Existence of God ~ Which is more rational ~ Atheism or Belief in God

[crappycraperson]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU SAID---Well according to ur rules , one can be in the middle , either u believe it or not?
If not? Explain why u choose to be so ignorant to not to believe what i think is a well proven theory. ( don ask me to explain this theory now )

I HAD PREVIOUSLY SAID--- I know parts have been proven, and I believe these bits, where things are theory only, I remain undecided.

There, I believe what is proven with regards to evolution. If it is not proven, I am undecided. I do not reject it, merely am not sure. By the way, I doubt anyone *chooses* to be ignorant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

LOOK it is nt possible to prove any theory without any doubts which realtes to events in past
but i do think it is well established that various present creatures evolved from acient ones

YOU SAID---What i want to highlight here is that human are supposed to most intelligent beings on earth. They can distinguish whether raping a child is a hindrance to evolution of society or not

Can you explain this to me? How is the happiness of the child more important than the happiness of the rapist?

as i said we are supposed to be intelligent beings

YOU SAID---Why in the past these rules of morality didn’t affect ppl? What god hadn’t granted enough morality to them to make them realize abusing fellow human on basis of color is wrong? Or did he grant it it to only few ppl who thought racism was wrong back then?

You are blessed with free will. Most people are. You and they have choices on how to behave, think and live your life. If you want to swear and spit at people with different coloured skin, you can. God will allow you to do this, this is your choice, as it was theirs. There is no escape from your actions, and you become and live what you do and think.

They either ignored God, turned from God, were unaware of God or have misconstrued god's love for mankind

so according to u god had always installed in everyone morality that one should treat other equally
but earlier ppl choose to not hear him and later decide to. why?

YOU SAID---well please don tell me that u don believe that in the scientific process that describes how a new life is created by mating of a man and women. according to u god grants life to every new born. how does this explain test tube baby?

Simple, God grants it. Believe me, if he did not, it would not happen. Whether it is "right", is not my decision.

well formation of a human baby is full proven scientific theory without any flaws , if u don believe it ans still go on to think it is god who granrs life , u are choosing to be ignorant

YOU SAID---4. about avtars, prophets or messiahs- I do not dispute whether a person named Jesus existed or not? I do not dispute whether persons named Krishna, ram existed or not?

Why dont you dispute these? Surely a man of science wants PROOF?

because i havent learnt more about stories regarding these humans
if i had and wasnt satisfied , i would have raised questions

YOU SAID---And society from past has included majority believing in god.
The fact is ppl in past had every right to believe in a superior being, they had so many phenomenon unexplained: birth of a child, changing weathers, other natural phenomenon most of which has been explained and others will be as we evolve. But unfortunately ppl still carried the delusion about god through the years even though mankind explained a lot, misinterpretation of ppl like jesus strengthen this society view. And most of the ppl blindly started believing in god

Please explain clearly how a baby being born links to your belief in evolution? How did we go from non-sentient miniscule minerals and chemicals into a conscious, self-aware being that can love, make babies, cry, listen to music, dance, look at the stars, discuss the highest codes of philosophy and politics?

i am an engineering student not a medical one so i cant answer them right now
will after researching a bit

YOU SAID---Mainly because most of them were weak or are weak, they need to think that there is superior being looking after them , that their life isn’t useless, or a god could fulfill their wishes, or they need the concept of hell and heaven so that they could refrain themselves from making mistakes. i ll elaborate on pts 4 and 5 more as u ask me questions.

This is an old stereotypical point. Believing in God is a symptom of weakness or ignorance. I disagree fully, but can see how these things could have come about.

Quite often, when life is bad and we are struggling, God gently shakes our roots inside and whispers the truth to us. We may find ourselves turning to God or thinking about the subject more. This is natural and not weakness. Turning to God when we are down is simply confessing the truth that man cannot fully live without God. Instead of having money, sex, possessions, lust, greed, false prophets(politicians), scientists as our rock, we have God at our centre, as our rock and our truth. The deepest truth, the most caring love that can be expressed or felt. The lies of the world disappear and are burnt up in the fire of eternal truth.

------------------

THATS exactly what my pt is
lihe can be so hard , most ppl need to believe in a superior being

 

[crappycraperson]

i want to apoologise that i wont be able to post replies in next 10-12 days as my college exams are here
i hope u bear with me
i will post my seprate posts on universe and morality issue in 2 weeks of time

 

[Mr Average]

YOU SAID---i think i may have jumped a gun a bit when i said majority view is always the right one, its not always the case.
but the fact is society do play an very imp role in shaping one's opinion.
u would probably agree granting woman an uneaual status is a wrong thing
now u and i were born in india and uk , and in our socieies women were given almost equal status, we affliated to that view
while someone maybe born is saudi arbia or iran , there majority of society don give equal status to woman .
many ppl born there not all but many affliate the same view . what god havent granted them enough morality or something?
the fact is they are bought up in a society who teaches them this tese things and most of simple ppl follows them and only a few are able to rise above and make out it is not right.

I understand what you are saying. I do not understand how this specifically relates to this discussion? Yes, society helps shape opinion. I agree with this, but so what?

YOU SAID---i know it may be a hard thing to accept but yes society opinion goes a long way in shaping one's opinion.

It's not difficult at all actually. I fully accept this.

YOU SAID---as u ur self said in some societies human flesh eating is acceptable, what god forgot to grqant morailty to these ppl ?

You are making a massive leap of assumption here. God is not responsible for the wrong actions of an individual, the individual is. We have the choice in things we do and believe.

YOU SAID---NO, it is wrong
but i make that out not because of some god granted thing
but in simpler words,
i send this scenario to brain
it processsed it and concluded that only a mad person would committ such a act
if i had some deformity in my brain , i may have said it was right

I honestly do not understand what you are saying. I want to know why it is wrong if there is no God. I do not want to know how your brain computes that it is wrong. Will you, or will you not answer the question clearly? Why is it morally wrong to smash your head in with a hammer? You deciding it is wrong, is merely a confirmation that "it is your decision" that makes it wrong, not that the act is "in itself inherently wrong". I again assert that A-theism undermines morality.

YOU SAID---YEAH , a small part of it because society say it so
but major reason is, again in simpler words
i send this scenario to my brain
using that i make out it as a wrong act

Can you clearly explain this? Offering a half baked answer does not cover the depths of this question. You send it to your brain and it computes as wrong. Someone else sends it to their brain and it computes as right. Who is actually right? How do we decide? I want to know whether *the act* of raping a child is wrong, independent of your own decision on this? Is it right or wrong no matter what you think? I will pursue you on this point, until you offer a straight answer which is in some small way satisfactory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I SAID---Can you explain this to me? How is the happiness of the child more important than the happiness of the rapist?
YOU SAID---as i said we are supposed to be intelligent beings

Is this really your answer? Does this explain the philosophical implications of this point in any way? No, it does not. So, I ask you again.....Can you explain this to me? How is the happiness of the child more important than the happiness of the rapist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU SAID---so according to u god had always installed in everyone morality that one should treat other equally

yes.

YOU SAID---but earlier ppl choose to not hear him and later decide to. why?

People have always had the choice to go their own way. This is part of God's gift. If you did not have the choice, you would merely be a robot.

YOU SAID---well formation of a human baby is full proven scientific theory without any flaws , if u don believe it ans still go on to think it is god who granrs life , u are choosing to be ignorant

Who said I so not believe it? Show me where I said this?

Anyhow, you have lost me. I am not questioning how a baby is made....am I? I am asking you how elements of the periodic table managed to combine, become self-aware and start listening to "New Kids on the block"?

YOU SAID---i am an engineering student not a medical one so i cant answer them right now
will after researching a bit

I want you to back up your *choice* to turn from God. If you have to go off and read a book to help you decide, I question whether you have really made a firm decision, and whether you simply do not know what to believe.

YOU SAID---THATS exactly what my pt is. lihe can be so hard , most ppl need to believe in a superior being

Back up this assertion with some facts, or personal testimony at the very least. Just saying it, is not enough.

With the greatest respect. you have as yet failed to provide *any* points whatsoever, to backup your belief that A-theism is a more reasonable world view, than belief in a creator. You are argueing against my points, without countering them with your own arguements for A-thesim. You are skirting round the questions, failing to provide sound and clear answers, and in no way are you arguing for A-theism, more like arguing against belief in a creator. In this debate, *it is your job* to show that A-theism is the more reasonable view. I put it to you that you are not doing this and therefore are failing to offer me anything to come back against.

Tell me, what exactly do you believe with regards to your A-theism? What is it *exactly* that has helped turn you from God? What, if anything, do you believe in.....and of the things you do believe in, which of these has clear empirical evidence, *that you have personally* checked?

Dont worry on taking time to reply. No rush!

Best of luck for the exams. I will be praying for you.

In Peace, Mr Average

 

[crappycraperson]

now i would like to explain why i think it is more rational to be an atheist
i will go by issue by issue u have raised so far

first of all regarding universe :

this is what i think is a ur belief:
it was a superior being of some sense who one day decided to create this universe and other components of it like galaxies, solar syatems and planets etc. why? u don know . u just say how r u supposed to know the works of a superior being
from where did this being came from , who created him or he just dropped from thin air?
ur likely response u dont know
he decided to first create acient creatures like dinosauras, later decided to reamove them. then decided to create primates , who evolved into humans. why? u say u don know
also he created every human to fulfill some role or or destiny of sort

to all these u have ABSOLUTELY no proof , nothing of that sort. no body of so called believers, accordingly to my best knowledge, havent even tried to or trying to gain soem proof of the same . they just choose to think so .
if asked whu u think god decided to do such things
u just say u don know , how r u supposed to make out the work of so called superior being.

now my belif:
universe was created due to a big bang theory
(since u raised the point -"If you have to go off and read a book to help you decide, I question whether you have really made a firm decision, and whether you simply do not know what to believe."
i will respond using only what i remenber of these theories, even though i learnt them about 4 years ago.)

big bang theory:
by experiment it has been proved that various galaxies have been moving away from each other. this means once these galaxies were very close to each other. may be bound together as a huge peice os matter ball. then a huge bang took place which send these galaxies flying out
, thus moving away from each other. as i said this cant proved to full extent as u cant conduct experiments over all the universe, but this is the most widely accepted theory among science fraternity.

about formation of planets:
from what i remember, in various solar systems large amont of differnt types of gases , and other matters were present. these matters under suitable conditionds, combined with each other to form bigger peices of matters like asteriods or sattelites and later planets.
condition on these planets should have been perfect so that further diiferenr type of matters could combine to form a small cell which could first form small organisms like bacteria and other micro organisms and later evovlve into plants, animals etc.
only one planet so far have proved to have these conditions among infinite solar systems present in universe.(not a very scientific explanation, i didnt wanted to copy and paste from some place else)

now i know what u r gonna say -give proof of them.well, i cant
but earlier ppl didnt have proof earth was round , that it revolved around sun and other stuff, but in course of time these were proved.
in ints due time with further advancment in techonolgy these theories or may be some noval idea will ne proves.
atleast ppl are working on these theories and not just sitting back and saying these things are too complex , they must have been created by some one big

in summary my view: the whole creation of universe have been explained by many theories , all of which i cant go on explaining here.
Man Utd of them are half proven and leave many questions unanswered , but ppl are working to find these answers.

now just be honest to ur self
access ur opinion where u just choose to believe in role of a creator, oh whom u have no proof , no boby is trying to gain some. u have no logical reasoning regardind it .
my opinion where there are widely accepted theories even though not proven fully regarding universe, ppl are working to find more clues. which give some direction of creation of universe and it self debates shortcomings

just answer which apppears more rational.

my next post regardind qustion of morality.

 

[crappycraperson]

Ur position on morality:
A superior power of some sense who is supposed to have created us, granted a set of values which he/she/it considered wrong or right to all of us .
He also granted us free will, so that it’s our choice whether to implement these values.
Therefore some people implement these values and some don’t, or some earlier people choose not to listen and later decided to .

First Q : how do u know this so called superior power- the creator has granted us free will?
He told u?
Some one else did and u believed him?
What proof u have?
If someone shoots u tomorrow, maybe its god who made him do so using his powers,?

2nd Q : how did he granted us these values?
He taught us before being born?
He embedded them in our brain?

3rd Q : if we accept ur position
so god choose to follow this rule of free will and allow some maniacs to crash planes in buildings and kill thousands , rather than use his power to save them? Please explain why he chooses to do this. What, he doesn’t value human life?

Please come up with some concrete answers, u cant get away by saying u can’t understand work of god. For this debate to move forward u have to explain …….

My position:
The fact is the first time humans were evolved there were no better than animals, they had no sense of civilization. it was nt so because earlier they didn’t choose to listen to this morality thing. But with course of time, he evolved and started forming tribes , creating rules he considered right at that point of time – which may have been wrong or right. Again with due course of time, he changed some of these rules, formed bigger societies. With different times, these rules kept changing and most of the people born accepted these rules right or wrong. This is what people call evolution of society.

Now I know what questions u r gonna raise:
One believes what society tells him?- well in most cases yes, in many Islamic countries, still women are nt granted equal right, most of people born there men or women adhere themselves to this view.

The rapist and child thing?- happiness of a child is more important that a selfish human who choose to abuse a innocent being. Part of the reason I believe this way is due to what I have learnt from living in my society, still due to my upbringing I was able to develop my own opinion and every other person too were able to formulate theirs.
Some people developed their opinion that raping a child is ok and they committ that crime.

The Q regarding when u banged me in head?
Again it’s a wrong act not because of morality thing but because its common sense.
If u don’t understand this , I am sorry I cant explain any further.

Now consider this situation:
Acoording to u god had somehow told human that they should treat everyone equally but they choose not to hear him and earlier abused black persons. Later one day decided to lsten to him.

My opinion: there is no such morality thing, earlier society didn’t identify abusing blacks as a wrong act , but later due to effort of ppl like martin luther king , society rectified this.
So as societies evolves, it keeps updating its views with time.

Which opinion seems more logical?

Also I would like to know whether u think homosexualism is immoral or not?
Since a lot of believers identify it as immoral.


Here I wanna raise the bigger question that how do u decide what is immoral or moral?
I Indian society giving birth to a child before marriage is considered immoral by most people whereas many western societies this is a normal thing now.
So which is right? According to u, god has granted same rules of morality to everyone, how one decided which one is right?

What u may think as immoral may be considered normal by someone else.
Gay ppl don’t think homosexualism is immoral but many priests do.
Which one is right and more importantly who decides?
What is absolute morality?

That’s why I say every society has its own interpretation of things, when it come to sinister issues like raping of a child, almost every body recognizes as immoral thing. Other issues like pre marriage child birth may be interpreted differently by different societies and different individuals.

Also u have been saying atheism preaches immorality?
Please explain
Since many god believing societies are violent and I am not only talking about Islamic societies, some Christian towns in US have been known to preach multiple wives and child marriages (marrying 14 year old to 40 year old men) they believe they are doing it to get close to jesus or something. Islamic society in Nigeria advocate stoning a person to death.
Don’t say everyone has freewill
That’s not the point, most of ppl in these societies believe in god and perform these actions in name of god, u cant say atheism preaches immorality.

 

[Mr Average]

YOU SAID this is what i think is a ur belief:
it was a superior being of some sense who one day decided to create this universe and other components of it like galaxies, solar syatems and planets etc. why? u don know . u just say how r u supposed to know the works of a superior being from where did this being came from , who created him or he just dropped from thin air? ur likely response u dont know he decided to first create acient creatures like dinosauras, later decided to reamove them. then decided to create primates , who evolved into humans. why? u say u don know also he created every human to fulfill some role or or destiny of sort

I do not have all of the answers, does anyone? Despite this, in no way does this effect my belief. I or anyone else, cannot completely know the mind of god. It simply is not possible, and if I were to claim I did have all the answers, I would either be lieing or mistaken, wouldn’t you think?

YOU SAID to all these u have ABSOLUTELY no proof , nothing of that sort. no body of so called believers, accordingly to my best knowledge, havent even tried to or trying to gain soem proof of the same . they just choose to think so . if asked whu u think god decided to do such things u just say u don know , how r u supposed to make out the work of so called superior being.

When I study the periodic table, and then I look at a baby or an elephant or a mouse, I see that the basic elements are gathered togeher in an amazingly complex web, and have then gone on to develop consciousness. These elements have formed patterns, breathe, see, talk, reproduce, cry, laugh and stare in amazement up at the stars. I suggest that this is because we are God made. What do you suggest?....There was a big bang, and billions of years later these elements are now talking and debating their own existnece on a public forum.

YOU SAID big bang theory:
by experiment it has been proved that various galaxies have been moving away from each other. this means once these galaxies were very close to each other. may be bound together as a huge peice os matter ball. then a huge bang took place which send these galaxies flying out
, thus moving away from each other. as i said this cant proved to full extent as u cant conduct experiments over all the universe, but this is the most widely accepted theory among science fraternity.

In what way does this disprove the existence of a creator?

YOU SAID about formation of planets:
from what i remember, in various solar systems large amont of differnt types of gases , and other matters were present. these matters under suitable conditionds, combined with each other to form bigger peices of matters like asteriods or sattelites and later planets.
condition on these planets should have been perfect so that further diiferenr type of matters could combine to form a small cell which could first form small organisms like bacteria and other micro organisms and later evovlve into plants, animals etc. only one planet so far have proved to have these conditions among infinite solar systems present in universe.(not a very scientific explanation, i didnt wanted to copy and paste from some place else)

Allow me to quote from a pastor, when he was debating an Atheist on this very subject...

"So, consciousness, self-awareness, arising from matter – that’s a tough one. Because the molecules have to become aware of themselves. Yikes. You can begin with biological life. Yup. Start not just with atoms and molecules, but with proteins, DNA, RNA, ribosomes…go ahead and take the enzymes and the cell wall too, yea, I’ll grant you an entire organism of living cells, in fact, a world full of them. Now, from atoms and molecules, and biological life, can you give us some idea, any hint of an idea, just conceptually, even vaguely, of how consciousness arises by natural processes?

Not only do you believe in something you can’t prove, not only do you believe in something you can’t give details about, you believe in something you can’t even imagine. You can’t even conceive of how a molecule, or a protein for that matter, or a million of them together, begin to become self-aware. That’s a kicker for you, isn’t it? Not only because you can’t even dream of how it might happen, but because you know that I know that you can’t even make a wild guess.

Atheists are loathe to admit that there are only three viable alternatives for explaining the origin of the universe, but they can’t even imagine a fourth, except perhaps to say that it doesn’t exist. And they think of every possible environment for beginning the development of simple biological life, but they can’t even conceive of such simplicity. And they must have self-awareness arise by natural processes; but they can’t even dream of a conceivable way that could happen. They don’t even know how to think about it".

Any thoughts?

YOU SAID in summary my view: the whole creation of universe have been explained by many theories , all of which i cant go on explaining here. Man Utd of them are half proven and leave many questions unanswered , but ppl are working to find these answers.

A theory explains nothing, it merely offers ides or hypothesiss to answer unanswered questions.

YOU ASKED First Q : how do u know this so called superior power- the creator has granted us free will? He told u? Some one else did and u believed him? What proof u have? If someone shoots u tomorrow, maybe its god who made him do so using his powers,?

I have free will, as do you. Youy freely choose to take part in mthis debate, and you freely chosse weather to believe in God or not. It..is...your...free choice. If someone does shoot me tomorrow, it is the free will of the individual to do so.

YOU ASKED 2nd Q : how did he granted us these values?
He taught us before being born?
He embedded them in our brain?

We are made literally in the image of god. We are born moral, we are made moral. Everytime you feel morality working in your own consciousness, I suggest you are directly experiencing your own Godly nature.

YOU ASKED 3rd Q : if we accept ur position
so god choose to follow this rule of free will and allow some maniacs to crash planes in buildings and kill thousands , rather than use his power to save them? Please explain why he chooses to do this. What, he doesn’t value human life?

He allows the terrorists to do this, yes. He alows the people to die, yes. The problem of suffering is an old and well worn issue regarding the existence of God. This life, is only the beginning in getting to know God. When you die, even if at the hands of a terrorist, you will sit with God in total peace....divine peace.

YOU ASKED Please come up with some concrete answers, u cant get away by saying u can’t understand work of god. For this debate to move forward u have to explain …….

I have answered.

YOU SAID The rapist and child thing?- happiness of a child is more important that a selfish human who choose to abuse a innocent being.

Restating your answer to my question, does not actually answer why this is the case...does it? You are avoiding the issue completely now. I want you to clearly explain why...if you can?

YOU SAID The Q regarding when u banged me in head?
Again it’s a wrong act not because of morality thing but because its common sense. If u don’t understand this , I am sorry I cant explain any further.

I understand fully. You are either unwilling or unable to answer this question. Commonsense? Is that really the best you can muster? I want you to answer why it is wrong, can you or not?

YOU SAID My opinion: there is no such morality thing, earlier society didn’t identify abusing blacks as a wrong act , but later due to effort of ppl like martin luther king , society rectified this. So as societies evolves, it keeps updating its views with time.

Let me repeat myself. Martin Luther king was a man of God.

YOU SAID Also I would like to know whether u think homosexualism is immoral or not? Since a lot of believers identify it as immoral.

My opinion on this, in no way refelects on whether my views are more reasonable than yours? Even if I said it was wrong, is that in itself wrong? As an A-Theist, you have no objective grounds on morality and therefore what I think can not be right or wrong...except in your eyes.

YOU SAID Here I wanna raise the bigger question that how do u decide what is immoral or moral?

God's standard.

YOU SAID I Indian society giving birth to a child before marriage is considered immoral by most people whereas many western societies this is a normal thing now. So which is right? According to u, god has granted same rules of morality to everyone, how one decided which one is right?

We can only do our best to interpret God's word and his teaching. Rememberf, you are Godly....look listen and decide using yours and God's wisdom.

YOU SAID What u may think as immoral may be considered normal by someone else. Gay ppl don’t think homosexualism is immoral but many priests do. Which one is right and more importantly who decides? What is absolute morality?

God decides.

 

[Mr Average]

YOU SAID That’s why I say every society has its own interpretation of things, when it come to sinister issues like raping of a child, almost every body recognizes as immoral thing. Other issues like pre marriage child birth may be interpreted differently by different societies and different individuals.

None the less, God decides.

YOU SAID Also u have been saying atheism preaches immorality?
Please explain

It undermines morality, by suggesting we are simply elemts of the periodic table in complex forms. We are not special, we are not signigicant, we live in a cold universe that is merciless and unloving. If I want to take your sandwhich, and you cannot stop me, why shouldn’t I? Atheism suggests that there is NO objective morality, and by consequence must admit that we are all simply making decisions on what is and what is not moral.

YOU SAID Since many god believing societies are violent and I am not only talking about Islamic societies, some Christian towns in US have been known to preach multiple wives and child marriages (marrying 14 year old to 40 year old men) they believe they are doing it to get close to jesus or something. Islamic society in Nigeria advocate stoning a person to death. Don’t say everyone has freewill That’s not the point, most of ppl in these societies believe in god and perform these actions in name of god, u cant say atheism preaches immorality.

I can and I do.



Fron another forum I frequent.....you don’t need to answer, merely read and let me know your thoughts....

"A close friend is the chief engineer of a company which writes some of the most efficient software in the world for major hardware manufacturers. He also wrote a program for called Evolve.exe [BA31] which my wife has been running on her computer. The program uses the best known random-number generating software in the world. Cheryl has run Evolve for years on her own computer and has tallied 9,826,102,000,000 random tests. But, we have other computers at our home running it also. I had not planned to officially use the results of our Evolve program until we reached one quadrillion trials. But since Zakath and the atheists at talk.origins feel confident with their 52 trials of flipping four coins, I guess the 32.3 trillion attempts that we have logged so far, rolling twenty-six, 26-sided dice and the verifiable and repeatable nature of our experiment, merits at least as much boldness (and a whole lot more significance). Proteins are made from combinations of 20 different left-handed amino acids, each typically linking hundreds of amino acids in a specific order to accomplish specific chemical tasks. Thus the Evolve alphabet test is a tiny baby version of evolving just the first little teeny-weeny partial protein, and yet, one billion computers running evolve 100,000 times per second would take 1.95 quadrillion years just to get our small alphabet, and that with all the pro-evolutionary benefits built into the very concept. Of Cheryl’s nearly ten trillion attempts to get the alphabet dice in the right places (but not necessarily consecutively, we want to make evolution as likely as possible), here’s how many letters she obtained in the right places, and how many times:

If we can get one billion people to run the program in parallel (averaging 100,000 trials/second) it will only take about : 1,950,756,580,000,000 years = 1.95 quadrillion years!

Letters
Right...Times Obtained

0………3,544,172,052,265
1………3,685,934,761,644
2………1,842,966,692,568
3………589,749,506,519
4………135,642,320,651
5………23,873,091,155
6………3,342,168,932
7………382,005,814
8………36,286,036
9………2,905,794
10……..196,551
11……..11,519
12……..524
13……..28
14……..0
15……..0
16……..0
17……..0
18……..0
19……..0
20……..0
21……..0
22……..0
23……..0
24……..0
25……..0
26……..0

Cheryl’s best match so far looked like this: abcdxtyhqkylmfotqrituywwvv. Our friends have loaned us some of their PCs’ processing power and between us we’ve racked up 32,358,971,500,000 attempts and in all those trials the best we have achieved is getting 14 letters in their correct positions just once (and we’re offering a $1,500 prize for whoever runs the free program and achieves 15 correct!) Notice that out of 32 trillion attempts, we haven’t achieved a dozen 17s, three 20s, and two 24s. Of course not. The slots fill up in an extraordinarily orderly and methodical way. That’s why Pascal’s name is remembered centuries after his death, because his mathematical probabilities are among the most significant findings of science, although atheists desperately seek to get around them. We’ve run Evolve for years now, and along the way, we’ve done some analysis. For example, we compared theoretical predictions with actual results for one run after 305,010,000,000 rolls. Probability theory estimated that out of 305 billion attempts, 114.4 billion times we would get only one of all 26 letters in the correct location (114,414,375,855 to be exact), and our actual run achieved 114,414,189,957, which is remarkably within just 0.000162% of theory after 305 billion tests! For 12 letters in their correct spots, theory predicted we would get 17, and we hit 18. Zakath’s neurophysiologist said that probability “gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series.” But if your theory needs a hundred events to occur at about the same time and in about the same place, each of which is unlikely to happen in a trillion years anywhere in the entire universe, then you do not have a credible scientific theory, but an unscientific, superstitious blind faith in something that hard mathematics tells you would never occur.

If you randomly generated pixels on a TV screen, do you think it plausible that you might quickly obtain a picture of Hillary Clinton, sitting on a Harley, reaching for an anti-abortion poster, falling off the George Washington Bridge, with Bill Clinton in the background at the broken guardrail holding a torch? Yes, it’s unlikely. But atheists would tell you that there’s no reason that it couldn’t pop up right away, perhaps within the first day of the experiment, after all they’ll say, that’s just as likely as it popping up a billion years later. Forgetting the atheists, you would never get that picture or anything reminiscent of it in a trillion years with a trillion universes filled with a trillion TV sets per atom, flashing a trillion images per second. What you would get is a never ending variety of meaningless static. Blaise Pascal’s probability theory is ruthlessly enforced when random processes must achieve highly improbable outcomes many times over.


QUESTIONS TO YOU

Question 1 If you steal an apple, should you be beheaded in punishment? Please explain your answer?

Question 2 Please indicate true or false: There are only three theoretical alternatives to the origin of the universe, it was either: always here, popped into existence from nothing, or was supernaturally created. a) True b) False
If False, please list others:

In Peace, Mr Average.

 

[crappycraperson]

i am sorry but u have done exactly what i said u would do with the god is supreme routine and saying u cant explain his work but u expext me to come up with every freakin detail of how was universe formed
mine point - yes i accept we cant prove these theories but ppl are workin on it and u conviniently chose to skip mine question on this
so i repeat again
which is more logical
to believe in these theories who are givin some sort of explanation to formation of universe and workin to provide more answers
OR in just sittin back and sayin universe is too complex , there must have been a creator
please answer ans explain !

some other u didnt answer

also u question who created universe , i question who created this creator - was there any other creator before this one who created him , and another one before who created the 2nd one and so on.........

how does role of creator explain - evolution of various species from dinosaurs and other acient creatures . why did waited to create humans?
it doesnt make sense

I Have free will, as do you. Youy freely choose to take part in mthis debate, and you freely chosse weather to believe in God or not. It..is...your...free choice. If someone does shoot me tomorrow, it is the free will of the individual to do so.

again how do u know he has granted us free will
how do u know if some one shoots u it isnt coz god using his powers made him do so

We are made literally in the image of god. We are born moral, we are made moral. Everytime you feel morality working in your own consciousness, I suggest you are directly experiencing your own Godly nature.

again how do u know all this
did god tell u, or some else did and u believed him

He allows the terrorists to do this, yes. He alows the people to die, yes. The problem of suffering is an old and well worn issue regarding the existence of God. This life, is only the beginning in getting to know God. When you die, even if at the hands of a terrorist, you will sit with God in total peace....divine peace.

so according to dyin is a good thing, may be we all should die then and live in divine peace
also here i would like to know ur thoughts regarding the heaven and hell thing

Restating your answer to my question, does not actually answer why this is the case...does it? You are avoiding the issue completely now. I want you to clearly explain why...if you can?

u want me to clearly explain what ?
to be honest i am not gettin u
i would one set for all give mine whole answer
as human society evolved , various bad things were realised in almost all societies which were considered bad or wrong or u may say immoral?
one such thing was scumbbing some one else contarary to his/her wish and take advantage of that person in a sexual way or as a matter of fact in any way.
if this means i beleive so only coz of society ,then let it be so.
i mean in many societies as i mentioned 14 yr old are married to middle aged men , thats practically amounts to molesting a child
but still majority of ppl in these societies persist with this wrong act
they don recognise it as agiant absolute morality
since i wasnt born in such a society , i don know whether i would have followed that wrong act or opposed it ?

I understand fully. You are either unwilling or unable to answer this question. Commonsense? Is that really the best you can muster? I want you to answer why it is wrong, can you or not?

i persist with that its common sense , i am sorry but really u need a morality thing to realize that this is wrong act , how idiot can one be ?

My opinion on this, in no way refelects on whether my views are more reasonable than yours? Even if I said it was wrong, is that in itself wrong? As an A-Theist, you have no objective grounds on morality and therefore what I think can not be right or wrong...except in your eyes.

thats what mine point exactly is
there is no such thing as absolute morality
every society and individual has its own interpretation as u ur self said later , so where does the question of absolute morality comes

God's standard
God decides.

so god has already decided the issue like homosexuality among others
but how does he tell this to us the humans
oh, yes we are his image or smth
so should he have encrypted this on his image more distinctly so that every body could realize what he ahs decided and there would be no comflict?
whats the use if absolute morality if diff. ppl decide diff morality ?

regarding athesim preaches immorality:
since we all know majority of all societies today believe in god
'and in amost all societies immoral acts take place
do u think all ppl who committ these acts are athesits?
in fact i am sure majority of criminals would be proves to believers
so in a god believing society immorl acts take place , u cnat say athesim preaches immorality

i have nt answered the questions u have raised regarding perodic table and othere . i thought u should first answer u skiped or didnt explain.

 

[nickm]

Bloody hell lads.

 

[Wibble]

Bloody hell lads.

I'm glad that a formal debate has sorted things out

 

[Mr Average]

YOU SAID i am sorry but u have done exactly what i said u would do with the god is supreme routine and saying u cant explain his work but u expext me to come up with every freakin detail of how was universe formed

I do not expect you to come up with every detail. I am not trying to trip you up, merely offer me the slightest idea of how you think we come from elements of the periodic table, to two guys sat in cyberspace debating this subject. Once again, I have to say that I cannot know the answers to some of your questions. No-one does. Surely it is better for me to confess this, than make it up as I go along?

YOU SAID which is more logical to believe in these theories who are givin some sort of explanation to formation of universe and workin to provide more answers OR in just sittin back and sayin universe is too complex , there must have been a creator please answer ans explain !

I think that the facts which come from science must be believed. I believe them.

I wait for the answers on the current theories, I dont discount them.

I never said the universe is too complex in the context you are suggesting. The "Argument from incredulity", has been used by us both in this debate. This is when we suggest that because we cannot grasp something, it must be untrue. You will see i have fallen for this fallacy and so have you.

YOU SAID also u question who created universe , i question who created this creator - was there any other creator before this one who created him , and another one before who created the 2nd one and so on.........

The Creator, by definition has not been created. The creator formed the laws and rules of science, but is not necessarily bound by those laws himself.

YOU SAID how does role of creator explain - evolution of various species from dinosaurs and other acient creatures . why did waited to create humans?
it doesnt make sense

The "Argument from incredulity". Not understanding, does not make it untrue.

YOU SAID again how do u know he has granted us free will how do u know if some one shoots u it isnt coz god using his powers made him do so

This is my belief, do you understand the difference?

I PREVIOUSLY SAID We are made literally in the image of god. We are born moral, we are made moral. Every time you feel morality working in your own consciousness, I suggest you are directly experiencing your own Godly nature.

YOU SAID again how do u know all this did god tell u, or some else did and u believed him

I believe it, I feel it, I experience it, I witness it.

YOU SAID so according to dyin is a good thing, may be we all should die then and live in divine peace also here i would like to know ur thoughts regarding the heaven and hell thing

Dying is not the end in my opinion. What is your opinion?

Heaven is peace of mind and resting in the assurance of God's glory. Hell is simply separation from God.

YOU SAID u want me to clearly explain what ? to be honest i am not gettin u

Here I must explicitly ask you again.

Tell me clearly, why it is ALWAYS wrong for an adult to rape a child. I want you to explain it, not offer one word answers which are not spelt correctly and do not make any sense whatsoever. Forgive me for being blunt, but whilst you chase me for answers, you utterly fail to provide any of your own. You refer to theories, stuff you have read, and stuff you have gathered. I am asking YOU for your answers.

YOU SAID i persist with that its common sense , i am sorry but really u need a morality thing to realize that this is wrong act , how idiot can one be ?

Thanks for the insult.

If you will not give me an explanation for this, please just answer this question.

Why is it commonsense not to do this, are you implying that EVERYONE would think this is commonsense? If so, you are inadvertently admitting that there is a worldwide absolute morality.

If you do not think this, please explain "commonsense".

YOU SAID thats what mine point exactly is
there is no such thing as absolute morality
every society and individual has its own interpretation as u ur self said later , so where does the question of absolute morality comes

There is my point proved. There is only opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. No wrong acts, no right ones. Just acts, and peoples opinions of them.

YOU SAID i have nt answered the questions u have raised regarding periodic table and othere . i thought u should first answer u skiped or didnt explain.

No problem. Let me list them for you so we are ABSOLOUTELY CLEAR ON WHAT YOU NEED TO ADDRESS...

PLEASE answer these in your next post.

1 I want you to offer me any idea at all, at how consciousness has arrived from elements of the periodic table? You are welcome to trawl the web, ask people and see what you can come up with in response. PLEASE *CLEARLY* EXPLAIN your answer.

2. I want to know whether *the act* of raping a child is wrong, independent of your own decision on this? Is it right or wrong no matter what you think? Is it always wrong. PLEASE *CLEARLY* EXPLAIN your answer.

3 What are the origins of the universe or your thoughts on the same? [you utterly failed to answer this last time I asked. There are only three possible options, so pick one]

a It has always existed
b It spontaneously come into existence from nothing.
c It was created

PLEASE *CLEARLY* EXPLAIN your answer.

4 Please can you clearly explain why A-theism is the better view than Belief in God?

5 Are rape, child abuse, racism, theft, murder, wife-beating, bullying are only wrong because it is the *opinion* of the masses? Are you suggesting that these sorts of act are not bad in of themselves, we have merely decided they are bad?

6 In certain societies, eating human flesh is acceptable. In other societies in the past, the burning of Jews in ovens was deemed acceptable. Does this mean that those actions were acceptable? Just because society says so? Surely, deep down, you have a sense of what is right and wrong, and no matter what the masses tell you, if they posit that rape is right, you will always know it is wrong?

In Peace, Mr Average

 

[seanoc]

So when is the debate over, I imagine your head must be getting sore crappycraperson, banging it against a wall will do that..

 

[Furious George]

Hello.

I realise you're having a nice cosy chat here with Crappycraperson and I've tried my hardest to refrain from jumping in but the provocation has got the better of me.

1 I want you to offer me any idea at all, at how consciousness has arrived from elements of the periodic table? You are welcome to trawl the web, ask people and see what you can come up with in response. PLEASE *CLEARLY* EXPLAIN your answer

Mr Average, there is nothing taxing about the problem of consciousness or intelligence arising.


Let's start at the beginning...

In the 1950's Stanley Miller undertook a number of experiments designed to understand the effects lighting would have had on the early earth's atmosphere. In one experiment, Miller discharged an electrical current into a water recepticle that contained a mixture based on the ancient oceans of pre-life earth, and, Lo!, Amino-acids appeared.

Now, from amino-acids, proteinoids can be formed, and from proteinoids you can get microspheres and the first protocells.This in turn leads to the birth of 'The Universal Ancestor'

Here's a little cut n paste job!

Snip!

This organism is referred to as the Universal or Common Ancestor. It would have had the following characteristics because of the environment in which it evolved:

it would have been anaerobic

it would have been hyperthermophilic and halophilic

it would have been a chemolithoautotroph, obtaining both energy and carbon from inorganic sources, using H2 or reduced sulfur compounds as electron donors and CO2 or oxidized sulfur as electron acceptors to provide energy and fixing CO2 as their carbon source.


(Chemolithoheterotrophs would have evolved later in this scenario as "opportunistic" consumers of organic matter formed by autotrophic producers. There is also a hypothesis that the first living organism was heterotrophic but this could only have been true if the prebrotic broth contained significant concentrations of abiotically produced organic molecules, which is not likely, especially from the point of view of continuous supply.)

Modern chemolithoautotrophs
Organisms thought to be similar to these first chemolithoautotrophs have been isolated in the last few years from what we would call "extreme environments". These organisms are isolated from hot sulfur springs on the earth's surface or hydrothermal vents ("black smokers") on the ocean floor where these organisms form purely prokaryotic ecosystems.

Conditions in these environments are thought to mimic those present on the early earth, i.e. high temperature, high ulfur, anaerobic, high salt.

These organisms grow optimally under anaerobic conditions in high salt at 80-110 C, in fact they grow completely independent of oxygen and sunlight; they could even grow on another planet if water was available

Snip!

Now, you've seen how 'elements of the periodic table' spring into life without the need for a creator. To arrive at consciousness we simply need to introduce the 'emergence behaviour argument' to complex systems. It goes a little like this: complex systems, as they become more and more complex, start to behave in different ways. For instance, the eye was originaly a light receptive cell and nothing more, but as it gained in complexity it began to change. The same 'emergence behaviour' can also be applied to a neural network. Given the correct enviornment and training intelligence and self awareness wil arise.

This is far to heavy a subject to go into in any depth here but I'll point you in the direction of a few decent web links on the subject...

Emergence behaviour

Quantum consciousness

I hope they help you.

And I also hope I've helped dispell a few theist myths for you too. If you want to argue about evolution I'll gladly take you up on the subject!

 

[Mr Average]

So when is the debate over, I imagine your head must be getting sore crappycraperson, banging it against a wall will do that..

 

[Mr Average]

Thank you for your comments! It's good to see some fresh input.

Allow me to ask you something.


YOU SAID Given the correct enviornment and training intelligence and self awareness wil arise.

This is the key sentence out of all you posted, would you not agree.

Please provide empirical evidence which

A Proves what is the "correct environment"

B Proves what is "correct training"

C How any of these lead unconscious chemicals to becoming conscious or even fully self aware

I will need verifiable tests which show that consciousnesss has been made to arise from unconscious matter. If you canot provide this, then would you agree you are merely discussing what is in fact your belief in a theory?

In Peace, Mr Average

 

[Furious George]

I will need verifiable tests which show that consciousnesss has been made to arise from unconscious matter. If you canot provide this, then would you agree you are merely discussing what is in fact your belief in a theory?

I've already provided you with a couple of links, there are numerous web sites dealing with the subject. I know that Micheal Persinger has done some excellent, and verifiable, tests on consciousness, including one that isolated the part of the brain that is responsable for the tendency to follow theism. He even tried it out on the celebrity atheist, Richard Dawkins, to see if he was susceptable to 'Belief' under test conditions. There was a documentary about it a few years back on bbc2.

Hang on, I'll go see if I can dig up a link...

God Helmet

Moving on...

Please provide empirical evidence which

A Proves what is the "correct environment"

B Proves what is "correct training"

C How any of these lead unconscious chemicals to becoming conscious or even fully self aware

Ok. A & B are figures of speech. Correct environment and correct training refer to 'Instinct'. For instance, you're hungry-you eat something or you die. There's a fire-move away or you'll be burnt. These are basic intelligence traits caused by emergence behaviour. If the organism cannot grasp these 'instincts' then it will not reproduce and it will die.

As for C, I point you again in the direction of emergence behaviour.

BTW, does this really have anything to do with God?

 

[Mr Average]

YOU SAID I've already provided you with a couple of links, there are numerous web sites dealing with the subject. I know that Micheal Persinger has done some excellent, and verifiable, tests on consciousness, including one that isolated the part of the brain that is responsable for the tendency to follow theism. He even tried it out on the celebrity atheist, Richard Dawkins, to see if he was susceptable to 'Belief' under test conditions. There was a documentary about it a few years back on bbc2.

Not sure how this is relevant. Please explain how this is of direct interest to your previous comments.

YOU SAID As for C, I point you again in the direction of emergence behaviour.

Not good enough I am afraid, you entered the debate, made some assertations and have been called on them. Please provide the evidence and empirical data for what you have claimed.

I want to know if Scientists have managed to produce consciousness from unconscioussness or not?

YOU SAID BTW, does this really have anything to do with God?

Not really, but you started it!

In Peace, Mr Average

 

[Furious George]

Not sure how this is relevant. Please explain how this is of direct interest to your previous comments.

It doesn't. I misread your post. My fault!

Not good enough I am afraid, you entered the debate, made some assertations and have been called on them. Please provide the evidence and empirical data for what you have claimed.

I didn't make any assertations at all! I merely explained contemporary scientific thinking on the subject of the accent of intelligence and consciousness. I've provided you with the basics of the theory and I've given you some links on the subject, what more do you want?

I want to know if Scientists have managed to produce consciousness from unconscioussness or not?

No, of course they haven't!

 

[Mr Average]

you said It doesn't. I misread your post. My fault!

No worries =) You sound as scatty as me.

you said I didn't make any assertations at all!

In your first post, you said..."Mr Average, there is nothing taxing about the problem of consciousness or intelligence arising".

See what I mean? Actually there are loads of problems, and they are extremely taxing.

you said I merely explained contemporary scientific thinking on the subject of the accent of intelligence and consciousness. I've provided you with the basics of the theory and I've given you some links on the subject, what more do you want?

I wanted evidence, obviously, but as there is NONE available, we will have to move on.

you said No, of course they haven't!

Thats my point.

In Peace, Mr Average

 

[Furious George]

In your first post, you said..."Mr Average, there is nothing taxing about the problem of consciousness or intelligence arising".

And there is not.

I wanted evidence, obviously, but as there is NONE available, we will have to move on.

Have you followed the links? Have you actually read anything on the subject?

There's oodles and oodles of evidence. It's not some sort of mysterious problem! It's all woven into the theory of evolution.

you said No, of course they haven't!

Thats my point.

What point? That scientists haven't *made* consciousness? What has that got to do with anything at all?

 

[Mr Average]

YOU SAID And there is not.

This is getting tedious. If there are NO problems, please clearly explain it to me. I dont want to have to go off and trawl through web links you have found. You are telling it, so lets hear it.

YOU SAID Have you followed the links? Have you actually read anything on the subject?

Yes I have followed the links and had a brief look. It is up to you to provide data, I am not going to do your research for you. Oh, and I have read a little on the subject.

YOU SAID There's oodles and oodles of evidence. It's not some sort of mysterious problem! It's all woven into the theory of evolution.

Oodles and oodles eh? Evidence for the CREATION of consciousness by man, or evidence for exactly how it arose naturally? Where?

YOU SAID What point? That scientists haven't *made* consciousness? What has that got to do with anything at all?

If we cannot recreate the conditions which allowed consciousness to arise, then when we discuss it arising, it is all theory. Do you understand that, its a theory, and untill it is proven, there is not oodles and oodles of evidence.

In Peace, Mr Average

 

[Furious George]

This is getting tedious.

No shit

If there are NO problems, please clearly explain it to me. I dont want to have to go off and trawl through web links you have found. You are telling it, so lets hear it.

Sigh, I have explained it in laymans terms in a previous post in this thread.

Look!

Now, you've seen how 'elements of the periodic table' spring into life without the need for a creator. To arrive at consciousness we simply need to introduce the 'emergence behaviour argument' to complex systems. It goes a little like this: complex systems, as they become more and more complex, start to behave in different ways. For instance, the eye was originaly a light receptive cell and nothing more, but as it gained in complexity it began to change. The same 'emergence behaviour' can also be applied to a neural network. Given the correct enviornment and training intelligence and self awareness wil arise.

After I posted that you asked me to explain a little more. Which I did.

Look!

Ok. A & B are figures of speech. Correct environment and correct training refer to 'Instinct'. For instance, you're hungry-you eat something or you die. There's a fire-move away or you'll be burnt. These are basic intelligence traits caused by emergence behaviour. If the organism cannot grasp these 'instincts' then it will not reproduce and it will die.

I'm not going to delve any deeper. The theory has been explained to you, Mr Average.

Oodles and oodles eh? Evidence for the CREATION of consciousness by man, or evidence for exactly how it arose naturally? Where?

Evidence of where it has arisen naturally, of course. Where has this 'man made consiousness' obsession come from?

If we cannot recreate the conditions which allowed consciousness to arise, then when we discuss it arising, it is all theory.

I despair!!!

Everything in science is theory. A theory is tested and tested and tested, it has all sorts of outlandish crap thrown at it, and if it still stands up at the end, it lives to fight another day!

Consciousness has developed over millions of years, how can you recreate that in a lab? You may as well dismiss most major scientific theories if you aproach it that way!

Do you understand that, its a theory, and untill it is proven, there is not oodles and oodles of evidence.

Do you see what is wrong with your statement there, Mr Average? The reason that 'emergence behaviour' is a theory is because it has oodles and oodles of evidence to back it up! Otherwise it would fall flat on it's arse.


Anyhoo, moving on...

I've just read back through the earlier pages of this thread and you're clearly a believer in Intelligent Design. How you arrived at this outlook is beyond me, the whole argument is little more than quackery.

There is no evidence for a creator. There is plenty for evolution.

You sir, are an ape.

 

[Mr Average]

YOU SAID ALL OF THIS Sigh, I have explained it in laymans terms in a previous post in this thread.

Look!
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Furious George
Now, you've seen how 'elements of the periodic table' spring into life without the need for a creator. To arrive at consciousness we simply need to introduce the 'emergence behaviour argument' to complex systems. It goes a little like this: complex systems, as they become more and more complex, start to behave in different ways. For instance, the eye was originaly a light receptive cell and nothing more, but as it gained in complexity it began to change. The same 'emergence behaviour' can also be applied to a neural network. Given the correct enviornment and training intelligence and self awareness wil arise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After I posted that you asked me to explain a little more. Which I did.

Look!
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Furious George
Ok. A & B are figures of speech. Correct environment and correct training refer to 'Instinct'. For instance, you're hungry-you eat something or you die. There's a fire-move away or you'll be burnt. These are basic intelligence traits caused by emergence behaviour. If the organism cannot grasp these 'instincts' then it will not reproduce and it will die.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not going to delve any deeper. The theory has been explained to you, Mr Average.

With the greatest respect, I understand fully what you have said. You have attempted to explain an extremely complex theory to me, as if your brief explanation in any way makes the theory fact. A theory is a theory until it is proven beyond significant doubt and can be tested again and again. Whether or not it took millions of years for consciousness to arise, is not my problem, it is yours.

You say...Consciousness has developed over millions of years, how can you recreate that in a lab? You may as well dismiss most major scientific theories if you aproach it that way!

You dont dismiss THEORIES or believe them, you critically examine them, and wait for the truth. Dont you?

I pointed out that the key statement made by you during all of this was ..."Given the correct enviornment and training intelligence and self awareness wil arise". This is a massive statement, and I challenged on you it. As you have written it, all I wanted was the evidence which backs it up. Instead, you have moved into other areas, verbally sighed to show how bored you are getting with my lack of understanding, and used circular reasoning to attempt to show that everything you said is true, whilst still only being theory. THAT IS MY POINT.

You came into this debate and wildly asserted the following....Mr Average, there is nothing taxing about the problem of consciousness or intelligence arising.

You then said...I didn't make any assertations at all! I merely explained contemporary scientific thinking on the subject of the accent of intelligence and consciousness.

When I asked....I want to know if Scientists have managed to produce consciousness from unconscioussness or not?

You said....No, of course they haven't!

In between you posted a few links to various stuff, as if I am going to bother to go and read that which you cannot be bothered to type, A because you dont want to or B because you do not know enough to fully open this subject up to me.

YOU SAID Evidence of where it has arisen naturally, of course. Where has this 'man made consiousness' obsession come from?

The ONLY WAY to prove the theories of how consciousness arose, is to recreate it arising....isnt it? The only way for that to happen, is for scientists to do it?

YOU SAID I despair!!! Everything in science is theory.

Is e=mcsquared a theory?

Is 2 + 2 =4 a theory?

Does a circle having 360 degrees alwways and forever, count as a theory?

YOU SAID A theory is tested and tested and tested, it has all sorts of outlandish crap thrown at it, and if it still stands up at the end, it lives to fight another day!

Eventually science counts it as fact. Not all the possible crap that could be thrown at it, ever is. Would take too long, cost too much etc. We investigate with all or most of the options we can think of and then move on from there.

YOU SAID Consciousness has developed over millions of years,

Big statement, evidence please?

YOU SAID how can you recreate that in a lab?

You cant. Sickener eh? As you CANT recreate it, it will forever be a theory.

YOU SAID Do you see what is wrong with your statement there, Mr Average? The reason that 'emergence behaviour' is a theory is because it has oodles and oodles of evidence to back it up! Otherwise it would fall flat on it's arse.

Emergence behaviour has oodles and oodles of evidence, and noone here is disputing that. What I am disputing is the supposed fact that consciousness arose from the unconscious. There is NO EVIDENCE for that.

I WANT EVIDENCE.

Not endless theories. You make the word theory sound like it is truth itself.


YOU SAID I've just read back through the earlier pages of this thread and you're clearly a believer in Intelligent Design. How you arrived at this outlook is beyond me, the whole argument is little more than quackery. There is no evidence for a creator. There is plenty for evolution.

You sir, are an ape.

As are you =)

I have read Dawkins, studied some parts of evolution and tried to learn where I can. Where I am lacking knowledge I admit it.

In Peace, Mr Average.

 

[seanoc]

I WANT EVIDENCE.

Careful there Mr Average, thats a very atheistic outlook on things...........

This is where your entire argument falls apart, you provide not a single shred of evidence for what you believe to be true.

Where would you be if you applied the same criteria to God.

Tell you what, I'll prove that the tooth fairy exists if you prove that God exists. Hows that...

 

[Mr Average]

Careful there Mr Average, thats a very atheistic outlook on things...........

This is where your entire argument falls apart, you provide not a single shred of evidence for what you believe to be true.

Where would you be if you applied the same criteria to God.

Tell you what, I'll prove that the tooth fairy exists if you prove that God exists. Hows that...

The clear, obvious and I would of thought you would have realised difference is this.

Science is 100% based on evidence and the search for evidence. When discussing science and scientific claims/theories and findings I therefore want evidence. Not too much to ask is it?

Religion is based around a step of faith and the personal evidence gathered from that.

But then you knew that already, didnt you?

In Peace, Mr Average.

 

[seanoc]

The clear, obvious and I would of thought you would have realised difference is this.

Science is 100% based on evidence and the search for evidence. When discussing science and scientific claims/theories and findings I therefore want evidence. Not too much to ask is it?

Religion is based around a step of faith and the personal evidence gathered from that.

But then you knew that already, didnt you?

In Peace, Mr Average.

Agreed, but it is you who seemed to want to enter the two into a single debate as to which was more rational. Knowledge based on evidence or knowledge based on belief.

I'll take my knowledge based on evidence, the scientific method, the only really valid way of knowing what is in and of this world. Theory, test, evidence.......

The personal evidence thing is bogus, either there is evidence that stands up to public scrutiny or there is not, which leaves Religion based on faith, and faith alone, which is belief without evidence. Fair enough but the Tooth Fairy and Santa are in the same realm, belief without evidence.

 

[crappycraperson]

u know what ,before we procced any further
lets just analyze this :

TOPIC OF DEBATE : which is more logical atheesm or belif in god ?
NOT to prove god exists or not

NOW i cant prove god doesnt exist
u surely can prove god exists

we r trying to find more logical view

NOW SO FAR Mr. Average
on any topics we have discussed
ur answers or opnions
among many others like i don know the mind or work of god
u have flatly refused to explain anything regarding the creator
U just say u dont know
I ask U how do u know, what u say regarding free will among other things
U jusy say :
this is my belief, do you understand the difference?

I believe it, I feel it, I experience it, I witness it.

wait a minute
but what the feck !!!
U ask me to explain umpteen theories and questions , want me to clearly explain my answers

why cant i just say ---ohhhhhh, i am not gonna answer, i don know, i belive this coz i feel it, i witness it sort of crap

ACTUALLY i thought this same thing before writing this bit
but then i realised thats exactly what is the diufference between us
u a believer , me atheist

A BELIEVER DOESNT NEED ANY EVIDENCE OR PROOF, HE DOESNT EVEN TRY TO GATHER SOME , HE JUST SAYS HE BELIEVES, HE FEELS , etc.
HE ALSO REFUSES TO CHANGE HIS MIND NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE SCIENCE PROVIDES HIM. for eg. U REFUSE TO FULLY ACCEPT EVOLUTION, WHICH IS A FULL PROVEN SCIENTIFIC PHENOMENON WITH PLENTY OF EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED AND PROVEN.

WHEREAS AN ATHEIST KEEPS AN OPEN MIND, HE JUST DOESNT FOLLOW ANY BLIND FAITH , HE QUESTIONS THINGS , TRIES TO SEARCH ITS ANSWERS , BELIEVES ONLY WHICH HAS SOME KIND OF REASONING .

NOW u would be wondering why i just wrote this down

MINE ARGUMENT : WITH this kind of attitude where an person keeps an close mind like where given a theory he refuses to read it , look and analyse it evidence [ as u did with furious george , he gave u various links so that u can see for ur self the answer of the perodic table Q .
but u said oh no explain it to me. forget that it is a debate. if u really wanted an answer to ur question, had an open mind, u would have read it ur self. but the fact is u don wanna change ur mind, u don want any answers ]
NOW i am not trying to insult u or any thing
in fact i say ,i respect ur opinion , if u wanna keep up like this
OK , its ur choice
BUT
after this attitude ,summed up be comments like
i dont know, i cant explain , i don have proof or evidence , whereas i am only gonna accept whatever u say only if u provide evidence
IS NOT LOGICAL
i know ur not gonna accept this first time
but think again, please think with open mind

U URSELF SAY U JUST BELIEVES SOMETHING BECAUSE U FEEL IT OR SOMETHING
U HAVE *NO* ANSWERS WHATSOVER REGARDING THE CREATOR
U JUST SAY U CANT UNDERSTANT GOD OR SOMETHING(no body is even trying to to find answers)

AGAIN THIS IS NOT LOGICAL, OR ATLEAST NOT MORE LOGICAL THAN THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW- which even though doesnt have full proven answers atleast give some acceptable theories along with full proven things and is constantly trying to find more answers, and has done so as years pass by

FOR THIS DEBATE TO CONTINUE , U MUST HERE ACCEPT THIS
OTHERWISE U WOULD BE LYING or just choosing to keep a close mind

 

[Furious George]

as if your brief explanation in any way makes the theory fact.

I'm not claiming it does

Whether or not it took millions of years for consciousness to arise, is not my problem, it is yours.

Why is it a problem for me? I'm quite happy to accept that it took millions of years.

I pointed out that the key statement made by you during all of this was ..."Given the correct enviornment and training intelligence and self awareness wil arise". This is a massive statement, and I challenged on you it.

And I answered.

Instead, you have moved into other areas, verbally sighed to show how bored you are getting with my lack of understanding, and used circular reasoning to attempt to show that everything you said is true, whilst still only being theory. THAT IS MY POINT.

Where have I used circular reasoning? That's the tactic of your boys

And where have I said that any theory is an absolute truth?

The ONLY WAY to prove the theories of how consciousness arose, is to recreate it arising....isnt it? The only way for that to happen, is for scientists to do it?

No! That's just plain nonsense. You weigh up the evidence and if it's strong enough, and continues to fit the theory, the theory moves on with the evidence incorporated into it. You don't need to recreate the exact environment else most of physics would go out of the window and we'd be plunged into a theocratic dark age where people believed the biblical account of creation. I mean, how the hell are you supposed to recreate the big bang?

Is e=mcsquared a theory?

Is 2 + 2 =4 a theory?

Does a circle having 360 degrees alwways and forever, count as a theory?

In purely scientific terms, yes.

Eventually science counts it as fact.

No it doesn't. Take the theory of gravity, for example, we both know Newton was on to something but it's still full of holes and it is still being improved and refined.

YOU SAID Consciousness has developed over millions of years,

Big statement, evidence please?

I could post links but, as you've already said, you won't read them, so why bother?

Emergence behaviour has oodles and oodles of evidence, and noone here is disputing that. What I am disputing is the supposed fact that consciousness arose from the unconscious. There is NO EVIDENCE for that.

No one is saying it's a fact, Mr Average, just a theory. A scientific theory, with rigorous testing and not just some idea dreamt up down the pub. (Oh BTW, you contradict yourself in the above quote.'Oodles and oodles of evidence' and then 'There is NO EVIDENCE for that')

Further up in this thread you retell some gibberish that a silly pastor friend of yours used when debating an atheist. I won't put it all here but I'll put a bit:

Now, from atoms and molecules, and biological life, can you give us some idea, any hint of an idea, just conceptually, even vaguely, of how consciousness arises by natural processes?

'Emergence behaviour' is what the atheist would have said, had their debate actually taken place.

I WANT EVIDENCE.

Not endless theories. You make the word theory sound like it is truth itself.

Theories are evidence. If not, then tell me what they are?

 

[Mr Average]

YOU SAID u have flatly refused to explain anything regarding the creator

Is that really the case? I have refused to explain, or I have epxlained what I do know and freely admitted what I do not. Where did I refuse?

YOU SAID U just say u dont know

Isnt that honest?

YOU SAID I ask U how do u know, what u say regarding free will among other things.
this is my belief, do you understand the difference?

I believe it, I feel it, I experience it, I witness it.
wait a minute
but what the feck !!!
U ask me to explain umpteen theories and questions , want me to clearly explain my answers

Okay then, I apologise if I appear to have avoided that question. I believe that I have free will. I have the free choice to continue this debate, as do you....or to quit. Every time I choose to continue, or not, I am witnessing the evidence that I have the choice. I think we both agree we have choices in our lives. To eat, to love, to work, to go to sleep, to watch tv, even what football team to support.

When God gave us free will, he gave us the choice to live in his light, or to go our own way. This is our choice, and always will be. He sent his son to bear our sins and soak up the pain of the world for choosing to go its own way and live in seperation. The deed was done, the bible has the records. As the accounts of this are written, and very old, it is up to us to explore them, critically analyse them and make a series of decisions from there....

Are they real?
Did this really happen?
What evidence is there?
What does this mean to my life if it is or isnt true?
etc etc etc

This I have done, and I have made my decision, which has been backed up in a million ways. I BELIEVE I have free will. I expect you do to. Tell me, where do you think your free will comes from?

YOU SAID why cant i just say ---ohhhhhh, i am not gonna answer, i don know, i belive this coz i feel it, i witness it sort of crap

Resorting to insults, swear words or derogatory comments, does not invalidate my arguements, or validate yours.

YOU SAID A BELIEVER DOESNT NEED ANY EVIDENCE OR PROOF, HE DOESNT EVEN TRY TO GATHER SOME , HE JUST SAYS HE BELIEVES, HE FEELS , etc. HE ALSO REFUSES TO CHANGE HIS MIND NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE SCIENCE PROVIDES HIM. for eg. U REFUSE TO FULLY ACCEPT EVOLUTION, WHICH IS A FULL PROVEN SCIENTIFIC PHENOMENON WITH PLENTY OF EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED AND PROVEN.

Let me point some things out to you. try not to generalise so much about Theists and A-Theists. It blurs the lines, and makes things too easy.

If you show me evidence, I believe it. How many times must I tell you that I do believe whatever has been proven? I have already told you this, but instead of this, you claim...HE ALSO REFUSES TO CHANGE HIS MIND NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE SCIENCE PROVIDES HIM

He? Who is HE? The stereotype you are argueing against, instead of me?

YOU SAID WHEREAS AN ATHEIST KEEPS AN OPEN MIND, HE JUST DOESNT FOLLOW ANY BLIND FAITH , HE QUESTIONS THINGS , TRIES TO SEARCH ITS ANSWERS , BELIEVES ONLY WHICH HAS SOME KIND OF REASONING .

Now you are simply wrong. An agnostic keeps an open mind, as he has not decided either way. An A-Theist, like a Theist, is much more closed, because he has decided that there is no God. He argues from a fixed position.

YOU SAID WITH this kind of attitude where an person keeps an close mind like where given a theory he refuses to read it , look and analyse it evidence [ as u did with furious george , he gave u various links so that u can see for ur self the answer of the perodic table Q .
but u said oh no explain it to me. forget that it is a debate. if u really wanted an answer to ur question, had an open mind, u would have read it ur self. but the fact is u don wanna change ur mind, u don want any answers ]

I can read it anytime I want. Whether I read it or not, is not your concern. What is your concern, is making an arguement for A-Theism, which so far you have utterly failed to do. All you are doing is countering my statements, without revealing your own position. When you do try and make a position, you write a few sentences which are poorly spelt, lack the most basic grammar, and lucidly illustrate that you have only the most basic understanding of the science which you espouse as the reason behind your A-Theism. When I asked you to expand on the theories, you did not do it, merely said one or two vague things, and left it at that. Not good enough Im afraid.

YOU SAID NOW i am not trying to insult u or any thing
in fact i say ,i respect ur opinion , if u wanna keep up like this
OK , its ur choice

Yes, my free choice.

YOU SAID i dont know, i cant explain , i don have proof or evidence , whereas i am only gonna accept whatever u say only if u provide evidence
IS NOT LOGICAL

You argue for science which is based on evidence, I argue for God which is based on faith, revelation and direct experience.


YOU SAID U URSELF SAY U JUST BELIEVES SOMETHING BECAUSE U FEEL IT OR SOMETHING
U HAVE *NO* ANSWERS WHATSOVER REGARDING THE CREATOR
U JUST SAY U CANT UNDERSTANT GOD OR SOMETHING(no body is even trying to to find answers)

Lets sort this once and for all. List everything you want me to answer and I will do the same for you. Lets both answer the questions as best we can, and openly admit if we cant? How does that sound to you?

YOU SAID FOR THIS DEBATE TO CONTINUE , U MUST HERE ACCEPT THIS

I am happy if this debate continues, dies, or moves onto other particpants.

To get things sorted just a little bit, once again here are some of your unanswered questions...

PLEASE answer these in your next post.

1 I want you to offer me any idea at all, at how consciousness has arrived from elements of the periodic table? You are welcome to trawl the web, ask people and see what you can come up with in response. PLEASE *CLEARLY* EXPLAIN your answer.

2. I want to know whether *the act* of raping a child is wrong, independent of your own decision on this? Is it right or wrong no matter what you think? Is it always wrong. PLEASE *CLEARLY* EXPLAIN your answer.

3 What are the origins of the universe or your thoughts on the same? [you utterly failed to answer this last time I asked. There are only three possible options, so pick one]

a It has always existed
b It spontaneously come into existence from nothing.
c It was created

PLEASE *CLEARLY* EXPLAIN your answer.

4 Please can you clearly explain why A-theism is the better view than Belief in God?

5 Are rape, child abuse, racism, theft, murder, wife-beating, bullying are only wrong because it is the *opinion* of the masses? Are you suggesting that these sorts of act are not bad in of themselves, we have merely decided they are bad?

6 In certain societies, eating human flesh is acceptable. In other societies in the past, the burning of Jews in ovens was deemed acceptable. Does this mean that those actions were acceptable? Just because society says so? Surely, deep down, you have a sense of what is right and wrong, and no matter what the masses tell you, if they posit that rape is right, you will always know it is wrong?

In Peace, Mr Average

 

[seanoc]

Mr Average,

There is no such word or term as "A-Theism" , just like there is no such word as C-hristian.

I don't think there is such a thing as absolute morality, but can you provide a coherent reasoning for why a belief in absolute morality somehow indicates the notion of a higher power. Unless I am mistaken this is what you argue? I'm interested in hearing your reasoning.

 

[crappycraperson]

I would answer some things u have raised against me on personal account:

Well yeah maybe mine posts have some grammatical and spelling errors, the reason being I don type mine posts on Word or something, and I don really read it once I have written. If what I have written is understandable to u, then its ok, its not a school paper or something.

U said I have only the basic scientific knowledge. Well whether u wanna believe or not is up to u, but the fact is I have studied these theories in detail. While studying them (around 3 years ago) I didn’t learn them by heart. So if expect me to remember all of it in original form in the scientific terms used, u are being unreasonable. I could have like other posters here like YOU ,done a cut n paste job using some article in other website, but I chose to write only what I remembered when I studied them. If u want me to do these cut n pate jobs, its fine by me, JUST SAY SO.

I accept I haven’t fully explain mine position, part of the reason I had to encounter mine exams in between and other that u keep raising so many questions again and again. I knew this was gonna happen, that’s why I suggested at the start that we should discuss one related topic one by one.

Also since it seems that this debate has opened up to other posters, please tell whether they would also be involved constantly and I/U would have to address them too.


Now again before moving on:
Please for once answer this :
Your words: You argue for science which is based on evidence, I argue for God which is based on faith, revelation and direct experience.

Now I don know whether u really don’t get it, or pretending not to.
Topic (as I understand): which is more logical atheism or belief in god?

To argue on the behest of something based on evidence and reasoning and which is vying to find more to prove it self is more logical than to argue on the behest of faith, revelation etc. ( explain direct experience – surely u didn’t see god or something).
DO YOU AGREE?

Please answer this in yes/no terms and then explain as u like.

Then only we could proceed and list questions and stuff.

 

[Furious George]

I am happy if this debate continues, dies, or moves onto other particpants.

Good, because you're an annoying little tit and I want to jump over your silly arguments.

PLEASE answer these in your next post.

Allow me...

1 I want you to offer me any idea at all, at how consciousness has arrived from elements of the periodic table? You are welcome to trawl the web, ask people and see what you can come up with in response. PLEASE *CLEARLY* EXPLAIN your answer.

Right, we've done this one. I know you were just aching to say 'God did it', but you couldn't because science has a much more reasonable explanation that doesn't involve supernatural beings.

2. I want to know whether *the act* of raping a child is wrong, independent of your own decision on this? Is it right or wrong no matter what you think? Is it always wrong. PLEASE *CLEARLY* EXPLAIN your answer.

How can you ask a question on morality, yet insist that the questioned party leave thier own moral objections to one side? It's like asking someone who's been blind from birth to describe purple!

I also know where you're going with this question. If you'd like to play your morality card rather than keeping it up your sleeve, I'll gladly jump all over that argument too.

3 What are the origins of the universe or your thoughts on the same? [you utterly failed to answer this last time I asked. There are only three possible options, so pick one]

a It has always existed
b It spontaneously come into existence from nothing.
c It was created

PLEASE *CLEARLY* EXPLAIN your answer.

You fail to take into account string theory, or m-theory, or whatever the hell it's called these days which points towards the existence of the multiverse; a collection of universes(Collective noun?) that simultaneously co-exist and disperse thier collective energy through the births and deaths of universes.

I know it seems outlandish but it's still a lot more plausable than the third option you've offered.

Given your options, I'd plump for B, even though it's a loaded statment. To explain my answer clearly, i'll first have to wait for your inevitable rebuttal using the tired theists cliche of invoking the laws of thermodynamics.

4 Please can you clearly explain why A-theism is the better view than Belief in God?

2000 years after the death of Christ the world is still arguing over who has the best invisible friend. You don't get that with Atheism. Plus you get to stay in bed on a sunday.

5 Are rape, child abuse, racism, theft, murder, wife-beating, bullying are only wrong because it is the *opinion* of the masses? Are you suggesting that these sorts of act are not bad in of themselves, we have merely decided they are bad?

We are a social chimp, Mr Average. We need interaction to breed and primitive people soon discovered the value of strength in numbers. It works better for everyone if we all just get along. What was the purpose of this question?

6 In certain societies, eating human flesh is acceptable.

The only social examples of cannibalism recorded were done during religious ceremonies. So, you've sort of shot yourself in the foot there.

In other societies in the past, the burning of Jews in ovens was deemed acceptable.

No, that was the nazi's and they had the rest of the civilized world busting their bollocks to stop them.

Does this mean that those actions were acceptable? Just because society says so? Surely, deep down, you have a sense of what is right and wrong, and no matter what the masses tell you, if they posit that rape is right, you will always know it is wrong?

I keep getting leaflets through my door telling me to vote for this political party or that political party. Candidate X disagrees with policy Y and will counter it with policy Z. Ultimatley, I know which one is right for me, no matter what they say.

 

[nickm]

With the greatest respect. you have as yet failed to provide *any* points whatsoever, to backup your belief that A-theism is a more reasonable world view, than belief in a creator.

OK:

1) Whose creator? The only reason you believe in the Christian God, and not say the Mongol God or the Hindu one(s), is an accident of geography.

2) The only reason you believe in the Christian God and not Zeus or Odin, is an accident of history.

3) When I look around me, I see no God. When I look through the eyes of science, I see no God. I see Nature going about its business, but I see nothing in the day-to-day operation of the Universe that definitively requires a God. Therefore it is entirely rational to take the position that there is no God.

4) When I ask those who believe in God why they reject scientific facts like evolution, you get answers based on literal interpretation of the Bible. Those literalistl explanations are easily falisified. Yet believers continue to believe in the face of the evidence. That is not a reasonable or rational position.

5) Miracles, angels, demons, virgin births... these have to be accepted on faith alone. Question that faith, and the basic argument of the religious is exposed: reason doesn't count. I believe. That is all.

6) Belief in God is not therefore a rational proposition. It is a matter of faith. Atheism may not be perfect either, but in the absence of clear evidence of God, it is a rational worldview. To defeat that argument, you have to *prove* the world was created by God and you cannot do that. You can only assert it.

 

[nickm]

The other reason it is not rational is this: while I think your views are misguided, you may well think that my views are (inadvertently) doing Satan's work.

 

[Wibble]

I've just read back through the earlier pages of this thread and you're clearly a believer in Intelligent Design. How you arrived at this outlook is beyond me, the whole argument is little more than quackery.

There is no evidence for a creator. There is plenty for evolution.

You sir, are an ape.

Douglas Adam's rather nice explanation of God and our need to believe in intelligent design. Also rather funny as well as true. Which is a bonus

"
Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day’s tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in—mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can’t get you; in front of him there’s the forest—it’s got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by, which is full of water—water’s delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here’s cousin Ug and he’s caught a mammoth—mammoth’s are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it’s fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, ‘well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in’ and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says ‘So who made this then?’ Who made this? — you can see why it’s a treacherous question. Early man thinks, ‘Well, because there’s only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he’s probably male’. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , ‘If he made it, what did he make it for?’ Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, ‘This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely’ and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. "

 

[Wibble]

Is e=mcsquared a theory? Yes

Is 2 + 2 =4 a theory? No, it is a convention that we have adopted

Does a circle having 360 degrees alwways and forever, count as a theory? No - it is nomenclature/convention for a purpose

Are you looking for an absolute theory for some reason? If so it is hard to go past natural selection/evolution.

 

[nickm]

..Consciousness has developed over millions of years, how can you recreate that in a lab? You may as well dismiss most major scientific theories if you aproach it that way!

One day we may be able to recreate it in a lab, if AI works out. But that is besides the point. (The Theory of) Evolution explains how life evolved (fact) to its current state. If you want to be picky and assign some special status to consciousness, then go ahead. But before you do, I suggest you read some of the lay literature on this. I particularly recommend, for varying but converging views:

The Prehistory of the Mind by Steven Mithren
Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter
How the Mind Works and The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker
How Brains Think by William Calvin
Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett

Note that none of the above explanations reply on God to fill the empty vessel. But in truth, ALL the theories of consciousness in the books above are provisional. It is only you who are claiming certain final knowledge - 'that God did it'.

When I asked....I want to know if Scientists have managed to produce consciousness from unconscioussness or not?

You said....No, of course they haven't!

Actually, I would content that yes they (and lots of other peole) have - in a sense. Seriously. Every time someone has a baby, they are producing consciousness from unconsciousness materials. You, as a Believer and advocate of God's role in these affairs, have to demonstrate how and when God fills that mind with consciousness, if you don't believe normal natural development processes can account for it. So go on then.

Also you have to demonstrate that consciousness is unique to humans. I don't believe that it is. I happen to think that consciousness is a continuum, not an absolute, that many animals are 'low resolution' conscious while humans are 'high resolution' conscious, with indeed some variation even within human populations. If so, then it's not such a stretch to see how consciousness could have evolved in steps, in the same way as all the other apparently inexplicable conmplexities of life.

 

[spinoza]

Theories are evidence. If not, then tell me what they are?

Theories are most emphatically NOT evidence.

Theories are hypotheses that are supported by evidence, strictly speaking.

The word "theory" is bandied around much too freely in my opinion.

 

[spinoza]

Is e=mcsquared a theory?

Yes - it was postulated by Einstein and has been empirically proven by observing energy released in certain nuclear reactions.

Is 2 + 2 =4 a theory?

Yes - the proof is rather complex and I don't pretend to understand it myself but it has been comprehensively proven. If you have a grasp of number theory, the proof is accessible.

Does a circle having 360 degrees alwways and forever, count as a theory?

That is a convention. But however you slice it, a circle will always have the same amount of radial area. Again, proven with great complexity in topological mathematics, which I don't understand the finer points of either, other than the fact that I believe it involves doughnuts.

 

[Mr Average]

Good, because you're an annoying little tit and I want to jump over your silly arguments.

WTF?

Who do you think you are speaking to me like that. When have I got offensive to you?

You are a big man hiding behind a f***** monitor giving it the large. You dont know me, what I have gone through in my life, or what I am going through now. Keep your comments to yourself.

Oh, and if you wanna make something of it, pm me your mobile number and ill give you a call.