Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2015, 02:04 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-12-2015 12:55 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Except that I already know that your justification for the "necessity" of a first cause is nothing but a load of special pleading, ignorant of the actual science involved. I do actually remember what passes for an argument from you, you know.

massive snip

Yeah, and the Nintendo is a simpler game console than the PS4...I guess that means that the Nintendo evolved into the PS4 some 25.5 years ago, huh??

Pathetic.

Sorry. Ridiculously long tl;dr

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2015, 02:11 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-12-2015 10:25 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-12-2015 02:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You are badly in need of an editor, son. (1) You don't have to respond to every sentence.

Yeah, I don't. But then again if I don't, the person I am quoting will probably think that since I didn't address any specific point, that the point was somehow granted and/or perhaps I wasn't able to offer a response....so I make sure I cover all grounds as best as I can.

The person that I am talking to doesn't mind this, only individuals that aren't in the conversation are the ones that are complaining (you).


(03-12-2015 02:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Really, you don't. (2) Nobody is going to bother to read a post that's 5 screens long. That's why I don't read most of your stuff. I don't have that much time to waste.

That is the problem. See, instead of looking at it as "wasting time", you should look at it as "learning something" Cool

This delusional tool still wandering around screaming jesus?

Lets put this shit to bed.

Zero evidence of god.

Gods are created by man, and usually in our own image.

Zero evidence of Jesus as no one who EVER wrote of jesus knew him.

All major stories in the fictional book called the bible have long been debunked.

Cartilage of the Brain thinks because in his personal uneducated in theology opinion and feelings about magic, that it is all true, and this quantifies as a solid rebuttal to all of the counter evidence which proves otherwise. Rolleyes

Everyone should just ignore him as continuing to beat him with the knowledge stick has proven to be ineffective in knocking the nonsense out of him, and I think he likes the spankings.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
11-12-2015, 11:01 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  What is sad? The self-aware process derived from the physical brain is sad. There: does that answer your overly simplistic, irrelevant question now?

Wait, what? The "self-aware process derived from the physical brain is sad"...sooo, a process has emotions now??? Oh, I guess the correct term to put on the entire process of evolution would be: determined? Laugh out load

"Processes" don't have emotions, kid. It is precisely answers like that which allows me to be confident that the argument is fire-proof against any minuscule objection.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  "Sad," is a modulation to the process of consciousness that arises in the brain. By analogy, sad is to consciousness, what baking is to cooking: a specific subset of an overarching concept.

Yeah, but when something baked, there is a "thing" being baked. We can identify what is being baked, as it is a discrete thing.

Likewise, when something is sad, there is a "thing" that is sad. But we've yet to identify what this "thing" is. Well, actually, you did. You said the process itself is sad, which is pretty damn ridiculous...but that is the price of atheism.

"No matter how ridiculous it is, it is still better than the "G" word".

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  It's been accounted for, you just continue to misunderstand the basic terminology of what you're attempting to discuss.

It has? Oh yeah, the process . I will ask again; "What is sad?"...and this time, I want a real answer.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  I am.

Ahhh, so now we are getting somewhere!! So what are you? Who are you? Are you your brain? No. Are you the electrons/neutrons? No. They are not you, and you are not them. Yet, you are sad??

Oh, I guess we aren't getting anywhere after all..

Do you not see what is going on here? There is a you that isn't being accounted for with the naked eye. Consider

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  I'm not disputing the idea that there's a consciousness, just what the origin of that consciousness is. But "I" am a process derived from my brain, which is the organ responsible for holding and modulating how that consciousness feels.

But that can't be true, though. Because as I keep mentioning regarding the scientist/brain analogy...if the scientist was in a lab creating brains to think..he would also have to create the consciousness. Where would he get it from??

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  But the turkey isn't cooking!

On 11-26-15, mines sure did.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Where's the cooking?!

Cooking is the process at which heat touches physical objects known as "food". The food is what is being cooked. The duration at which the heat touches the food is a process we call "cooking". We've identified what is being cooked here. The food is being cooked. We've yet to identify what is "sad" or "angry" during any emotional stimuli.

That is the question.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  I agree: I'm derived from my brain, and encoded within my brain's neurochemical makeup, but I am not my brain. I'm not a discrete entity at all: I am something my brain does, not something it creates. A verb, not a noun.

Wait a minute, you said earlier that the brain produces consciousness...now you are saying you are not something your brain creates. Which one is it?

You just admitted that you are not your brain, but then you said you are derived from your brain...ok, fine...but not one of those neurochemicals are "emotional"...they may form patterns that makes YOU emotional..but they themselves aren't emotional...so the question remains, who is emotional?

I know this stuff may sound a bit redundant, but I have to continue driving home the point; there is an invisible self, an invisible you that correlates with physical stimuli. This is no amount of natural phenomenon that will can create a "self". None.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  What makes you think that consciousness is a separate entity, exactly?

Many reasons...

1. The fact that the origin of the consciousness cannot be explained via the scientific method.

2. The argument from intentionality.

3. None of the natural phenomenon inside your brain are emotional themselves (law of identity). If what is true of your brain is not true of you, then that alone is enough to show that consciousness is a separate entity. All it takes is for there to be ONE difference, and we've already established that difference.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  And how, exactly, did you determine that? I'm sure the top cosmologists in the world would love to hear how some untrained layman knows more about the pre-planck time universe than they do.

A finite universe can be proven just by raising the arguments against infinite regress...and this is a logical problem against an infinite universe, therefore, there is nothing a cosmologist can say against logical/philosophical problems. Why? Because logical problems are independent of the physics of the universe.

So come with whatever big bang, pre-planck time stuff you want Laugh out load Plus, it isn't like I can't use science to prove a finite universe, anyway.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  One of us actually went out to look that up before we opened our mouths just now. It wasn't you.

Ok, and? What did you find, good sir?

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Well, given what we're currently able to do with predictive algorithms and brain scanning hardware, all we'd need to do is scan a pre-existing brain for recall of a cat, find a way to artificially replicate that brain state with a high degree of accuracy, and then reproduce that brain state in the created brain. Given that we can scan a brain now and recreate the image it was thinking about using computer programs, it's not some impossible feat.

"...all we'd need to do".

Question: How can we find a million gold coins to be filthy rich???

Answer: "...all we'd need to do" is the next time it rains, go underneath a rainbow, find a leprechaun, put it in a headlock, punch it countless times in the head; and for ever 10 punches to the head, one gold coin will fall out of his ass crack. So punch him in the head 100,000 times, and we will have our 1,000,000 gold coins!!!

Response to answer: Aw man, I thought it would be difficult at first, but since you put it like that, we will be rich in no time!!

Laugh out load kids

Smh.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Attitudes are reactions formed by prior experiences. Without having lived in the world, with no experiences or necessary evolved instincts, the brain would not naturally have an attitude toward the cat at all.

Nonsense. After it thinks of the cat...take the thought out of its head...then after 5 minutes, put it back in its head. Now, will it like it? How is that for prior experience?

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Random mutation- within the framework of prior mutation- just like every other evolutionary change. What, did you want an exact, physical example, a "well, fifty million years ago these was this specific organism, that I have right here, that..." answer? The exact sort of answer that you yourself cannot provide for your position, nor have any interest in providing?

Random mutation? Of what? And why? And how? And yes, I want to be spared of the bio-babble, I just want it all in a nut shell. See, evolutionists like to say things like "random mutation" and then say "ok, jobs done, lets go home, because random mutation solves everything".

"Random mutation will get those electrons in there...random mutation will get those neurons in there...random mutation will get those thoughts and ideas in there...and we can all live happily ever after."

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  So if you found a body filled with bullet wounds, with a gun on the floor beside them that had recently been fired, you would refuse to conclude that this person had been shot? Because that's the sort of logic you're engaging in right here.

If only your theory was as obvious as that...

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Evolution is a scientific fact.

Dogs produce dogs; fact.
Cats produce cats; fact.
Fish produce fish; fact.
Reptiles produce birds; f...ehhh, I don't know about that one.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  It's not my problem that you want to chuck aside well established concepts that are cornerstone, universally accepted scientific theories, while demanding scientific evidence from me. If you want scientific evidence, then step fucking one is actually accepting and acknowledging the efficacy of science. You don't get to demand scientific evidence, while dismissing whatever science you personally disagree with.

Hey man, I don't have to accept everything someone tells me...I don't even do that with religion, and I am the theist. So I damn sure won't do it with science. Everyone has their agendas that they are pushing...I am a free agent, free to accept and/or reject anything that appears to be nonsense to me. That is what independent thinkers do.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  ... Said the man who literally refused to go look at evidence when provided with it, later on in this exact post. Dodgy

Give me something to refute my points...that is what I accept as evidence.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Thinking is a conceptual activity, that's literally why we have the word conceptual.

Yeah, but the concept is based on an actual physical entity that is independent of the object which is thinking about it. Goes right back to the argument from intentionality, if your brain is just a chunk of matter, and a cat is another chunk of matter, how can one chunk of matter be about another chunk of matter? How can anything in your brain be about anything that is independent of it in itself??

I am looking at a telephone right now...now, the telephone is completely independent of the fire extinguisher that is across from me...The telephone isn't about the fire extinguisher, nor is it of it (and vice versa). Now, when my brain thinks of the telephone, it is thinking about something that is completely independent of it. It is that object directedness towards an independent object that consciousness has, and that a mere chunk of matter would not be able to possess in and of its own.

And you can break the neuron system down to its simplest form as much as you like, but there is nothing within the brain that has these intentional states on its own, yet the intentional states are obviously there...which again, goes to show that the consciousness is completely independent of the brain that possesses it.

So therefore, the brain cannot be used to explain the origins of consciousness.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  What, did you think that when you think of a cat, it creates an actual, objective cat or something?

No, but it creates a mental picture of an actual physical entity. If you saw a photo and/or painting of a cat, you would know that the photo was taken, and the painting was...painted (all things requiring intelligence, btw)....yet, a mere chunk of matter is able to take a mental picture and/or draw a cat inside the brain...but that whole set-up doesn't require intelligence??? Laugh out load

Man, the lengths people will go through to maintain their atheism.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  We can already reconstruct thoughts from brain states. All it would take is the ability to take that brain state and apply it to another physical brain. Nothing special... in fact, we can already do that, too.

Then lawyers and judges should all be out of jobs, because to find out guilt or innocence, all we'd have to do is plug someone's brain to a machine (or whatever) and "reconstruct their thoughts from their brain"....that should prove guilt or innocence right there, shouldn't it.

But you wouldn't take it that far, would you?

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  What are you basing that claim on?

Based on everything I said in every post I made on the matter.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Why would I say anything at all to you? You don't actually care what our scientific knowledge is, because when told where to find some you cheerfully admitted you wouldn't look at it. You don't give a damn about the contents of scientific knowledge, all that matters to you is getting us to say that there's a gap where you can shove your god. Hell, I could literally link you to science that shows your claim to be wrong and you'd just do what you always do: dismiss it out of hand, refuse to read it, and then make huge, overreaching fiat claims that it doesn't exist.

What the hell would even be the point?

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  And yet, when scientists actually go to test those claims, what they find is, uniformly, that the person has no special knowledge that they would logically have, had they actually left their body. I can provide you with studies on this for you to dismiss baselessly, if you like.

You can't take someone's personal experience away from them, buddy Big Grin

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Part of the scientific method involves not accepting conclusions based on no evidence.

So why do you believe in evolution, exactly then?

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  We have no evidence for a disembodied consciousness

Speak for yourself.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  and so we don't accept that.

Of course you don't because if you did, your whole worldview would be shattered.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  We have evidence, all of neurology in fact, that demonstrates that consciousness is situated in, and wholly reliant upon, the brain.

We have evidence that consciousness is situated/correlates with the brain. We don't have evidence that consciousness originated and/or is wholly reliant upon the brain.

Show me evidence for the latter, because I grant the evidence for the former.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  It's not surprising that you don't know this, since you clearly don't give a shit about the scientific method beyond using it as a cudgel to silence dissent.

Oh, I give a shit about the scientific method...but when you can use it to get an actual infinity, create life from nonlife, and create consciousness...then I will give more of a shit.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  ... Um, obviously whatever it is would be self aware, that's sort of a necessary condition for consciousness.

Yeah, the problem is we don't know what the hell it is...which is why I keep asking the question.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  That said, there were, you know, other words in that sentence that actually pertained to what, precisely, was self aware, but you've apparently opted to ignore the rest of the sentence in order to grandstand over a single, self-servingly interpreted, word. Rolleyes

A single word? Dude, I gave the entire phrase...you said "a self aware pattern stored within the brain".... and since the pattern itself isn't what is "self aware", I am asking you what exactly is self aware? Now, can you provide an adequate answer or not??

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  The process that the brain and the chemicals within it support.

Dude, WHO IS FEELING THE EMOTIONS?? The electrochemicals is what makes the emotions, but who is actually feeling the emotions?? Who is sad? Who is glad? Who is angry??

When you say "I am sad", who is sad?? If you say "the electrochemicals formed a pattern that made me sad"....you've just distinguished the electrochemicals from the me, but who is the me???

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Without any evidence of disembodied consciousnesses, even if it were only a correlation, one still wouldn't be justified in holding a theist position, and that correlation would therefore suggest a natural, physical origin for consciousness.

But since there is evidence of disembodied consciousness, everything you just said is...irrelevant.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Science is probabilistic, it isn't a binary "proposition true/all other propositions are equally possible," equation. We can not have perfectly, flawlessly demonstrated the origins of consciousness and still have a higher probability of natural causes over supernatural ones, which we do as a matter of course until you can provide a shred of positive evidence for the supernatural at all.

It is the totality of all of the arguments combined, and evidence AGAINST the opposing view which has me convinced. And me personally I don't believe the naturalistic explanation has any probability of occurring.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Why is it that you think the capabilities of modern day human beings are in any way relevant to whether or not something can occur naturally?

Because when it comes to specified complexity, I expect intelligence to reign supreme over blind, mindless, and randomness processes.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Okay, so, first of all, false dichotomy: you have no evidence at all that there are only two options, turning your argument false before it even gets off the ground.

Ok, well go ahead and offer more options and we can add those to the list.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Secondly, disproving one option- which you didn't do anyway- does not prove another even if you, with your limited knowledge and obvious biases, can only envision one other option. Positive evidence is what demonstrates a claim to be true, not merely negation of other claims. You can't reach a positive number from zero only by subtracting.

Actually, the law of excluded middle states that when there are only two options, and one is negated, then the one remaining wins by default. It is kinda like having only two apples on a tree, and one falls...there is only one remaining...no gray area.

In this case, one of these options are necessarily true, and the other option is necessarily false. Both can't be true, and both can't be false.

And contrary to what you'd like to believe, those are only two options. Either God did it, or nature did it. And like I said, if you have any other options besides those two, then please enlighten me.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  So much for all that bluster about evidence and science, eh? Rolleyes

I never said nor implied that I have all of the answers...but my "I don't know" does nothing to taint all of the evidence that I have for my position in the case or other cases.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Which, according to the way you were strutting around trying to assert that science doesn't know, means that you're wrong. Or is not knowing only a problem when it's people who disagree with you?

But the difference between my "I don't know" and your "I don't know is simple: Your methodology is based on observation, hypothesis, experiment. You observe a phenomenon called "thinking", and you hypothesize about the origins of "thinking", yet you are unable to confirm or falsify your hypothesis...and you maintain a worldview at which it must have occurred the way you believe it occurred (naturally), yet again, you are unable to use the scientific method (aka "the unbelievers prayer) to confirm your theory.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  You're willing to accept faith as a justification for a position, why all this stress over evidence? Why is it that only people who disagree with you have to shoulder these expectations of yours? Double standard much?

I am 100% convinced that a god exist...and I am 99.5 % convinced that this God is the Christian God. So yeah, I do have little bit of faith.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  The process undergirded by the brain.

So "the process is self aware" <---your position?

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  So, yeah: you spend all this time crowing about how you've been presented no evidence, and then when you're explicitly given evidence to look at, you're really proud of the fact that you won't look at it. Hypocrite. Dodgy

Give me one good link which shows the ultimate origin of consciousness...if you give me that, I promise I will look because after all, it is what I've been asking for since day 1.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  It could also suggest that consciousness is a process, in which case things can be true of the brain without being true of consciousness. Cook something on a fire, and the fire is cooking the thing, but the fire is not cooking itself, despite cooking having originated from the fire. That's because fire is a noun, yet cooking is a verb.

More distinction mess, huh? Didn't I already grant that?

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Ugh, more meaningless philosophical distinctions, asserted by fiat to be significant, in the hopes that people will forget you've provided nothing real. Rolleyes

It is an actual argument...you know...with syllogisms and shit. I understand if the argument is much too abstract for that puny little brain of yours Big Grin

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Assuming you can get the brain to behave precisely like a human one, just scan the pattern from one and port it over to the other. Easy.

I was hoping you would give me actual science, instead of science fantasy. Ok so what pattern would you have to move it for the brain to think of the Green Bay Packers logo? Will it have a pattern of the letter G?? Laugh out load

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  We've literally done it in experiments with magnetic coils attached to the skull. Stimulate the correct areas of the brain, and you produce a thought. Seriously.

Video, please.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Because we've literally placed the thought "I want to move my arm in this specific way," into a human brain from outside before.

Video, please.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Uh oh, how sad for you! Like I said, it's blurry, but this is a new technology, it's gonna take a while to attain perfect clarity.

Nonsense. The video isn't narrated or anything, just a side-by side view of a video clips and an alleged blurry view of what the videos are supposed to depict via the brain.

The part where the elephants were walking, the brain part of it looked nothing like elephants whatsoever. Epic failure.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  [url=http://www.komonews.com/home/video/Sci-Fi-made-real-Researchers-transfer-human-thoughts-over-the-Internet-221562591.html?tab=video&c=y]Here's an article of that experiment happening, two years ago. There's even a video.

Nonsense. First off, the video started off talking about the notion of a blind person that can essentially "see your thoughts", yet the actual segment in the video itself didn't show anything whatsoever regarding one person seeing the thoughts of another person, because in 1:26 of the video the narrator states "...but this experiment, the researchers say, showed one person can control the involuntary movement of another with just a thought".....and im like, but what a minute, didn't you say something earlier about a blind person seeing another person's thoughts? I thought that is what I was going to see.

And then on top of that, the news guy that is narrating the video said that the researchers were looking for volunteers, and that he was happy to be the first to volunteer...the clip showed him sitting down in the seat and being prepared for the experiment, and then the clip immediately switched scenes to him talking in front of the camera and he never even mentioned the results of his OWN experiment!!

Now you see why I don't pay no mind to these irrelevant ass videos/links?

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  ... You are aware that many of the traits present in the PS4 first appeared in, and were inspired by, Nintendo consoles, yes? Those traits that were successful- controller formats, game types, and so on- were in actual fact passed down though console generations because they were successful. It's not a one-to-one replication of evolution, but the parallels are certainly there.

Ohhhh so what you are saying is the Nintendo and PS4, there is evidence of common designer??? Ohhh well hell, thanks for making my point for me. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2015, 11:04 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-12-2015 02:11 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  This delusional tool still wandering around screaming jesus?

Lets put this shit to bed.

Zero evidence of god.

Gods are created by man, and usually in our own image.

Zero evidence of Jesus as no one who EVER wrote of jesus knew him.

All major stories in the fictional book called the bible have long been debunked.

Cartilage of the Brain thinks because in his personal uneducated in theology opinion and feelings about magic, that it is all true, and this quantifies as a solid rebuttal to all of the counter evidence which proves otherwise. Rolleyes

Everyone should just ignore him as continuing to beat him with the knowledge stick has proven to be ineffective in knocking the nonsense out of him, and I think he likes the spankings.

Glutton for more punishment eh, GWOG? Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2015, 05:25 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(11-12-2015 11:04 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-12-2015 02:11 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  This delusional tool still wandering around screaming jesus?

Lets put this shit to bed.

Zero evidence of god.

Gods are created by man, and usually in our own image.

Zero evidence of Jesus as no one who EVER wrote of jesus knew him.

All major stories in the fictional book called the bible have long been debunked.

Cartilage of the Brain thinks because in his personal uneducated in theology opinion and feelings about magic, that it is all true, and this quantifies as a solid rebuttal to all of the counter evidence which proves otherwise. Rolleyes

Everyone should just ignore him as continuing to beat him with the knowledge stick has proven to be ineffective in knocking the nonsense out of him, and I think he likes the spankings.

Glutton for more punishment eh, GWOG? Laugh out load

Did you have someone in mind to dish that out ?
Because from the garbage you post you can't possibly think that person is you, do you ? You arrogant ignoramus. You can't answer any of the questions raised here.
Have you ever thought of taking an Apologist course ?

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
11-12-2015, 05:34 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2015 06:46 PM by Chas.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(11-12-2015 11:01 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  What is sad? The self-aware process derived from the physical brain is sad. There: does that answer your overly simplistic, irrelevant question now?

Wait, what? The "self-aware process derived from the physical brain is sad"...sooo, a process has emotions now??? Oh, I guess the correct term to put on the entire process of evolution would be: determined? Laugh out load

"Processes" don't have emotions, kid. It is precisely answers like that which allows me to be confident that the argument is fire-proof against any minuscule objection.

You seem to read at a sixth-grade level. Drinking Beverage

The sadness is the process.

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
11-12-2015, 05:49 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(11-12-2015 11:01 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But we've yet to identify what this "thing" is. Well, actually, you did.

No dear. They know well what it is, and they give drugs to change it. YOU don't know what is, as you are so uninformed, and totally ignorant of science.

(04-12-2015 01:25 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  We have no evidence for a disembodied consciousness

Quote:Speak for yourself.

Post your evidence of disembodied consciousness. Here. Now.

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
11-12-2015, 06:47 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(11-12-2015 11:04 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-12-2015 02:11 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  This delusional tool still wandering around screaming jesus?

Lets put this shit to bed.

Zero evidence of god.

Gods are created by man, and usually in our own image.

Zero evidence of Jesus as no one who EVER wrote of jesus knew him.

All major stories in the fictional book called the bible have long been debunked.

Cartilage of the Brain thinks because in his personal uneducated in theology opinion and feelings about magic, that it is all true, and this quantifies as a solid rebuttal to all of the counter evidence which proves otherwise. Rolleyes

Everyone should just ignore him as continuing to beat him with the knowledge stick has proven to be ineffective in knocking the nonsense out of him, and I think he likes the spankings.

Glutton for more punishment eh, GWOG? Laugh out load

You are hilariously stupid. 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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
13-12-2015, 07:52 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(11-12-2015 05:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  You seem to read at a sixth-grade level. Drinking Beverage

The sadness is the process.

Notice you ain't answering the question of "who is sad" in the scenario. That is that question that needs answering. Until you can answer it, drink a nice tall glass of shut the fuk up Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2015, 08:09 AM (This post was last modified: 13-12-2015 09:46 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(13-12-2015 07:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(11-12-2015 05:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  You seem to read at a sixth-grade level. Drinking Beverage

The sadness is the process.

Notice you ain't answering the question of "who is sad" in the scenario. That is that question that needs answering. Until you can answer it, drink a nice tall glass of shut the fuk up Thumbsup

No dear. It is you that is the ignoramus.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...2787900012
It's "what is sad ?". As anyone involved in medical and psychiatric care knows, (which clearly YOU are totally ignorant of), the BRAIN with it's chemical and electrical pathways is what is 'sad", and is CHANGED rather regularly and measurably by drugs, alcohol, and chemical pharmaceuticals. Do try to stop your pathetic apologetics, and try to START getting an education, before you make a further fool of yourself.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: