Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-11-2015, 10:28 AM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2015 10:38 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 10:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I think God can do anything that is logically possible.

Logic is an artifact of human construction. Your god is weak if it can be constrained by a simple paradox. The Buddha sure as fuck ain't.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
27-11-2015, 10:57 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(14-02-2015 07:50 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I was just wondering. Theists tell me that their god created everything in existence from a supernatural realm outside of existence. Leaving aside the self contradictory notion of something existing outside of existence, who created the supernatural realm?

It's called the watchmaker theory. If you see a watch you know it was made by intelligence, and if you see the person that made it you have to assume that he was made because he is much more wonderfully made than the watch he made.
Ok. Now let's follow the logic chain to its next step. And that is who made the God that made the man. I always say "It's your logic chain, not mine!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DerFish's post
27-11-2015, 12:56 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 10:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-11-2015 07:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, how someone comes to believe is precisely the point. Facepalm

Anyone who could actually come to believe Christian theology could be made to believe almost anything.

I feel the say way about naturalism Big Grin

Of course you do.
You actually have no knowledge of science, or how the natural world works. In the face of such ignorance, "a god must have done it" is the expected response. All your arguments are gap fillers/place holders, secondary to ignorance of how things actually work.

Are your brain chemicals "sad'' ? Bwahahahahaha.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
27-11-2015, 01:10 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2015 01:26 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 10:57 AM)DerFish Wrote:  I always say "It's your logic chain, not mine!"

"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!" Big Grin







#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2015, 04:33 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 10:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-11-2015 07:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, how someone comes to believe is precisely the point. Facepalm

Anyone who could actually come to believe Christian theology could be made to believe almost anything.

I feel the say way about naturalism Big Grin

But you're delusional.
We have evidence, you don't. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2015, 04:36 PM
Thumbs Down RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  When you can't demonstrate it, just define it into existence by fiat, eh? The "necessity of his own nature"?
Give me a break, that's just "god exists because god has to exist!" Why should I take that assertion at all seriously, when you've already admitted that the basics of that assertion elude you?

When I said that, it is based off of background knowledge that I already have regarding the absolute necessity of a first cause . So it isn't as if I just made blank ass statements. No. I have background information which allows me to make such statements.

Now, if your question becomes "What evidence do you have that God is necessary", then we can talk about that as well.

But don't make it seem as if I am just throwing stuff around on here with no rhyme or reason (like most of you do).

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  When it's windy outside, are all the air molecules breezy? No, and yet there's still wind. That's because wind is a process created by air molecules, not a distinct entity in its own right.

You've made my point for me. If the molecules aren't breezy, then what is breezy? What is breezy? If you say "I just came from outside, and it is windy out there". We've identified what is windy and no, it isn't the molecules, it is the state of the air flow outside.

However, when someone say "I am sad", what is sad? If the electrons isn't sad, then what exactly is sad? What are we talking about?

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Likewise, "sad," is created by the electrochemical patterns in the brain, experienced by the subjective process that is "you."

Wait, what? You've yet to identify who the "you" is.

So when you say "...experienced by", who experienced it? You've already made the distinction between the electrochemical patterns and the "you" who've experienced it. So the distinction is already made, now we just have to find out who the "you" is.

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Lots of strictly physical phenomena behave like this, it's not surprising or anything: a stove produces heat

But a stove isn't the ultimate origins of heat, just like the brain isn't the ultimate origins of consciousness.

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  but not one molecule of it is a heat molecule, a fridge makes things cool but the molecules inside it don't get chilly.

So the stuff that is inside getting chilly is independent from the stuff that is making it chilly? They are distinct. Thanks for making my point for me. That is what mind/body dualism is all about, the notion that the mind is completely independent from the body, regardless of how much they correlate together.

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  There is me, the ongoing conscious process instilled and produced by the brain, yes. Still not magic.

Oh yeah? Well try explaining how consciousness originated in the first place, and then we will get to the magic stuff.

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Nope, sorry, I'm going to need something a little more substantial than just "it's not impossible that what I'm saying is true," from you.

My point is clear: The brain cannot be used to explain any origins of consciousness. You can shape and mold a brain however you like, but where would you get the actual consciousness from?

This would be a clear case of "consciousness sold separately". You will get the brain, but you'd lack the consciousness.

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  At least I have a correlation

Which doesn't mean a damn thing. This is a correlation between my remote control and my tv, but the origins of the tv has nothing to do with the origins of the remote control, does it? Correlation means nothing when the question is of origins.

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  all you have is an empty assertion

The truth is empty?

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  and a complete lack of understanding of neurology.

Apparently you are the one with the lack of understanding, because if you weren't ignorant, you would know that there is no neurologist in this world that can explain to you the origin of consciousness, just like there is no cosmologist in the world that can explain to you the origin of the universe.

And you are also ignorant to the fact that neurology is the study of the nervous system and brain activity, or in other words; "what happened after consciousness got here", but my question is "how did consciousness get here?", so there is no amount of "understanding" one can have at this point in the game that can answer such a question....so basically, the understanding of neurology is irrelevant considering the question that is being asked.

So try again.


Quote:Huh

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  So, if you alter the neurochemistry of my brain, you can alter my consciousness. Certain drugs will do that, for a wide range of varying effects, as will alterations to the actual physical brain, like head injuries and so on. There's actually a pretty interesting case where a guy had the part of his brain that connects the two hemispheres severed, and as a result if you asked him whether he believed in god, one hemisphere would answer yes, and the other would answer no. Like, he had a theist half of his brain, and an atheist half of his brain: now, what? Did his "immaterial you," get split in half? Did his soul just happen to bifurcate at precisely the moment his brain got altered? Does it just so conveniently happen that way every time someone gets a brain injury?

Nonsense. First off, again, I am talking about the origin of consciousness, and nothing that you've said addressed my points in that regard. Second, you still haven't told me who is this "self" that you are talking about. If consciousness is nothing more than a product of the brain and/or patterns of electrons and neutrons, then who are you?? Where exactly is the self??

If your emotional state requires a certain pattern of electrochemicals in your brain in order for you to feel sad...once this is achieved, then who is sad? The electrons isn't sad. The neutrons ain't sad. The brain isn't sad. If those things aren't independently sad by themselves, yet, you are sad, then there is obvious an inner you that is independent of any physical phenomenon that made you sad.

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  This all goes to my point: since the brain is the thing that produces consciousness

Now, now, now, Esquilax...you don't know that. That is simply what you have to assume based on your naturalistic worldview. If the brain does in fact produce consciousness, then I'd expect you to be able to go in a lab and demonstrate how you can create a brain from mere matter, and also somehow squeeze consciousness into the brain. Can you do that? No, you can't.

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  , it absolutely makes sense that alterations to the brain affect it. It doesn't make sense at all that damaging the brain would cause such alterations if consciousness was some separate, supernatural thing that's not reliant on brain chemistry at all...

Straw man at its best. I never said that consciousness was not reliant upon brain activity. I said that the brain (and any other material substance) cannot be used to explain the origins of consciousness.

God wanted his creation to operate in a three dimensional space realm, and in order to do that, he had to create some kind of mechanism at which the immaterial self can conjoin with the physical manifestation of the self...and the only way he could do that was to engineer a process at which this thing called consciousness could correlate with a physical mechanism (neurological system) that allows the mind to exist correspondingly to the physical self.

Now of course, there are certain instances where there is a disconnect, an issue, between the brain and the mind, which is what one would expect based on the CORRELATION between the two (when one suffers, the other suffers)...however, once the mind no longer occupy's the body, then that won't happen, obviously

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  and if it is reliant on brain chemistry in some respect, then where exactly do you get off asking these "derp, if brain chemistry plays a part in emotions, then why aren't the chemicals sad???" questions?

Until you can use your beloved scientific method to answer the questions, then the questions remain.

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  The brain did. What, did you think that was hard?

That was a knee jerk response. You've got nothing, sir.

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  There's no "suddenly" about it. You can see the gradient of consciousness within different animal species based upon the complexity of their brains, it's clear that, as the brain developed in complexity over time, so too did consciousness.

Nonsense. See, that is EXACTLY what I am talking about. It is the same bull crap with evolution. Now what just happened here is simple, you've completely jumped the gun by spewing the good ole "developed in complexity over time" spiel, completely bypassing the question of HOW IN THE HELL DID CONSCIOUSNESS GET HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Just like when discussing evolution, the evolutionist bypass the abiogenesis question and jump right too when this alleged evolution started taking place, instead of addressing the question of HOW IN THE HELL DID LIFE GET HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

What you've just done, sir, is jump the gun. Cart before the horse fallacy. You are telling me what happens after the system is already in place, when I am asking what started the system.

You obviously don't have a clue. You've got nothing.

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  It's not like this is some impossible conundrum you've posed here, it's just emergent properties, nothing special.

How can consciousness emerge from mere matter?

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Yes, it is. There is a distinct pattern within the brain, composed of the same neurochemicals as everything else in there, that is elicited whenever you are prompted to think of a dog. You can see it on an imaging scan.

Nonsense. How much does the thought of a dog weigh? What color is it? How long is it. How much space does it occupy? You can't answer any of these questions, can you? No, you can't. Because thoughts aren't physical things, which is my very point.

And sure, you may see the image patterning, but you can't see the actual thought itself, can you? No, you can't.

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  The other possibility is that you have no understanding of neuroscience and some incredible misconceptions about what we've been able to demonstrate regarding the brain and the process of thinking. Given your past history of hilariously misrepresenting science and then having no interest at all in actual research, that's clearly the most parsimonious explanation.

*Notices how this guy completely ignored the question and began some spewage about neuroscience and misconceptions and blah blah blah*

All you had to do was say "Hey man....um, I don't know". All of that other nonsense and irrelevency, keep to yourself.

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  I think the best that can be said is that the two arose together, in some sense.

Laugh out load Laughable. So this consciousness and this brain that arose together...what person was this consciousness connected to? You can't have consciousness without the person...so, who was the person? Laugh out load

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Strictly speaking though, the brain came first, depending on what you'd accept to be a brain.

Um, the object inside of your skull is what I accept to be a brain.

(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Incidentally, if the mind is some supernatural thing that doesn't rely on the brain for anything, then what's the actual biological purpose of the brain, in your view? Drinking Beverage

Already answered this, tinkerbell Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2015, 04:39 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 10:28 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Logic is an artifact of human construction. Your god is weak if it can be constrained by a simple paradox. The Buddha sure as fuck ain't.

Oh, so because humans exist, we have logic?

Pathetic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2015, 04:42 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2015 04:46 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 04:39 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-11-2015 10:28 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Logic is an artifact of human construction. Your god is weak if it can be constrained by a simple paradox. The Buddha sure as fuck ain't.

Oh, so because humans exist, we have logic?

Pathetic.

[Image: muffspathead.gif]

There there little buddy, there there.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2015, 04:47 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 04:39 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-11-2015 10:28 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Logic is an artifact of human construction. Your god is weak if it can be constrained by a simple paradox. The Buddha sure as fuck ain't.

Oh, so because humans exist, we have logic?

Pathetic.

Through what system of inquiry do you claim to know that a god exists? Is it logic? Faith? Something else?

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2015, 04:48 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-11-2015 04:36 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now, if your question becomes "What evidence do you have that God is necessary", then we can talk about that as well.

But don't make it seem as if I am just throwing stuff around on here with no rhyme or reason (like most of you do).

We have already informed you that none of your apologist arguments are valid; that each and every one of them has been debunked. So, those cannot be used as the basis of your bald statements.

Quote:
(27-11-2015 10:21 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  When it's windy outside, are all the air molecules breezy? No, and yet there's still wind. That's because wind is a process created by air molecules, not a distinct entity in its own right.

You've made my point for me. If the molecules aren't breezy, then what is breezy? What is breezy? If you say "I just came from outside, and it is windy out there". We've identified what is windy and no, it isn't the molecules, it is the state of the air flow outside.

However, when someone say "I am sad", what is sad? If the electrons isn't sad, then what exactly is sad? What are we talking about?

You are incredibly illogical. Go look up "emergent properties". Facepalm

"Sad from the chemicals in the brain" is isomorphic to "windy from the air molecules".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: