Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-09-2016, 04:22 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
How could life create the universe, when life is made of matter?
http://www.pisspoor.com/biocentricity/#everything

This is probably the most common immediate objection to the theory. However, several things to keep in mind: First, let's not be sloppy with our language. Life, in fact, isn't made of matter; life is a quality that matter may or may not be seen to possess — similar to other qualities that matter may display, such as nuclear instability, incandescence, or mass. (The distinction between living matter and life is like the difference between a massive object and mass itself.) Just as we wouldn't say that mass or charge or velocity is made of matter, neither should we say the same about life. Second, parallel "chicken-and-egg" questions can be asked of the conventional cosmology as well, such as: Where was mass before the Big Bang? What was matter doing before space gave it somewhere to exist? What was the cosmic singularity made of, if not energy or matter or space or time? But these sound silly to us, because we accept that they don't really have answers.

The difficulty or paradox in the original question arises when we assume that the first organism had to be in one particular, fully defined molecular state, like cells we look at under a microscope today, with all of the atoms and complex interacting systems of our modern, human-observed world. Biocentricity rejects this assumption. As explained in part 2 of our video series, if we could exactly replay the appearance of the first organism in a modern laboratory, we would see molecules coming together in a very specific manner. But that picture doesn't necessarily represent what went on in the world of that first organism, when both itself and its universe may have been in an extremely fuzzy, almost undefined state.





.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 04:33 AM (This post was last modified: 05-09-2016 04:38 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Blink

(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:Free clue: if you have a belief that can't be proven wrong then you have a useless belief.

I guess we could say my belief in biocentrism is useless and also your belief in materialism is useless. I thought we had already established they are both simply beliefs.

Thanks for bringing up the proof argument again though. As we've discussed science has not "proven" that matter, space, time and energy creates life. It is something accepted on faith.

Similarly, biocentrism has not proven life creates matter, space, time and energy. Again it is a belief or faith.

The idea that life cannot exist in its own native dimension without physical bodies is not possible to prove or disprove, but then arguably nothing in life that is important is provable. Can you prove love exists? Can you prove happiness exists? Can you prove fun exists? No, these things belong to a native dimension beyond the five senses. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

One thing about a theory of everything is that we would like it to be consistent with all of the great discoveries in all fields, such as psychology, theology, psychedelic explorations, near death experiences and others.

Let's just take a few of these.
1. Psychology: In psychology all of the great theoreticians have agreed the one over arching healing modality is love. This is consistent with biocentrism because if there is a single life then all of its forms are unified and unity is another name for love.

2. Psychedelics: Albert Hoffman, Alexander Shulgin, Stan Grof and many brilliant men have explored these substances and said their direct experience is of a realm of Unified Pure Being. Again consistent with biocentrism.

3. Near death experiences: Don't even have to go into it, now in the thousands of experiences and again consistent with biocentrism.

This website answers some common questions about biocentrism.
http://www.biocentricity.net/

In reply to your numbers.

1) Overarching modality? Love? such things did nothing for the re-attaching of my finger many decades ago. It was medicine/surgery and the Doctor's knowledge of anatomy etc which put everything back together again.

2) So... an argument form 'Popular-ism' I think? Because lots of people have done something gives it merit? Consider

3)So... lots of anecdotal, unsupported and reasonably debunked woo?

Perhaps something more to shore up your Biocentrism, please?

Your ideas seem to be descending farther and farther into the land of make-believe with every post/reply.

Edit: Followed the link, will read more when I can/have time.

Though it will be interesting to see some of those predictions resolve. How might finding life on Europa or another Moon in our own system change the prediction?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
05-09-2016, 04:40 AM (This post was last modified: 05-09-2016 04:47 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Sweet holy fuck, you are dumb as shit...

(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:Free clue: if you have a belief that can't be proven wrong then you have a useless belief.
I guess we could say my belief in biocentrism is useless and also your belief in materialism is useless. I thought we had already established they are both simply beliefs.

Do you even realize there there is a difference between opinions and informed opinions? Of course you don't...


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  Thanks for bringing up the proof argument again though. As we've discussed science has not "proven" that matter, space, time and energy creates life. It is something accepted on faith.

Similarly, biocentrism has not proven life creates matter, space, time and energy. Again it is a belief or faith.

Faith? Bullshit, and fuck your weak ass equivocation.

As we currently define life (most simply, self replicating organisms capable of maintaining homeostasis), it requires mater, space, and time. All life we have ever observed has been both dependent upon and has appeared after the existence of them.

Has anyone ever observed life creating matter, space, or time? Is that even falsifiable? No? Then take your wet brain fart and shove off, because it's worth less than nothing.


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  The idea that life cannot exist in its own native dimension without physical bodies is not possible to prove or disprove, but then arguably nothing in life that is important is provable.

You also cannot 'prove' that this universe and our existence wasn't created by an invisible pink unicorn, or that we're all simulations on a universe sized supercomputer being operated by beings we cannot comprehend. Does it make sense to treat such entirely unfalsifiable bullshit as having even the remotest chance of being true, purely because nobody can possibly prove it wrong? Only if you are a credulous dipshit who prefers to choose their bullshit by fiat rather then being constrained by evidence and reality.

In case you're wondering, anybody who is concerned with having accurate beliefs should take nothing you say seriously.


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  Can you prove love exists?

We experience different brain states that we have colloquially labeled as emotions, and the experience of such emotions and changes in the brain's chemistry have been observed and are independently verifiable (for example, by fMRI). Things happen, our body responds, and our experience of those changes we call emotions. So, do people form attachments to person, places, or other objects; and does affirming such attachments trigger a rather reliable rise in dopamine, trigerring the pleasurable feeling that many have labeled 'love'? Yes, that does happen, and we have evidence of it. Trying to reduce the concept of love to mere chemistry is a bit reductionist, but we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that 'love' exists (so long as you don't attached 'love' to a pseudoscience definition full of mumbo-jumbo that would play well on a commercial for a psychic reading).


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  Can you prove happiness exists? Can you prove fun exists?

Humans really like dopamine, and the activities that trigger it's release. Haven't you ever masturbated?

Get schooled homeboy.


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  No, these things belong to a native dimension beyond the five senses. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

An entirely unjustifiable presupposition without evidence. We have no reason to take that assertion as anything more than empty hot air, and declare you a credulous dipshit for being so gullible.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  One thing about a theory of everything is that we would like it to be consistent with all of the great discoveries in all fields, such as psychology, theology, psychedelic explorations, near death experiences and others.

Says who? I don't remember Hawkins or Einstein fretting over near death experiences...


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  Let's just take a few of these.
1. Psychology: In psychology all of the great theoreticians have agreed the one over arching healing modality is love. This is consistent with biocentrism because if there is a single life then all of its forms are unified and unity is another name for love.

Citation required.


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  2. Psychedelics: Albert Hoffman, Alexander Shulgin, Stan Grof and many brilliant men have explored these substances and said their direct experience is of a realm of Unified Pure Being. Again consistent with biocentrism.

Citation required.

Also, personal subjective experiences are the absolute weakest evidence. Taking mushrooms and suffering hallucinations is not the same as a repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, double-blind study.


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  3. Near death experiences: Don't even have to go into it, now in the thousands of experiences and again consistent with biocentrism.

Citation required.

They're also consistent with cultural norms. Muslims NDE's experience Muslim heaven. Christian NDE's experience Christian heaven. Pagan or new age NDE's likewise have different experiences. It's easily explainable by cultural influences and expectations. Simple explanation that doesn't require supernatural assumptions. Even assuming that everything else is equal (and it's not, not by a fucking long shot), that explanation is far more likely to be true purely because it doesn't rely upon preposition. Learn how to reason you gormless cunt.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
05-09-2016, 05:17 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 04:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Sweet holy fuck, you are dumb as shit...

(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  I guess we could say my belief in biocentrism is useless and also your belief in materialism is useless. I thought we had already established they are both simply beliefs.

Do you even realize there there is a difference between opinions and informed opinions? Of course you don't...


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  Thanks for bringing up the proof argument again though. As we've discussed science has not "proven" that matter, space, time and energy creates life. It is something accepted on faith.

Similarly, biocentrism has not proven life creates matter, space, time and energy. Again it is a belief or faith.

Faith? Bullshit, and fuck your weak ass equivocation.

As we currently define life (most simply, self replicating organisms capable of maintaining homeostasis), it requires mater, space, and time. All life we have ever observed has been both dependent upon and has appeared after the existence of them.

Has anyone ever observed life creating matter, space, or time? Is that even falsifiable? No? Then take your wet brain fart and shove off, because it's worth less than nothing.


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  The idea that life cannot exist in its own native dimension without physical bodies is not possible to prove or disprove, but then arguably nothing in life that is important is provable.

You also cannot 'prove' that this universe and our existence wasn't created by an invisible pink unicorn, or that we're all simulations on a universe sized supercomputer being operated by beings we cannot comprehend. Does it make sense to treat such entirely unfalsifiable bullshit as having even the remotest chance of being true, purely because nobody can possibly prove it wrong? Only if you are a credulous dipshit who prefers to choose their bullshit by fiat rather then being constrained by evidence and reality.

In case you're wondering, anybody who is concerned with having accurate beliefs should take nothing you say seriously.


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  Can you prove love exists?

We experience different brain states that we have colloquially labeled as emotions, and the experience of such emotions and changes in the brain's chemistry have been observed and are independently verifiable (for example, by fMRI). Things happen, our body responds, and our experience of those changes we call emotions. So, do people form attachments to person, places, or other objects; and does affirming such attachments trigger a rather reliable rise in dopamine, trigerring the pleasurable feeling that many have labeled 'love'? Yes, that does happen, and we have evidence of it. Trying to reduce the concept of love to mere chemistry is a bit reductionist, but we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that 'love' exists (so long as you don't attached 'love' to a pseudoscience definition full of mumbo-jumbo that would play well on a commercial for a psychic reading).


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  Can you prove happiness exists? Can you prove fun exists?

Humans really like dopamine, and the activities that trigger it's release. Haven't you ever masturbated?

Get schooled homeboy.


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  No, these things belong to a native dimension beyond the five senses. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

An entirely unjustifiable presupposition without evidence. We have no reason to take that assertion as anything more than empty hot air, and declare you a credulous dipshit for being so gullible.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  One thing about a theory of everything is that we would like it to be consistent with all of the great discoveries in all fields, such as psychology, theology, psychedelic explorations, near death experiences and others.

Says who? I don't remember Hawkins or Einstein fretting over near death experiences...


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  Let's just take a few of these.
1. Psychology: In psychology all of the great theoreticians have agreed the one over arching healing modality is love. This is consistent with biocentrism because if there is a single life then all of its forms are unified and unity is another name for love.

Citation required.


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  2. Psychedelics: Albert Hoffman, Alexander Shulgin, Stan Grof and many brilliant men have explored these substances and said their direct experience is of a realm of Unified Pure Being. Again consistent with biocentrism.

Citation required.

Also, personal subjective experiences are the absolute weakest evidence. Taking mushrooms and suffering hallucinations is not the same as a repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, double-blind study.


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  3. Near death experiences: Don't even have to go into it, now in the thousands of experiences and again consistent with biocentrism.

Citation required.

They're also consistent with cultural norms. Muslims NDE's experience Muslim heaven. Christian NDE's experience Christian heaven. Pagan or new age NDE's likewise have different experiences. It's easily explainable by cultural influences and expectations. Simple explanation that doesn't require supernatural assumptions. Even assuming that everything else is equal (and it's not, not by a fucking long shot), that explanation is far more likely to be true purely because it doesn't rely upon preposition. Learn how to reason you gormless cunt.


That post does more to highlight the failure of your philosophy [and it is a belief and philosophy] than anything I could possibly write.

What is your next scientific step... find out my address and bring over weapons?




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 05:40 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 05:17 AM)xear Wrote:  That post does more to highlight the failure of your philosophy [and it is a belief and philosophy] than anything I could possibly write.

What is your next scientific step... find out my address and bring over weapons?




.


I just handed your your uneducated credulous ass on a platter, and the best you can do is deflect and insinuate that I'd resort to violence to deal with an internet dipshit? Really, that's all you got, just impotent deflection?


What makes you think you rate the effort homeboy?

[Image: giphy.gif]

Simply declaring victory does not make it so, but I guess that concept is too nuanced for you...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 05:44 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 05:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-09-2016 05:17 AM)xear Wrote:  That post does more to highlight the failure of your philosophy [and it is a belief and philosophy] than anything I could possibly write.

What is your next scientific step... find out my address and bring over weapons?




.


I just handed your your uneducated credulous ass on a platter, and the best you can do is deflect and insinuate that I'd resort to violence to deal with an internet dipshit? Really, that's all you got, just impotent deflection?


What makes you think you rate the effort homeboy?

[Image: giphy.gif]

Simply declaring victory does not make it so, but I guess that concept is too nuanced for you...


If that is true maybe you could make your argument for materialism concisely without name calling and highlight the exact points you have proven for materialism and I have failed to prove for biocentrism.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 05:59 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:Free clue: if you have a belief that can't be proven wrong then you have a useless belief.

I guess we could say my belief in biocentrism is useless and also your belief in materialism is useless. I thought we had already established they are both simply beliefs.

Thanks for bringing up the proof argument again though. As we've discussed science has not "proven" that matter, space, time and energy creates life. It is something accepted on faith.

Similarly, biocentrism has not proven life creates matter, space, time and energy. Again it is a belief or faith.

The idea that life cannot exist in its own native dimension without physical bodies is not possible to prove or disprove, but then arguably nothing in life that is important is provable. Can you prove love exists? Can you prove happiness exists? Can you prove fun exists? No, these things belong to a native dimension beyond the five senses. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

One thing about a theory of everything is that we would like it to be consistent with all of the great discoveries in all fields, such as psychology, theology, psychedelic explorations, near death experiences and others.

Let's just take a few of these.
1. Psychology: In psychology all of the great theoreticians have agreed the one over arching healing modality is love. This is consistent with biocentrism because if there is a single life then all of its forms are unified and unity is another name for love.

2. Psychedelics: Albert Hoffman, Alexander Shulgin, Stan Grof and many brilliant men have explored these substances and said their direct experience is of a realm of Unified Pure Being. Again consistent with biocentrism.

3. Near death experiences: Don't even have to go into it, now in the thousands of experiences and again consistent with biocentrism.



This website answers some common questions about biocentrism.
http://www.biocentricity.net/

.

1. Healing modality? Yeah every person that died from a disease was unloved, that's why they died. Facepalm

2. Psychedelics? So your evidence is people using drugs? Facepalm

3. NDE's? What does the N in NDE stand for? This is simply a phenomenon of a brain under stress.


We have EVIDENCE that when things die that there is no conscious thought. This silly idea has ZERO evidence that our consciousness floats somewhere without a brain- ZERO EVIDENCE!

The idea of a "universal consciousness" has zero evidence. It also suffers from a plausible first cause, where did the first consciousness come from? How would you provide evidence that such a consciousness could arise?

Mind you, this idea posits a consciousness, this is further up the food chain, so to speak, than a mere primitive organism, this is a consciousness that suddenly popped into existence.

How does this process work? What level of complexity was this first consciousness? How did it gain an instant, well evolved complexity?

The whole idea is a cart-before-the-horse assertion.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
05-09-2016, 06:03 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 05:59 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  I guess we could say my belief in biocentrism is useless and also your belief in materialism is useless. I thought we had already established they are both simply beliefs.

Thanks for bringing up the proof argument again though. As we've discussed science has not "proven" that matter, space, time and energy creates life. It is something accepted on faith.

Similarly, biocentrism has not proven life creates matter, space, time and energy. Again it is a belief or faith.

The idea that life cannot exist in its own native dimension without physical bodies is not possible to prove or disprove, but then arguably nothing in life that is important is provable. Can you prove love exists? Can you prove happiness exists? Can you prove fun exists? No, these things belong to a native dimension beyond the five senses. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

One thing about a theory of everything is that we would like it to be consistent with all of the great discoveries in all fields, such as psychology, theology, psychedelic explorations, near death experiences and others.

Let's just take a few of these.
1. Psychology: In psychology all of the great theoreticians have agreed the one over arching healing modality is love. This is consistent with biocentrism because if there is a single life then all of its forms are unified and unity is another name for love.

2. Psychedelics: Albert Hoffman, Alexander Shulgin, Stan Grof and many brilliant men have explored these substances and said their direct experience is of a realm of Unified Pure Being. Again consistent with biocentrism.

3. Near death experiences: Don't even have to go into it, now in the thousands of experiences and again consistent with biocentrism.



This website answers some common questions about biocentrism.
http://www.biocentricity.net/

.

1. Healing modality? Yeah every person that died from a disease was unloved, that's why they died. Facepalm

2. Psychedelics? So your evidence is people using drugs? Facepalm

3. NDE's? What does the N in NDE stand for? This is simply a phenomenon of a brain under stress.


We have EVIDENCE that when things die that there is no conscious thought. This silly idea has ZERO evidence that our consciousness floats somewhere without a brain- ZERO EVIDENCE!

The idea of a "universal consciousness" has zero evidence. It also suffers from a plausible first cause, where did the first consciousness come from? How would you provide evidence that such a consciousness could arise?

Mind you, this idea posits a consciousness, this is further up the food chain, so to speak, than a mere primitive organism, this is a consciousness that suddenly popped into existence.

How does this process work? What level of complexity was this first consciousness? How did gain an instant, well evolved complexity?

The whole idea is a cart-before-the-horse assertion.



I've already said I don't have proof. Now you provide proof that matter, space, time and energy create life and I will be on your side.

Without proof you just have another belief.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 06:12 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:Free clue: if you have a belief that can't be proven wrong then you have a useless belief.

I guess we could say my belief in biocentrism is useless and also your belief in materialism is useless. I thought we had already established they are both simply beliefs.

With the difference being so far, that everything we do (science) based on materialism works. What supporting evidence do you have for biocentrism? Im not talking about arguments, but real, factual evidence.

(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  Thanks for bringing up the proof argument again though. As we've discussed science has not "proven" that matter, space, time and energy creates life. It is something accepted on faith.
Nope its based on the fact that all we have verifiably observed so far is matter, time, space and energy (and dark energy, probably as well as dark matter, which make up 95% of the observable universe!) and somehow all of this *created* life, otherwise i wouldnt be sitting here typing this. So far it hasnt been disproven that matter, space, time and energy creates life, all availiable evidence points towards matter, space, time and energy createing life
Have we anything observed, verifiably, that is evidence for biocentrism? Consistent with biocentrism only!

(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  Similarly, biocentrism has not proven life creates matter, space, time and energy. Again it is a belief or faith.
Correct, since, so far not one claim of biocentrism has been confirmed yet by observation. Science still has amuch better track record than "zero".
Even if neither conventional science nor biocentrism could provide evidence that they can account for the existence of life, what would be the intellectually honest answer regarding to what to believe?
Hint: It starts with "i dont.." and not with "bio.."

If you like to base your beliefs on faith and want to drag down any other (than yours) reasonable belief to your level, in order to claim its all faith, then you are welome, but you are only demonstrating your gullibility and bias.

(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  The idea that life cannot exist in its own native dimension without physical bodies is not possible to prove or disprove
Then its a useless idea or you mayb ejust cant think of a way to disprove it.

(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  One thing about a theory of everything is that we would like it to be consistent with all of the great discoveries in all fields, such as psychology, theology, psychedelic explorations, near death experiences and others.
Depends. If you mean it to be consistent with the observations of said things, yes. If you mean it to be consitent with any (biased, predetermined) conclusions, nope.
Oh, and what "great discoveryes" do we owe to theology?

(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  Let's just take a few of these.
1. Psychology: In psychology all of the great theoreticians have agreed the one over arching healing modality is love. This is consistent with biocentrism because if there is a single life then all of its forms are unified and unity is another name for love.
1a. Are you saying "love is able to heal every psychic condition? Blink
1b If it is so, and consistent with at least one more woo theory, this theory is just as valid as biocentrism Consider


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  2. Psychedelics: Albert Hoffman, Alexander Shulgin, Stan Grof and many brilliant men have explored these substances and said their direct experience is of a realm of Unified Pure Being. Again consistent with biocentrism.
Their brains´ chemical functionality was demonstrably heavily altered by chemical substances, in other words, their brains werent funcioning in a "normal" state, and you take the result of these experiences as evidence for your interpretation of said experiences? Facepalm
These experiences can be taken as a claim maybe (for the existence of a unified whatever), but where is the suppoting evidence for this claim? Smartass
Please explain what the difference is between a "unified (impure?) being" and a "unified pure being". I suspect you had some Deepak Chopra for breakfast.

(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  3. Near death experiences: Don't even have to go into it, now in the thousands of experiences and again consistent with biocentrism.
Yeah! Consistent with lots of other theories as well, including lots more of woo. Drinking Beverage But most consitent with a dying brain deprived of oxygen or suffering from physical damage. Facepalm
Im waiting for someting that is consistent with biocentrism only. That would be something!


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  This website answers some common questions about biocentrism.
http://www.biocentricity.net/
Are verifiable claims included? Or only wild ass assertions?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Deesse23's post
05-09-2016, 06:15 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 06:03 AM)xear Wrote:  
(05-09-2016 05:59 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  1. Healing modality? Yeah every person that died from a disease was unloved, that's why they died. Facepalm

2. Psychedelics? So your evidence is people using drugs? Facepalm

3. NDE's? What does the N in NDE stand for? This is simply a phenomenon of a brain under stress.


We have EVIDENCE that when things die that there is no conscious thought. This silly idea has ZERO evidence that our consciousness floats somewhere without a brain- ZERO EVIDENCE!

The idea of a "universal consciousness" has zero evidence. It also suffers from a plausible first cause, where did the first consciousness come from? How would you provide evidence that such a consciousness could arise?

Mind you, this idea posits a consciousness, this is further up the food chain, so to speak, than a mere primitive organism, this is a consciousness that suddenly popped into existence.

How does this process work? What level of complexity was this first consciousness? How did gain an instant, well evolved complexity?

The whole idea is a cart-before-the-horse assertion.



I've already said I don't have proof. Now you provide proof that matter, space, time and energy create life and I will be on your side.

Without proof you just have another belief.




.

"tu quoque" is a fallacy, not an argument Weeping
There are beliefs, and (reasonable) beliefs. Guess which one yours is. Hint: you just stated you have no evidence, and what you presented as consitent with your belief is probably consistent with countless other beliefs.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: