The sheep challenge

Discuss the Christian Faith.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13205
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

The sheep challenge

Post by LarsMac »

sheep;1452798 wrote: See my last post, as it shows the problem with having no medium (conscious awareness) to view the physical world. All we can know for sure is our existence and while we need some sort of medium (sensual experience) to be able to know ourself, it is not the experience that is absolute, but the consciousness that is absolute.


Consciousness has no bearing, whatsoever on existence. Most humans like most other life forms on the planet, spend most of their time wandering the planet, blissfully unaware of what goes on around them, outside of their immediate surroundings. They simply react to the stimuli of their surroundings.



Fact is that the physical world exists, whether we believe it, or not - whether we see it or not. Our perceptions may be limited by our level of consciousness, but that does not change the the fact of existence. You may not see the bus coming down the street and therefore it does not exist, but I assure you that were you to step in its path, you would learn all too quickly - and probably all to fleetingly - to believe its reality. At that point then, the question of your consciousness may become a meaningful discussion, but you would need to have that with someone else, entirely, because for us, here, you would cease to exist.



Sure, from a philosophical, and even psychological perspective, consciousness and existence might have some relevance, but the universe cares not whether you believe, or disbelieve, whether you are conscious, or not, or even whether you exist or not.

Likewise, God either exists, or does not, regardless of our perception, or lack of, and using our reasoning to justify our belief, or lack of, is equally irrelevant.

I personally believe that God is, as I perceive his hand in much of what has gone on my my realm of existence. To others, he is no more real than that bus.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

LarsMac;1452803 wrote: Consciousness has no bearing, whatsoever on existence.


No one is saying that things don't exist beyond what we are conscious of, or that something is not responsible for what we become conscious of: to this I will concede with the rest of your arguments.

Your quote above is not correct though. If you had no consciousness whatsoever, you would not exist and therefore neither would the bus, God, or anything else, as far as you are concerned. Now I hope you don't dismiss what is being said here: because now we might be able to actually have some meaningful conversation that could produce actual stimulating discussion that could push our minds into new areas of expansion.

Some have stated we are God, because of this question and others deny that is what it means... This is something I actually haven't explored and would enjoy pushing this envelope: as it might give some insights into new thoughts.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

sheep;1452789 wrote: Do you also deny your own existence? That is the only thing that can be assumed from such a statement.


Are you wearing polka-dot trousers, large floppy shoes, a big red nose and a claxon horn in your pocket? That is the only thing that can be assumed from such a response.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

High Threshold;1452806 wrote: Are you wearing polka-dot trousers, large floppy shoes, a big red nose and a claxon horn in your pocket? That is the only thing that can be assumed from such a response.


You prove the world exists and I'll prove that without consciousness it doesn't and let's see who wins. You go first. lol
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bryn Mawr »

sheep;1452638 wrote: Exactly and for that reason there was really no contest in the challenge: as you cannot prove what is seen, only one's own existence is provable. And because one is finite the infinite is assumed.


The only problem with that is that you cannot prove that you are finite - you are aware therefore you exist but you could be finite or, just as easily, you could be infinite but restricting yourself because you don't believe it.

The *only* thing you know is that you exist - you know nothing of your status other than that.

Equally, were you somehow to prove that you were finite that would in no way prove that another entity existed or that, if it did, it would be infinite.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bryn Mawr »

sheep;1452642 wrote: Yes and


sheep;1452642 wrote: since the only undeniable fact is that you exist,


Axiomatic

sheep;1452642 wrote: as you cannot deny your own existence,


Implicit

sheep;1452642 wrote: and seeing you are finite


Totally unproven

sheep;1452642 wrote: and must have come from somewhere,


Implicit

sheep;1452642 wrote: it is more reasonable to believe in an eternal first cause,


Totally illogical jump - that you exist could just as well be the result of a freak and temporary state of affairs of which we know nothing

sheep;1452642 wrote: than to believe in something which may or may not be real.


Whilst nothing can be proven to be real, degrees of probability can be assigned based on internal self consistency of the evidence perceived - to jump to an assumption that has no support from the evidence that does exist just because that evidence is not absolute is not viable.

sheep;1452642 wrote: What can you prove as real? Only your own existence. What is not a fact, but an assumption? that what you are seeing is real.

See previous posts for further clarity: if still needed.


Clarity has not been provided.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bryn Mawr »

High Threshold;1452657 wrote: A "fact" is something that has been proven, and "undeniable" is something that has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt. BUT, for God's sake man, you haven't yet proved a single thing. Yes, I know-I know, if the Bible tells me so ........ that's your thing - accepting an unproven notion as the fundamental foundation of all that you spew in sequential fashion. Exactly as the Bible-basher. HOWEVER, you really don't understand what I am saying to you so why do you insist upon jamming up the logic of this subject?







"Denial" has nothing to do with it. If you cannot prove existence (and you, sheep - clearly CANNOT) then denial is another thing all-together. Your English is lacking comprehensive understanding. To "believe" or "disbelieve" are bookends (so to speak) around which "not BELIEVING" is nestled. You very obviously do not understand this concept and it is causing you a mountain of frustration.


OK, produce a logical argument to show that "I think, therefore, I am" is not axiomatic.

For "something" (nature unknown) to be self aware it must exist. Whatever its form and whatever environment it exists in is irrelevant, "it" thinks, therefore, it exists somewhere in some form.



Give me some reason to deny that fact - if you cannot then it is undeniable.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bryn Mawr »

High Threshold;1452782 wrote: The problem with this statement of yours is that neither you (nor anyone else) has ever proven that consciousness exists. So, in essence ...... you are either lying ...... or have been terribly misinformed.


Que?

How are you imagining that you are posting this if you are not conscious? You do not know whether this conversation exists but you do know that you are at least imagining this conversation - given that you know that, there is some form of consciousness involved somewhere.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bryn Mawr »

LarsMac;1452803 wrote: Consciousness has no bearing, whatsoever on existence. Most humans like most other life forms on the planet, spend most of their time wandering the planet, blissfully unaware of what goes on around them, outside of their immediate surroundings. They simply react to the stimuli of their surroundings.



Fact is that the physical world exists, whether we believe it, or not - whether we see it or not. Our perceptions may be limited by our level of consciousness, but that does not change the the fact of existence. You may not see the bus coming down the street and therefore it does not exist, but I assure you that were you to step in its path, you would learn all too quickly - and probably all to fleetingly - to believe its reality. At that point then, the question of your consciousness may become a meaningful discussion, but you would need to have that with someone else, entirely, because for us, here, you would cease to exist.



Sure, from a philosophical, and even psychological perspective, consciousness and existence might have some relevance, but the universe cares not whether you believe, or disbelieve, whether you are conscious, or not, or even whether you exist or not.

Likewise, God either exists, or does not, regardless of our perception, or lack of, and using our reasoning to justify our belief, or lack of, is equally irrelevant.

I personally believe that God is, as I perceive his hand in much of what has gone on my my realm of existence. To others, he is no more real than that bus.


On the contrary whilst it is totally possible that neither the bus not the street exist as anything more than a figment of your imagination, the one indisputable fact is that some consciousness exists to imagine that it does.

God is an irrelevance at this point - until the fundamentals underlying what we experience can be agreed there is no hope of agreeing any structure built upon those fundamentals.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

sheep;1452810 wrote: You prove the world exists and I'll prove that without consciousness it doesn't and let's see who wins. You go first. lol


NO, it is your statement that is on stage in this discussion. The burden of proof is still yours. It's you who needs to "go first". We're already into several pages of your procrastination in "showing/proving" the point that brought us here - yet you haven't yet made it.

Everything found in this thread, on these many pages, is exclusive commentary on the proof you've yet to provide. Read it from the start if you doubt that. Hiding behind rocks and beneath the carpeting isn't going to let you off the hook.

Now, let's see your proof ............ :yh_whistl
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bryn Mawr;1452820 wrote: OK, produce a logical argument to show that "I think, therefore, I am" is not axiomatic.

For "something" (nature unknown) to be self aware it must exist. Whatever its form and whatever environment it exists in is irrelevant, "it" thinks, therefore, it exists somewhere in some form.



Give me some reason to deny that fact - if you cannot then it is undeniable.

How are you imagining that you are posting this if you are not conscious? You do not know whether this conversation exists but you do know that you are at least imagining this conversation - given that you know that, there is some form of consciousness involved somewhere.


Let me sum it ALL up by plucking out one of your comments and responding to that .....

Bryn Mawr;1452821 wrote: You do not know whether this conversation exists .....


Correct.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by sheep »

Bryn Mawr;1452819 wrote: Axiomatic



Implicit



Totally unproven



Implicit



Totally illogical jump - that you exist could just as well be the result of a freak and temporary state of affairs of which we know nothing



Whilst nothing can be proven to be real, degrees of probability can be assigned based on internal self consistency of the evidence perceived - to jump to an assumption that has no support from the evidence that does exist just because that evidence is not absolute is not viable.





Clarity has not been provided.


Welcome to the discussion Bryn. I agree with pretty much everything you stated above.

Let me start off by saying, I originally made the comment: "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see." Little did I know that it would end up being an endless discussion about people trying to claim that their own conscious existence is in doubt.

My claim was only going to be, that since what we see is in question and the only provable fact is our own consciousness, it is more reasonable to believe that we exist in consciousness (as that is the only proof we have), and that we came from a conscious being, then believing that what we see is real: as we have absolutely no evidence of that.

Anyways, it is late and I have to get to bed, but gl dealing with h.t.: if nothing else she will teach you patience.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13205
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

The sheep challenge

Post by LarsMac »

Bryn Mawr;1452822 wrote: On the contrary whilst it is totally possible that neither the bus not the street exist as anything more than a figment of your imagination, the one indisputable fact is that some consciousness exists to imagine that it does.

God is an irrelevance at this point - until the fundamentals underlying what we experience can be agreed there is no hope of agreeing any structure built upon those fundamentals.


The argument is not so much whether we are conscious, but whether the world exists without consciousness. I simple offer that existence is irrelevant to that consciousness.

And what, exactly constitutes consciousness. Must a being be sentient to be conscious. Or is an awareness of the activity around a being enough to constitute consciousness?

Most mammals, birds, and even fish can perceive other beings in their immediate surroundings and react to the other creatures in their proximity. Does that qualify as consciousness?

If not, then at what point in development do we transition from "awareness" to "consciousness"?

While it is possible that all of this is simply a figment of my imagination and would cease to exist without my being conscious of it, I think evidence to the contrary abounds.

The old bit, "If a tree falls in the forest but nobody was around to hear it, would it make a noise?" comes to mind. The supposition is that if nobody is around whose ears can be reached by the soundwaves, then the soundwaves are not converted to actual sound as perceived by a conscious being, there for no noise.

Of course anyone who has been conscious in a forest will likely attest to the existence of numerous other species, most of which have some sensing device for detecting sound. It is then reasonable to assume that soundwaves, hence noise, exists to be perceived regardless of the level of consciousness of the beings around to perceive it.

Evidence shows that Earth has been around for about 4 and a half billion years, yet I have been conscious of it for less than a century. Our collective consciousness can seem to recall a few thousand years. Do we suppose that all of that evidence is the figment of our collective imaginations.

Of course if we hold on to the notion, as Sheep has suggested, that the world does not exist without consciousness, that opens the possibility that the universe also requires a consciousness to exist. And that consciousness then must supercede all of our collective awareness, and has been around for a very long time.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

Yes but who's consciousness ?



I'll get my coat on...................................
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bryn Mawr »

High Threshold;1452826 wrote: Let me sum it ALL up by plucking out one of your comments and responding to that .....



Correct.


You sum nothing up, all you've done is sidestep the question - would you care to answer it now?
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bryn Mawr »

sheep;1452827 wrote: Welcome to the discussion Bryn. I agree with pretty much everything you stated above.

Let me start off by saying, I originally made the comment: "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see." Little did I know that it would end up being an endless discussion about people trying to claim that their own conscious existence is in doubt.

My claim was only going to be, that since what we see is in question and the only provable fact is our own consciousness, it is more reasonable to believe that we exist in consciousness (as that is the only proof we have), and that we came from a conscious being, then believing that what we see is real: as we have absolutely no evidence of that.

Anyways, it is late and I have to get to bed, but gl dealing with h.t.: if nothing else she will teach you patience.


You not only claimed that the thought came from a conscious being (which goes without saying) but also that the conscious being was necessarily finite (which cannot be proven) and that the "fact" that the conscious being was finite (unproven) proved that an infinite being must exist. There can be no logical basis for this last claim.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bryn Mawr »

LarsMac;1452829 wrote: The argument is not so much whether we are conscious, but whether the world exists without consciousness. I simple offer that existence is irrelevant to that consciousness.

And what, exactly constitutes consciousness. Must a being be sentient to be conscious. Or is an awareness of the activity around a being enough to constitute consciousness?

Most mammals, birds, and even fish can perceive other beings in their immediate surroundings and react to the other creatures in their proximity. Does that qualify as consciousness?

If not, then at what point in development do we transition from "awareness" to "consciousness"?

While it is possible that all of this is simply a figment of my imagination and would cease to exist without my being conscious of it, I think evidence to the contrary abounds.

The old bit, "If a tree falls in the forest but nobody was around to hear it, would it make a noise?" comes to mind. The supposition is that if nobody is around whose ears can be reached by the soundwaves, then the soundwaves are not converted to actual sound as perceived by a conscious being, there for no noise.

Of course anyone who has been conscious in a forest will likely attest to the existence of numerous other species, most of which have some sensing device for detecting sound. It is then reasonable to assume that soundwaves, hence noise, exists to be perceived regardless of the level of consciousness of the beings around to perceive it.

Evidence shows that Earth has been around for about 4 and a half billion years, yet I have been conscious of it for less than a century. Our collective consciousness can seem to recall a few thousand years. Do we suppose that all of that evidence is the figment of our collective imaginations.

Of course if we hold on to the notion, as Sheep has suggested, that the world does not exist without consciousness, that opens the possibility that the universe also requires a consciousness to exist. And that consciousness then must supercede all of our collective awareness, and has been around for a very long time.


You are arguing a very different point to the point sheep was making - it would be interesting if you were both on the same page.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

The sheep challenge

Post by gmc »

sheep;1452797 wrote: The discussion is regarding the reasonableness that God exists... Let's use your argument regarding the physical world "It does not exist therefore there is no need to prove that it might not." In the same way that dreams don't exist.

There is greater reason to believe that God exists, then the physical world, as only one thing can be claimed to be fact and that is the consciousness that one possesses. This is the bases for this whole discussion and I have yet to hear anyone make a claim that can prove that the physical world can be proven apart from consciousness. But here, I will help you do that, by quoting someone that has published that consciousness can not be known apart from the beholding of what it sees.

He quotes Paul Natorp: EinleitungindiePsychologie, 1888, pp. 14, 112:

"The existence of consciousness, although it is the fundamental fact of psychology, can indeed be laid down as certain, can be brought out by analysis, but can neither be defined nor deduced from anything but itself."

To which he states: "Now my contention is exactly the reverse of this. Experience, I believe, has no such inner duplicity; and the separation of it into consciousness and content comes, not by way of subtraction, but by way of addition -- the addition, to a given concrete piece of it, other sets of experiences, in connection with which severally its use or function may be of two different kinds."

Classics in the History of Psychology -- James (1904)

The problem is that without consciousness one only has innate matter and no awareness. The fact that we do have awareness of self, does not prove the existence of matter, it only proves the existence of self.

I am trying to help you out here, but the case is a useless one: as your case is beyond hope.


I wasn't talking about the physical world I was talking about god. You exist it does not follow that god must also exist. You can postulate that god made you but you can;t prove that he even exists.

I can go on from my own existence to satisfy myself (note myself not anybody else ) that the physical world exists and get on with life to my own satisfaction.

But the question was does god exist as the one who created it all. I don't need to imagine a creator and I can't prove that there is one. I don't need to prove that there isn't but you do because you claim that there must be one. It is not a more reasonable belief it is just the one you have chosen because reason does not come in to it. You cannot prove there is a god just saying it makes more sense to believe that there is one is actually nonsense.

It is intuitive to think that we are doing the thinking, but what if we do not create these thoughts-what if these thoughts come to us? If that is the case, then we have no proof that an "I" exists.

We simply believe our intuition that we exist or live as true skeptics that cannot even be sure of our very existence as sentient beings. In either case it makes no logical sense to assume a creator. Who created the creator and I'm sorry but god always was and has been just does not cut the mustard.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,: says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Revelation 1:8


that's merely the way the sophistry of the religious trying to stop people thinking about it because the inescapable conclusion is that you believe in god because you want to not because there is a shred of evidence. You have faith because you don't have any reason for your belief.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13205
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

The sheep challenge

Post by LarsMac »

Bryn Mawr;1452843 wrote: You are arguing a very different point to the point sheep was making - it would be interesting if you were both on the same page.


I disagree. Reading through a number of Sheep's posts, it seems that he is saying that without consciousness, we do not exist.

I am saying that he is incorrect, and that existence has little to do with consciousness.

I have been in states of complete lack of consciousness, and yet I still existed. I am certain of that fact, and the cartoon characters that were painted on my freshly shaved head were proof positive of that fact.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bryn Mawr »

LarsMac;1452845 wrote: I disagree. Reading through a number of Sheep's posts, it seems that he is saying that without consciousness, we do not exist.

I am saying that he is incorrect, and that existence has little to do with consciousness.

I have been in states of complete lack of consciousness, and yet I still existed. I am certain of that fact, and the cartoon characters that were painted on my freshly shaved head were proof positive of that fact.


His starting point from the very beginning has be that the only thing that we can prove is our existence - he even quotes Descartes "I think therefore I am" as the point he is trying to make.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13205
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

The sheep challenge

Post by LarsMac »

Bryn Mawr;1452849 wrote: His starting point from the very beginning has be that the only thing that we can prove is our existence - he even quotes Descartes "I think therefore I am" as the point he is trying to make.


His starting point was:

There is only 1 provable fact: consciousness. Since this is true, everything else is and will always remain a theory. As I stated before: it is more believable to believe in God then it is the world we see.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bryn Mawr »

LarsMac;1452850 wrote: His starting point was:

There is only 1 provable fact: consciousness. Since this is true, everything else is and will always remain a theory. As I stated before: it is more believable to believe in God then it is the world we see.


And how does that differ from I think therefore I am?

The only thing you can prove is that you are conscious - I think therefore I am.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13205
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

The sheep challenge

Post by LarsMac »

Bryn Mawr;1452851 wrote: And how does that differ from I think therefore I am?

The only thing you can prove is that you are conscious - I think therefore I am.


While you are sitting alone with only your thoughts, that certainly is a valid place to start.

But if you never move from there, what is the point of you?

Going back to Descartes, even he pointed out that reality is verified by the senses, and by memory.

He had far more to say about it than "I think, therefore I am."

So you can, indeed, prove far more than simply your own consciousness - Depending of course on to whom you wish to prove it.

(Unless, perhaps you find yourself in the predicament of Trumbo's Joe Bonham.)
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

The sheep challenge

Post by gmc »

He's also doing the same thing that decartes did. he wanted to prove god existed his sense of self was to him self evident proof god existed since god must have made him. It's a demented logic loop - I think therefore god must be the cause. God must exist therefore my existence is proof that he does.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by AnneBoleyn »

gmc;1452874 wrote: He's also doing the same thing that decartes did. he wanted to prove god existed his sense of self was to him self evident proof god existed since god must have made him. It's a demented logic loop - I think therefore god must be the cause. God must exist therefore my existence is proof that he does.


You summed that up real well, gmc. "If I don't have the answer, then it must be god". Really, how unimaginative.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bryn Mawr;1452840 wrote: You sum nothing up, all you've done is sidestep the question - would you care to answer it now?


Neither boundaries of consciousness, the "fact" that the conscious is finite (or otherwise), nor this exchanged I'm having with you at this very moment can be proven to actually exist by the science of man. There's no "sidestepping" in my reply. The proof of "being" is in question. I don't see that there is any proof of it. There are possibilities of additional dimensions that we do not understand, and anyway, if we can accept the colliding of two particles in space as being the "beginning" (without questioning the origin of those particles) yet scoff at the idea of a God-like creator then, well .... we're in deep space without a rudder.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bryn Mawr;1452843 wrote: You are arguing a very different point to the point sheep was making - it would be interesting if you were both on the same page.


I am not speaking for LarsMac or anyone else - other than for Sheep. He's made 2 separate claims.

1). That he can "show" (prove, presumably) "that it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."



2). ... his logic for saying so by stating, "There is only 1 provable fact: consciousness." Then he goes on to dream up his own cocamanie built upon "the 1 provable fact" ....... which, by the way, is still both unproven and insufficiently motivated.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

gmc;1452874 wrote: .... he wanted to prove god existed his sense of self was to him self evident proof god existed since god must have made him.


Indeed.



gmc;1452874 wrote: It's a demented logic loop ...


Precisely.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

The sheep challenge

Post by gmc »

High Threshold;1452891 wrote: Neither boundaries of consciousness, the "fact" that the conscious is finite (or otherwise), nor this exchanged I'm having with you at this very moment can be proven to actually exist by the science of man. There's no "sidestepping" in my reply. The proof of "being" is in question. I don't see that there is any proof of it. There are possibilities of additional dimensions that we do not understand, and anyway, if we can accept the colliding of two particles in space as being the "beginning" (without questioning the origin of those particles) yet scoff at the idea of a God-like creator then, well .... we're in deep space without a rudder.


The thing religious people seem incapable of understanding is that atheism is simply the standpoint that on balance there probably isn't a god. Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can't be proved. Atheists who believe he doesn't exist have a similar problem problem to sheep in that they start out from the standpoint they want to believe there isn't one. You can't win and each side looks at the other and just throws verbal rocks the more intelligent just agree to live and let live. Sadly bigotry seems to be in our DNA.

To paraphrase the more godly on this planet Blessed am I for you are all going to hell and I'll kill anyone that disagrees.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

gmc;1452896 wrote: ........................................... the more intelligent just agree to live and let live.


And I thought my stunned silence was due to my not following the philosophical jargon and all the ins and outs of the technicallities of the so called arguments.............because I was dumb.

It turns out I am the clever one................of course I can't prove it.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

gmc;1452896 wrote: The thing religious people seem incapable of understanding is that atheism is simply the standpoint that on balance there probably isn't a god. Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can't be proved. Atheists who believe he doesn't exist have a similar problem problem to sheep in that they start out from the standpoint they want to believe there isn't one.


Believing in God (any God) is only "logical" when there is no logic within reach. I don't mean that to be critical though, just an observation.

My problem (well, you know what I mean) is when God-believers scrape together a whole set of details, rules, do's and don'ts, and "facts". This is particularly perplexing as nothing about "God" is based upon any facts at all.



gmc;1452896 wrote: Sadly bigotry seems to be in our DNA.


Yours and mine? :thinking:
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

The sheep challenge

Post by gmc »

Bruv;1452897 wrote: And I thought my stunned silence was due to my not following the philosophical jargon and all the ins and outs of the technicallities of the so called arguments.............because I was dumb.

It turns out I am the clever one................of course I can't prove it.


It's a subtle con. You want to be reasonable and fair but when up against those who believe a basic premise and have an unreasoning faith in it and also have no interest in being fair or tolerant and want to switch to arguing about the nature of that particular deity you have no chance. Religious persecution will always exist because they can never win against reason and intolerance is part of the creed.

posted by high threshold

Yours and mine?




Everybody's I think. Each generation seems to need to learn that intolerance and disdain for others is not a good long term survival strategy.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

gmc;1452902 wrote: It's a subtle con. You want to be reasonable and fair but when up against those who believe a basic premise and have an unreasoning faith in it and also have no interest in being fair or tolerant and want to switch to arguing about the nature of that particular deity you have no chance. Religious persecution will always exist because they can never win against reason and intolerance is part of the creed.


Hear, hear! For example ....



sheep;1452135 wrote: ..... There is only 1 provable fact: consciousness. Since this is true everything else is and will always remain a theory. .....


... and what he is saying is that since unproved consciousness has now been entered into the bible of "provable facts" (the basic premise you speak of ) anything that is not in line with it must be false. Well, sorry but consciousness has not been proven so I'd like to know why anyone ought to take it into consideration in supporting anything on the subject. "All jeans are blue" - so red and green ones are simply figments of your imagination. A mirage perhaps.



gmc;1452902 wrote: Everybody's I think. .....


I know.
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

I just want it down for the record.....BRUV STARTED THIS



Didn't I tell you not to feed the animals?......... sigh.
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

sheep;1452746 wrote: I love this... for years I have heard atheists claim: people that believed in God have no proof that a God exists and seen nothing but disdain from them. Now, show that it is the Atheists that are on a groundless foundation and the above kind of statements are the types of things that come out of their mouths.

Common miss fuzzywuzzy, you can surely disprove the words of such an ignorant soul that claims, not only is there a God, but that claims, it is the Atheist that is the one that base their belief totally upon quicksand.


did that member just call me 'common'?
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

fuzzywuzzy;1452950 wrote: I just want it down for the record.....BRUV STARTED THIS

Didn't I tell you not to feed the animals?......... sigh.


Don't tell me you're complaining! Let me see ....... wasn't it you who said ..... ?



fuzzywuzzy;1452726 wrote: I'm so bored. Well I guess we haven't had one of these threads in awhile. Waiting on responses to job applications and buyers for things I'm selling packed everything so I can't do any of the craft stuff. There are only so many walks you can do in one day. Petrol has sky rocketed so can't go for a drive. Tides out, can't fish. FB is boring. entertain me !!!! I demand it!!!

Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

fuzzywuzzy;1452950 wrote: I just want it down for the record.....BRUV STARTED THIS






I think?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

High Threshold;1452959 wrote: Don't tell me you're complaining! Let me see ....... wasn't it you who said ..... ?


Don't mix threads and don't nic pic. It's Unbecoming :yh_eyebro
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

Bruv;1452980 wrote:



I think?


You're on notice!!!
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

fuzzywuzzy;1452984 wrote: You're on notice!!!


Why ?

Can't handle the cut and thrust of intellectual bandinage?

Light weight
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

The sheep challenge

Post by High Threshold »

Bruv;1452980 wrote: I think?


Ah! Therefore you are!
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

Bruv;1452987 wrote: Why ?

Can't handle the cut and thrust of intellectual bandinage?

Light weight


Nah I'm on strike. It's coming on winter here, it's almost hibernation time. Plus there's more to an intellectual conversation than big ole' words and obstreperous argument.
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

High Threshold;1452989 wrote: Ah! Therefore you are!


:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13205
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

The sheep challenge

Post by LarsMac »

fuzzywuzzy;1452990 wrote: ... Plus there's more to an intellectual conversation than big ole' words and obstreperous argument.


Yeah! There must be Beer.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

LarsMac;1452996 wrote: Yeah! There must be Beer.


this is true.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

LarsMac;1452996 wrote: Yeah! There must be Beer.


It's a tinny down under.......................they are bit strange too.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

fuzzywuzzy;1452990 wrote: Nah I'm on strike. It's coming on winter here, it's almost hibernation time. Plus there's more to an intellectual conversation than big ole' words and obstreperous argument.


Big 'ole' words' and 'obstreperous' in the same whinging sentence.......................you lose
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

Bruv;1453004 wrote: It's a tinny down under.......................they are bit strange too.


I don't think so ...I drink from "Stubbies" Interpret that how you will.

You mean 'whinging' don't you?
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

Bruv the whole argument is superfluous. ;)
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The sheep challenge

Post by Bruv »

fuzzywuzzy;1453009 wrote: I don't think so ...I drink from "Stubbies" Interpret that how you will.

You mean 'whinging' don't you?


I let you have the stubbies cos you colonials keep changing to keep ahead of us.......but I surreptitiously edited the whinging bit, because I know you lot say it more than we do.......about us, so bow to your better knowledge.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth

Return to “Christianity”