Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-09-2016, 08:51 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Evolution provides a mechanism which explains the gradual evolution of consciousness in biological organisms. Biocentrism does not, it asserts it somehow popped into existence without a mechanism for how it arose. Biocentrism asserts a higher order complexity exists de novo without arising from simpler forms, it gets the cart before the horse! This is fatal for this assertion!

Evolution provides an explanation for the origin of consciousness. Biocentrism does not provide an explanation for the origins of consciousness. Where did the first consciousness come from? How did it arise? Biocentrism does not answer this or provide any mechanism for this, biological evolution does.

Biological processes provide a mechanism for HOW consciousness operates. Biocentrism does not, it simply asserts that consciousness simply exists apart from matter, it pulls the rug out from under any rational explanation.

Biocentrism is a hollow theory without explanatory power, it basically shoves everything into a mystical box with a big question mark on the box. It turns away from any rationality or understanding and subverts knowledge to hollow, mystical explanations lacking evidence.

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
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
05-09-2016, 09:01 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 08:08 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(05-09-2016 07:28 AM)xear Wrote:  "You can see the facial expressions, vocal tones, and action of people experiencing various emotional states."

Those are the effects of emotions. You cannot see emotions. Emotions are intangible. Intangible things can produce effects as you pointed out. Of a similar nature we cannot see life we can see the effects of life. Neither you nor I can tangibly prove life exists. We can point to the effects of life and infer it just as we do with those emotional states we can't see.

Wow, you really are a dishonest fuck, aren't you? You asked about proving that love and happiness exist and I listed several bits of evidence that leads us to conclude that those conditions are identifiable. That does not in any way imply that the emergent properties that we label love, happiness, or life have are distinct things apart from the organism. They are definitions of the state of the organism.

You are the one claiming that life is some ephemeral thing that exists apart from the world we can measure and have yet to provide a shred of evidence for your claim.


What evidence? Simple: pretend you can't see, hear, taste, touch or smell and see if life is still there. If so there is the possibility it belongs to a dimension beyond those sense perceptions. Not proven, but it is evidence.

Probably my last response to those who post obscene insults.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 09:08 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Also, there are very basic things we; as humans, need to survive:

We need air to breathe.

We need food.

We need water.

All of these things are required because there is an underpinning biochemistry at work underneath it all. There is an underlining physicality that consciousness depends upon.

Why is this a difficult concept for people to comprehend?

If you're going to assert that consciousness doesn't require anything physical, it is up to you to explain why and provide evidence.

As it stands, every time you breathe, eat or drink, you have evidence of the underlining physicality that consciousness depends upon.

So tell me again how consciousness existing without matter has just as much evidence for it existing without matter. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
05-09-2016, 09:30 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 09:01 AM)xear Wrote:  
(05-09-2016 08:08 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Wow, you really are a dishonest fuck, aren't you? You asked about proving that love and happiness exist and I listed several bits of evidence that leads us to conclude that those conditions are identifiable. That does not in any way imply that the emergent properties that we label love, happiness, or life have are distinct things apart from the organism. They are definitions of the state of the organism.

You are the one claiming that life is some ephemeral thing that exists apart from the world we can measure and have yet to provide a shred of evidence for your claim.


What evidence? Simple: pretend you can't see, hear, taste, touch or smell and see if life is still there. If so there is the possibility it belongs to a dimension beyond those sense perceptions. Not proven, but it is evidence.

Probably my last response to those who post obscene insults.
.

FFS, if you don't have any evidence then you have no evidence.
(05-09-2016 09:01 AM)xear Wrote:  If so there is the possibility it belongs to a dimension beyond those sense perceptions.

Without evidence, then you have no way of knowing anything useful, this is just a truism. You've admitted that with this statement.

Let's rephrase that-
If so there is the possibility magic fairies belong to a dimension beyond those sense perceptions.

Yes, anything could be in your imagination, and you would not be able to provide evidence for any of it. Until you have demonstrable evidence, then it can only be classified as imaginary.

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
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
05-09-2016, 10:21 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Wait, did this guy just say we can't see emotions, we just have to believe they're there?

Laugh out load Oh, wow, I needed that!

Here, learn something:





And yes, it happens in other, non-human animals, too:




"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
05-09-2016, 10:39 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 09:01 AM)xear Wrote:  What evidence? Simple: pretend you can't see, hear, taste, touch or smell and see if life is still there. If so there is the possibility it belongs to a dimension beyond those sense perceptions. Not proven, but it is evidence.

You have no understanding of what constitutes evidence. Nothing about your little thought experiment suggests another "dimension" of any kind nor does it contradict the idea that life is a description that we apply to organisms that exhibit certain features.

Quote:Probably my last response to those who post obscene insults.

Gee, did I hurt your delicate sensibilities? What a shame. Provide evidence for your claim and stop being dishonest in your quote mining of responses and you will get treated civilly. Keep dodging the issues and making unsubstantiated claims and you deserve no respect.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
05-09-2016, 07:51 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 09:01 AM)xear Wrote:  Probably my last response to those who post obscene insults.

Obscene?

Ever been to Australia, ya' cunt?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 05:15 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 10:39 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(05-09-2016 09:01 AM)xear Wrote:  What evidence? Simple: pretend you can't see, hear, taste, touch or smell and see if life is still there. If so there is the possibility it belongs to a dimension beyond those sense perceptions. Not proven, but it is evidence.

You have no understanding of what constitutes evidence. Nothing about your little thought experiment suggests another "dimension" of any kind nor does it contradict the idea that life is a description that we apply to organisms that exhibit certain features.

Quote:Probably my last response to those who post obscene insults.

Gee, did I hurt your delicate sensibilities? What a shame. Provide evidence for your claim and stop being dishonest in your quote mining of responses and you will get treated civilly. Keep dodging the issues and making unsubstantiated claims and you deserve no respect.


I'm saying life, consciousness, being, whatever you want to call it, is permanent... it always is.

You are saying that is wrong and you will get out of consciousness when you die. You have no evidence of anyone who has ever got out of consciousness and come back or that it is even possible.

I have no evidence of anyone who stayed in it when they died. Neither of us could ever provide evidence for this.

It is up to each person to decide which makes more sense to them. You seem to be happy with the prospect of a future of oblivion. I'm glad for you. But don't think you have somehow proven that is a sure thing.

It's not a matter of feelings hurt... it's just that the internet is a big place and I personally enjoy civility. I'm not trying to force that on others, but since I have enjoyed your comments, thought they were interesting, thought provoking and insightful I thought I'd let you know how I roll.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 05:39 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
As it says from the original poster on this thread, post number 1:

"Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
A causal loop cannot exist.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist."



This is by far one of the more difficult arguments to counter. I guess the best response would be that we currently don't have the answer,...

Yeah, it's difficult... it's difficult because it's not possible.

"Lawrence Krauss has been publicizing the idea of "A Universe From Nothing." Basically, quantum fluctuations which pop in and out of existence account for most of the mass and energy, and yes, scientifically, something can come from nothing. A good video to help explain this idea can be seen here ."

Great for Lawrence Krauss ... a Universe from nothing is quite likely, but Lawrence seems to be a bit confused on the difference between non-existence and nothing. I myself have experienced nothing. But I have never experienced non-existence. They are two entirely different things as in the David Darling quote I posted.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 05:48 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 05:15 AM)xear Wrote:  I'm saying life, consciousness, being, whatever you want to call it, is permanent... it always is.

How's that? Where was your consciousness before you were conceived? Was it in two halves?

(06-09-2016 05:15 AM)xear Wrote:  You are saying that is wrong and you will get out of consciousness when you die. You have no evidence of anyone who has ever got out of consciousness and come back or that it is even possible.

I have no evidence of anyone who stayed in it when they died. Neither of us could ever provide evidence for this.

No, but as I showed above, we do know that consciousness is a product of neurological function. Before your brain developed, you did not have consciousness apart from it; after your brain ceases to function, you will not have consciousness apart from it. To show otherwise would be an assertive claim, and would require specific evidence that it is possible, let alone likely.


(06-09-2016 05:15 AM)xear Wrote:  It is up to each person to decide which makes more sense to them. You seem to be happy with the prospect of a future of oblivion. I'm glad for you. But don't think you have somehow proven that is a sure thing.

Nothing is ever a "sure thing", in biology. We have only degrees of confidence based on evidence and repeatable experiment, period.

However, it strikes me as overwhelmingly likely that the notion of our selves continuing after death is no more than the ego of a self-aware animal coupled with the drive of all beings to survive (and wish to keep surviving). As I said, it would require serious evidence of some ability of a "soul" (or whatever you want to call it) to enter our being, at some point during fetal development, for me to believe that I have one now and that it would persist in some way, apart from the function of my neurons.

(06-09-2016 05:15 AM)xear Wrote:  It's not a matter of feelings hurt... it's just that the internet is a big place and I personally enjoy civility. I'm not trying to force that on others, but since I have enjoyed your comments, thought they were interesting, thought provoking and insightful I thought I'd let you know how I roll.

Please understand that we get this a lot from Christian posters... when we make points that they dislike, they choose not to address the points we have made but instead take umbrage at foul and/or abusive language as we express our frustrations at people who make assertions without evidence, or at those who state things that are patently false and then won't listen to the debunking replies. It's a means of dodging the real issues, and it's dishonest... further infuriating us.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: