them.  They are religious dogma, nothing more.

If you really think that there is something void of life please show to the world such an interesting theory.  
Didn't I tell you that you may even go for a Nobel prize?  

The question here is not what I believe, nor why.  So any observations you might care to make about me do not clear you of the charge of having a worldview that is based on dogma.  I could have no theory whatsoever, and it wouldn't matter one whit.

[Little Rik]

By definition, you cannot have consciousness and not be aware of it.  If you are talking about something other than consciousness as such, you're talking about something that on the surface of it, is not consciousness.  Your claim in the evolution thread is that whatever it is that is in vibrations is the same stuff that is in the human mind, but is simply in a different form.  This is about evidence, remember, not simply about what you believe.  You're welcome to believe whatever you want about matter and its relationship to other things such as evolved beings, as long as you lack evidence for your belief, it is just dogma. What you have presented is nothing more than an assertion that the two are the same quantity.

Yes I can.........have consciousness and not be aware of it.
Of course I can.
When I sleep my consciousness is still alive and well.
The awareness is almost gone that however doesn't mean that the consciousness is gone.
Consciousness can not be killed.
The same apply to energy.
If you kill energy-consciousness you kill the whole universe because the universe is made of consciousness.
That is impossible to happen.
That is why consciousness is always there.
The awareness is a different story.
That vary from almost nil in matter to great in humans and to 100% in God's mind.

Suppose for a sec. that motion is not enough to say that vibrations are alive or not.
Now let us add something to this motion.
Let us add the fact that the bodies in which these vibrations exist are capable of giving new life.
So this plus motion is a clear evidence that vibrations are alive.

The fact that a composite thing, such as an alive body, possesses a capacity does not show that its parts contain this property.  I am or was capable of getting pregnant and bearing a child.  That by itself doesn't mean that my fingers or my foot is capable of getting pregnant and giving birth.  That's the fallacy of division and renders your conclusion invalid.

More BS on your part.  
Any body is made of vibrations therefore if you take away the vibrations you take away the full body and the chances to produce more life.
Here I am talking about pure mats.
No vibrations= no body.
No body= no new life.

The body being made of vibrations must be alive in order to create new life and because the body is none but vibrations these vibrations must be fully alive or new life is not possible.    

It doesn't really need Sarkar to prove that consciousness and energy are the two sides of the same sheet.  Lightbulb
You can easily see in everyday life.
Take your car.
In it there is a lot of energy but this energy is unable to do anything unless you direct it to act or to express her potential.
Or take your computer.
Until you direct it to do something nothing happen so it is clear that energy plus consciousness must go hand in hand in order to do something.

Although low form of lives act according mother nature instinct the rule is the same which is that consciousness and energy always go hand in hand.

In the first place, the latter doesn't follow from the former.  Regardless, we have plenty of examples of the contrary.  Two planets placed near each other will move toward each other by gravitational attraction.  Steel ball bearings placed near a magnet will move toward the magnet.  So, your generalization simply doesn't hold.  Like your other beliefs, you have no valid justification for your belief.  Moreover, if Sarkar did not give reasons for his claim, and you believed it simply on the basis of his say so, that is the very essence of dogma.  Your attempt to provide ad hoc rationalizations for your prior belief is simply irrelevant.

Wrong once again yog.  

Energy and consciousness are NOT two separate things that for some mysterious reasons come to unite.
They are always been together.
Your thought could not exist without energy that is why the two are one.  

If you really think that there is something void of life please show to the world such an interesting theory.  Lightbulb
Didn't I tell you that you may even go for a Nobel prize?

The question here is not what I believe, nor why.  So any observations you might care to make about me do not clear you of the charge of having a worldview that is based on dogma.  I could have no theory whatsoever, and it wouldn't matter one whit.

Your way is a long long way to see clear.
By trying to demolish other people ideas (something that you of course fail at every instance) you hope to come up as a winner.
Unfortunately you get nowhere because the real progress depend on you and you alone.
But how can you ever get any progress when you do absolutely nothing to achieve any progress?
Don't you think that is about time to wake up and grow up?  

[Astreja]

Don't you think that is about time to wake up and grow up?  

^^^ sayeth a purveyor of stuffed toy elves...  *mic drop*

[Little Rik]

Don't you think that is about time to wake up and grow up?  

^^^ sayeth a purveyor of stuffed toy elves...  *mic drop*

Life is not that bad darl.  

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes I can.........have consciousness and not be aware of it.
Of course I can.
When I sleep my consciousness is still alive and well.
The awareness is almost gone that however doesn't mean that the consciousness is gone.

You are conscious of the consciousness when you're conscious as you sleep. You're confusing being unable to remember what you were conscious of with being unconscious of consciousness. It's not possible to be unconscious of consciousness. Or conscious of unconsciousness. You can only be conscious of consciousness and unconscious of unconsciousness.

[Astreja]

^^^ sayeth a purveyor of stuffed toy elves...  *mic drop*

Life is not that bad darl.   

Non sequitur much?  

[Little Rik]

Yes I can.........have consciousness and not be aware of it.
Of course I can.
When I sleep my consciousness is still alive and well.
The awareness is almost gone that however doesn't mean that the consciousness is gone.

You are conscious of the consciousness when you're conscious as you sleep. You're confusing being unable to remember what you were conscious of with being unconscious of consciousness. It's not possible to be unconscious of consciousness.  Or conscious of unconsciousness. You can only be conscious of consciousness and unconscious of unconsciousness.

Atheists are still ages and ages behind regarding the knowledge in consciousness.

The mind is like an onion.
If you open on onion you will find that there are many layers.
The mind rely on consciousness to understand but generally speaking it can only get the knowledge of the outside layers of the consciousness, that however does not means that inside or within the outer layers there are not more layers and knowledge within.

Not all humans are interested in finding out the knowledge that lies within and atheists are also part of this type of humans.
They are blind in thinking that all the knowledge lies outside or what they can so far perceive.
They are waiting and waiting for the manna to fall from the sky but it never will because knowledge is purely personal.

Other types of humans however are a lot lot smarter.
They dig deep within in search for the real knowledge so they can get the real McCoy of knowledge.
When this happen your mind is more and more aware of who you are and how the whole system works so the mind does not always follow the conventional routine of the blind masses.  

[Alan V]

Atheists are still ages and ages behind regarding the knowledge in consciousness.

Sweeping generalization fallacy.

---

You are conscious of the consciousness when you're conscious as you sleep. You're confusing being unable to remember what you were conscious of with being unconscious of consciousness. It's not possible to be unconscious of consciousness.  Or conscious of unconsciousness. You can only be conscious of consciousness and unconscious of unconsciousness.

You are assuming consciousness is unitary.  That is not the case.  In cases where epileptics had their corpus callosums cut to help them control their seizures, scientists found that one side of the brain lost communication with the other, i.e. was not conscious of what they other was conscious of.

[Angrboda]

By definition, you cannot have consciousness and not be aware of it.  If you are talking about something other than consciousness as such, you're talking about something that on the surface of it, is not consciousness.  Your claim in the evolution thread is that whatever it is that is in vibrations is the same stuff that is in the human mind, but is simply in a different form.  This is about evidence, remember, not simply about what you believe.  You're welcome to believe whatever you want about matter and its relationship to other things such as evolved beings, as long as you lack evidence for your belief, it is just dogma. What you have presented is nothing more than an assertion that the two are the same quantity.

Yes I can.........have consciousness and not be aware of it.
Of course I can.
When I sleep my consciousness is still alive and well.
The awareness is almost gone that however doesn't mean that the consciousness is gone.
Consciousness can not be killed.

Bare assertion. You believe that your consciousness is still there when you sleep, but that's based solely on your other beliefs, which are just dogma, so, no, you don't have any evidence that consciousness is "still there" when you're asleep.

The same apply to energy.
If you kill energy-consciousness you kill the whole universe because the universe is made of consciousness.
That is impossible to happen.
That is why consciousness is always there.
The awareness is a different story.
That vary from almost nil in matter to great in humans and to 100% in God's mind.

More dogma. Do you even understand what reasons and evidence are?

The fact that a composite thing, such as an alive body, possesses a capacity does not show that its parts contain this property.  I am or was capable of getting pregnant and bearing a child.  That by itself doesn't mean that my fingers or my foot is capable of getting pregnant and giving birth.  That's the fallacy of division and renders your conclusion invalid.

More BS on your part.  
Any body is made of vibrations therefore if you take away the vibrations you take away the full body and the chances to produce more life.
Here I am talking about pure mats.
No vibrations= no body.
No body= no new life.

The body being made of vibrations must be alive in order to create new life and because the body is none but vibrations these vibrations must be fully alive or new life is not possible.    

Still the fallacy of division. Are you simply too stupid to learn, or are you just stubbornly trying to avoid the obvious?

It doesn't really need Sarkar to prove that consciousness and energy are the two sides of the same sheet.  Lightbulb
You can easily see in everyday life.
Take your car.
In it there is a lot of energy but this energy is unable to do anything unless you direct it to act or to express her potential.
Or take your computer.
Until you direct it to do something nothing happen so it is clear that energy plus consciousness must go hand in hand in order to do something.

Although low form of lives act according mother nature instinct the rule is the same which is that consciousness and energy always go hand in hand.

In the first place, the latter doesn't follow from the former.  Regardless, we have plenty of examples of the contrary.  Two planets placed near each other will move toward each other by gravitational attraction.  Steel ball bearings placed near a magnet will move toward the magnet.  So, your generalization simply doesn't hold.  Like your other beliefs, you have no valid justification for your belief.  Moreover, if Sarkar did not give reasons for his claim, and you believed it simply on the basis of his say so, that is the very essence of dogma.  Your attempt to provide ad hoc rationalizations for your prior belief is simply irrelevant.

Wrong once again yog.  

Energy and consciousness are NOT two separate things that for some mysterious reasons come to unite.
They are always been together.
Your thought could not exist without energy that is why the two are one.  

I would agree, but for different reasons. Energy is always there when consciousness is because energy is part of the cause of consciousness the phenomena. It doesn't follow from the fact that consciousness appears to have something to do with energy that the one and the other are two sides of the same phenomena, so you're just appealing to dogma again.

If you really think that there is something void of life please show to the world such an interesting theory.  Lightbulb
Didn't I tell you that you may even go for a Nobel prize?

The question here is not what I believe, nor why.  So any observations you might care to make about me do not clear you of the charge of having a worldview that is based on dogma.  I could have no theory whatsoever, and it wouldn't matter one whit.

Your way is a long long way to see clear.
By trying to demolish other people ideas (something that you of course fail at every instance) you hope to come up as a winner.
Unfortunately you get nowhere because the real progress depend on you and you alone.
But how can you ever get any progress when you do absolutely nothing to achieve any progress?
Don't you think that is about time to wake up and grow up?  

It is a moral and practical good to oppose bad ideas and replace them with better ideas.

As far as progress, who is the one who has remained stagnant for 40 years, doing the same thing over and over again? What change have you made to your beliefs in that time? Progress requires change. No change, no progress.

What I think is it's about time that you shit or get off the pot. I have a suggestion. Why don't you present your three strongest arguments for believing that vibrations are alive and so forth, and we'll limit the debate to your strongest evidence. After discussion of that, we find that even your strongest evidence doesn't measure up, we'll conclude that your beliefs are dogma and nothing real. You've had two months to get to this point. I suggest we limit it to another month. Is that fair?

[EgoDeath]

Why do you guys entertain that troll? lol

Also, I've never heard any truly convincing arguments from a theist. With a keen eye, or ear, depending on where you're encountering the person, you can almost always see through a theist when they're trying to be slick. It all boils down to intellectual dishonesty and faith. They will attempt to convince you they're right through all kinds of logical loopholes and what not, and when that doesn't work they hit you with, "Why can't you just love god?" or "don't you believe in ANYTHING?" or "You will answer to your sins when you die, regardless of what you believe..." and my personal favorite, "I feel sorry for you, your life must be so empty without god."

All in all, just don't back yourself into a corner. Don't try to PROVE god isn't real unless you have a damn good reason to believe your argument is solid. I firmly believe that if you simply allow them too, most theists will reveal the holes in their own arguments; regardless of how many side roads they attempt to lead you down, their main point is still almost always complete shit.