101. Comment #55831 by darwin2 on July 12, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Comment #55546 by Science H Logic on July 11, 2007 at 1:36 pm

"Like Hitchens i lost it for a second with his "look at how great and wonderful the universe is, there must be a god", has he read ANYTHING at all from the opposition? I'm really sick of these 10 minute debates. Its allways the same damn arguments from the christains "where did we come from then?", "how do you know what is really right or really wrong?". It seems so pointless."

The point is that in order to eliminate the evils that organized religion has historically perpetrated on the human race we need open dialogue. We need authors like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens to attack these evils. We also need authors that can show that religion and science can be complementary and compatible and that it is not evil to believe that God created our universe approximately 13-14 billion years ago and that God used evolution and natural selection as the means to create life as we know it.

Other Comments by darwin2

102. Comment #55834 by darwin2 on July 12, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Comment #55578 by A on July 11, 2007 at 3:06 pm

"Darwin2 it would appear you are somewhat of an idiot, no great crime there, we all have our flaws, but let me clarify what I have written for you."

"You say that I 'sound like a born again Christian who says their position can't be wrong. When what I have in fact said is that - an atheist cannot be inerrant - look up the big words, replace them with easier words and see what it all means."

"best of luck."

I agree with your resonse. You have given me a well deserved spanking. I misread your statement. It was pure sloppiness on my part. I apologize.

Other Comments by darwin2

103. Comment #55835 by darwin2 on July 12, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Comment #55646 by PeterK on July 11, 2007 at 9:00 pm

"However I can assure you, if you chose to remain posting and debating here; continuing your attempts to defend the position of theism you have posted, I can guarantee you they will all be refuted with sound reasoning. If you have even shred of respect for the veracity of reason, hopefully sooner than later you will clearly discover this to be the case."

That is why I love this website. It is nice to experience "sound reasoning." I have tried to discuss my beliefs with born again Christians. Unfortunately what I experienced was everything but "sound reasoning."

Other Comments by darwin2

104. Comment #55838 by PeterK on July 12, 2007 at 2:37 pm

103. Comment #55835 by darwin2 on July 12, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Comment #55646 by PeterK on July 11, 2007 at 9:00 pm

"However I can assure you, if you chose to remain posting and debating here; continuing your attempts to defend the position of theism you have posted, I can guarantee you they will all be refuted with sound reasoning. If you have even shred of respect for the veracity of reason, hopefully sooner than later you will clearly discover this to be the case."

That is why I love this website. It is nice to experience "sound reasoning." I have tried to discuss my beliefs with born again Christians. Unfortunately what I experienced was everything but "sound reasoning."

Terrific. Now it's your turn. Let's see some sound reasoning from you.

Other Comments by PeterK

105. Comment #55840 by robert s on July 12, 2007 at 2:45 pm

I strongly believe extraterrestrial intelligence is abundant throughout the universe. I think it would be a fair assumption to say that most scientists agree on this statement.

They would probably quibble a bit, but, broadly, yes.

However, we have no evidence to back this claim. For all we know we could be the first and only planet to have developed intelligent life.

It is completely wrong to claim we have no evidence pertaining to this question. If that were true, most scientists would say 'we don't know', which as you observed, they tend not to say that.

I'll grant that the evidence is not great, but you can certainly have a rational discussion about it. You don't have to say things like 'I'm sure aliens will visit us after we're both dead'.

The two obvious evidences to bring up are the failure to find evidence of extraterrestrial intelligences in our solar system. This suggests that intelligent life is quite uncommon. This observation can also be used to support the assertion that we are the first advanced life form in this galaxy.

And of course the Drake equation, which attempts to model the probabilities of advanced life arising near the average star. Some of the elements of the equation can be estimated with great confidence, unfortunately others can only be wild guesses.

However, as there are approximately 100 billion stars in our galaxy, unless you assign really small values to the more uncertain values, the equation still comes up with estimates of very large numbers (ie at least millions) of advanced civilisations in our galaxy. (Unfortunately the size of the galaxy works against us too - even with millions of them, the chances of there being one within detection range is very slight).

As most people who consider the Drake equation do not assign the required very low values, they conclude that extraterrestrial life is abundant.

Perhaps could express the reasons for your belief that consciousness survives death in those sort of terms?

Other Comments by robert s

106. Comment #55869 by Lauregon on July 12, 2007 at 5:23 pm

..."it is not evil to believe that God created our universe approximately 13-14 billion years ago and that God used evolution and natural selection as the means to create life as we know it. " - Darwin2


"God" in ordinary modern day Western discourse refers to the anthropomorphic monotheistic deity of Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith. What "God" are you referring to? Further, why do you feel so strongly that your understanding of "God" is more accurate than that of orthodox believers, and why do you come here to argue for your theism when you have only your subjective opinions to offer? I don't mean to say you have no right to do so, but I do wonder what you hope to accomplish by doing it---especially when you readily admit that finite beings can't possible know or understand "God," an infinite being. You seem to be insisting, "Trust me, atheists. MY subjective theistic beliefs are well worth trusting, but your atheism isn't."

Other Comments by Lauregon

107. Comment #55888 by roach on July 12, 2007 at 6:52 pm

darwin2,

At the very least, stop using the loaded word "God" and replace it with "The Creator(s)" or something like that. Then read some popular evolutionary biology and some cosmology/physics articles and watch this creator vanish in a puff of smoke. We now know how that the simple can rise to the complex.

Also, deism and atheism are essentially indistinguishable when it comes to criticizing the social implications of religion.

Other Comments by roach

108. Comment #56008 by PeterK on July 13, 2007 at 8:02 am

106. Comment #55869 by Lauregon on July 12, 2007 at 5:23 pm

..."I do wonder what you hope to accomplish by doing it---especially when you readily admit that finite beings can't possible know or understand "God," an infinite being. You seem to be insisting, "Trust me, atheists. MY subjective theistic beliefs are well worth trusting, but your atheism isn't...."

I ran across an interesting quote dealing with the idea of God's 'unknowability'

"The assertion that a thing is unknowable carries the necessary implication that you are omniscient — that you have total knowledge of everything in the universe and, from your unique vantage point, are able to proclaim that something is inherently beyond the reach of man's knowledge and understanding"

Other Comments by PeterK

109. Comment #56027 by darwin2 on July 13, 2007 at 11:28 am

Comment #55840 by robert s on July 12, 2007 at 2:45 pm

"Perhaps could express the reasons for your belief that consciousness survives death in those sort of terms?"

All we can say is at this moment in time we have absolutely no scientific evidence to prove either that consciousness survives death or that consciousness ceases at death. It's a 50/50 proposition. However what is 100% certain is that we are going to die and if consciousness survives death, we will get the correct answer quickly. Subjectively I believe 100% that consciousness survives death. Objectively speaking, I realize I could be 100% wrong.

Other Comments by darwin2

110. Comment #56028 by robert s on July 13, 2007 at 11:38 am

Do you not think it hypocritical to claim 100% confidence in a proposition you admit you calculate to have only a 50% chance of being true?

Other Comments by robert s

111. Comment #56031 by darwin2 on July 13, 2007 at 11:48 am

Comment #55869 by Lauregon on July 12, 2007 at 5:23 pm

"God" in ordinary modern day Western discourse refers to the anthropomorphic monotheistic deity of Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith. What "God" are you referring to? Further, why do you feel so strongly that your understanding of "God" is more accurate than that of orthodox believers, and why do you come here to argue for your theism when you have only your subjective opinions to offer?"

I come here because I enjoy engaging in mutually respectful dialogues with people who think differently from me. For the most part this is what I find here.

I differ from the monotheistic deity of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith in this way. I believe God is loving, merciful and perfectly just. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim God is neither loving, merciful or perfectly just.

Yes, my beliefs that God exists are subjective. Similarly your beliefs that God does not exist or may not exist are also subjective. We disagree subjectively. Objectively speaking, neither you or I can prove God exists or doesn't exist.

Other Comments by darwin2

112. Comment #56033 by USA_Limey on July 13, 2007 at 11:57 am

Comment #56027 by darwin2 wrote:

"All we can say is at this moment in time we have absolutely no scientific evidence to prove either that consciousness survives death or that consciousness ceases at death. It's a 50/50 proposition"

No, it is not a 50/50 proposition. This is one of the biggest mistakes you can make.

Two possible outcomes do NOT always mean an equal likelihood of either being true. We must assign a balance of probabilities.

Is there any testable evidence for an afterlife?

No

Do we have a definitive answer to the question of what 'consciousness' is?

NO

Do we have any idea how something we cannot easily define might survive our physical death? If it is energy, for example, how is it changed - where does it go? Do we have any workable theories here?

NO

And so on and so on.

What evidence do we have that when the brain dies all electrical and chemical processes end?

Lots of evidence.


So, I do not assign equal weighting; it is not 50/50.

Not even close.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

113. Comment #56035 by darwin2 on July 13, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Comment #55888 by roach on July 12, 2007 at 6:52 pm

"At the very least, stop using the loaded word "God" and replace it with "The Creator(s)" or something like that. Then read some popular evolutionary biology and some cosmology/physics articles and watch this creator vanish in a puff of smoke. We now know how that the simple can rise to the complex."

What difference does it make if I use the term "God" or "The Creator?" They both mean the same things. They both mean a Being who is infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, merciful and perfectly just.

I have read some of the popular biology and cosmology/physics writings and I did not "watch this creator vanish in a puff of smoke." These writings only reinforce my beliefs in "The Creator."

Other Comments by darwin2

114. Comment #56036 by darwin2 on July 13, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Comment #56008 by PeterK on July 13, 2007 at 8:02 am
106. Comment #55869 by Lauregon on July 12, 2007 at 5:23 pm

"The assertion that a thing is unknowable carries the necessary implication that you are omniscient — that you have total knowledge of everything in the universe and, from your unique vantage point, are able to proclaim that something is inherently beyond the reach of man's knowledge and understanding"

I make no claims to being omniscient. However, I believe God is omniscient and does have total knowledge of everything in the universe and that God is beyond the reach of man's knowledge and understanding.

Other Comments by darwin2

115. Comment #56103 by Lauregon on July 13, 2007 at 6:45 pm

"What difference does it make if I use the term "God" or "The Creator?" They both mean the same things." - Darwin2


If your God differs from the "God" of Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith---or any other "God," for that matter, then you're not talking about the same "God." Using the same term for a differing "God" creates confusion. If you're trying to communicate ideas to others, it's a good idea to avoid ambiguity. Of course, maybe you have some reason for choosing to employ ambiguousness.


"They both mean a Being who is infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, merciful and perfectly just." - Darwin2




Actually, they don't necessarily do so. For example, "The Creator" can refer to an impersonal, cosmic, non-anthropomorphic, non-theistic, non-miracle-performing deity who doesn't intervene in human affairs and doesn't have any interest in doing so. And as I've already said, using the term "God" in our culture is usually taken by most people to mean the highly personal, highly anthropomorphic, angry, punishing, capriciously favor performing Yahweh-Jehovah "God" of The Book. Since you insist your "God" isn't the latter "God," it's odd that you're content to employ ambiguous terms for your subjective "God." But then, maybe ambiguousness serves a purpose for you.

Other Comments by Lauregon

116. Comment #56105 by Lauregon on July 13, 2007 at 6:58 pm

"Yes, my beliefs that God exists are subjective. Similarly your beliefs that God does not exist or may not exist are also subjective. We disagree subjectively. Objectively speaking, neither you or I can prove God exists or doesn't exist. - Darwin2


1. The burden of proof is upon those who claim the existence of something supernatural, not upon those who don't claim the existence of something supernatural.

2. Your views are far more subjective than mine in that yours appear to be idiosyncratic and specifically and singularly yours.

Other Comments by Lauregon

117. Comment #56185 by darwin2 on July 14, 2007 at 10:52 am

Comment #56028 by robert s on July 13, 2007 at 11:38 am

"Do you not think it hypocritical to claim 100% confidence in a proposition you admit you calculate to have only a 50% chance of being true?"

No because when I say 50%, I am talking objectively or strictly scientifically about the possibility of my beliefs being true or false. When I say 100%, I am talking subjectively about how I truly believe my beliefs to be true.

Other Comments by darwin2

118. Comment #56186 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 11:03 am

When you go to a doctor or a lawyer, do you ask for their 'objective' or 'subjective' opinions?

Other Comments by robert s

119. Comment #56188 by darwin2 on July 14, 2007 at 11:11 am

#56033 by USA_Limey on July 13, 2007 at 11:57 am

"What evidence do we have that when the brain dies all electrical and chemical processes end?"

"Lots of evidence."

Yes, there is lots of evidence that the brain dies but as I have stated frequently above, our eternal soul only temporarily occupies our physical body. Subjectively I conclude the eternal soul survives. Subjectively you conclude the eternal soul does not survive. Objectively or scientifically speaking, neither you nor I can prove our subjective conclusions. Death will give us the correct scientific answer. If consciousness continues after death, you will get the scientific evidence to prove that my conclusion was correct and consciousness does continue after death.

"So, I do not assign equal weighting; it is not 50/50."

"Not even close."

The survival of consciousness is an either or proposition. It is a 50/50 possibility. This is the only truly scientific way to analyze this issue.

Other Comments by darwin2

120. Comment #56190 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 11:16 am

The trouble is many of the functions of consciousness have been mapped on to specific structures of the brain. For example your visual cortex enables you to see. Your visual cortex will be destroyed when you die. Do you expect to be able to see after that? (If yes, why do you think the loss of the visual cortex causes blindness?)

Similarly hearing, movement, touch, memory and personality (among many others, I'm sure) have been mapped to specific structures.

If your consciousness survives death without those faculties, in what sense is it 'you'?

Other Comments by robert s

121. Comment #56192 by darwin2 on July 14, 2007 at 11:29 am

Comment #56103 by Lauregon on July 13, 2007 at 6:45 pm

"If your God differs from the "God" of Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith---or any other "God," for that matter, then you're not talking about the same "God." Using the same term for a differing "God" creates confusion. If you're trying to communicate ideas to others, it's a good idea to avoid ambiguity. Of course, maybe you have some reason for choosing to employ ambiguousness."

"Actually, they don't necessarily do so. For example, "The Creator" can refer to an impersonal, cosmic, non-anthropomorphic, non-theistic, non-miracle-performing deity who doesn't intervene in human affairs and doesn't have any interest in doing so. And as I've already said, using the term "God" in our culture is usually taken by most people to mean the highly personal, highly anthropomorphic, angry, punishing, capriciously favor performing Yahweh-Jehovah "God" of The Book. Since you insist your "God" isn't the latter "God," it's odd that you're content to employ ambiguous terms for your subjective "God." But then, maybe ambiguousness serves a purpose for you."

Let me list below the things I have in common with the Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith.

We agree that there is one God.
We agree that God is infinite, all-powerful and all-knowing.
We agree that God is loving, merciful and perfectly just.
We agree that God created all that exists.
We agree that God has a purpose for human existence.
We agree that humans have souls that survive the death of the body.
We agree that the soul is eternal.
We agree that a judgment for humans takes place after the death of the physical body.
We agree there is a hell where souls have to account for their transgressions against God's laws.
We agree that there is an eternal heaven.
We agree that human destiny is not on Earth but in the after-life.
We agree that angels exist although I call angels God's administrators.
We agree that God wants us to do good actions and avoid doing evil actions.
We agree Faith is necessary for our beliefs.
We agree that God wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves.
We agree that God wants us to love, respect and enjoy all of God's creations.

Where we differ is on the belief in an eternal hell. I believe in hell but only a temporary hell and Earth is a temporary hell. We disagree on the purpose of human existence, on redemption, on original sin, on the devil and on the nature of post-death judgment. And their concept of loving, merciful and perfectly just radically differs from mine.

Other Comments by darwin2

122. Comment #56193 by sent2null on July 14, 2007 at 11:36 am

Response to comment 54848 by CrazyMalc:

"In TGD, Richard Dawkins uses the example of whether I see Red that the same way you see Red. We'll just never know."

Actually that was a weak analogy on RD's part. We could determine how two individuals experience a color since we can create objective experiments to prove that their perceptions match or are very similar. For example, by shining successively similar shades of red to two different individuals using LED's tuned to produce precise frequencies of light. (as they do) It would be easy to ask them questions such as how many shades they distinguish in the set , then by narrowing the frequencies successively determine the sensitivity of each individual to the shades of red (or any other color that can be precisely tuned) displayed.

Of course most of us know what RD meant when he made the analogy, it just wasn't exactly the best choice he could have made. ;)

Regards,

Other Comments by sent2null

123. Comment #56194 by darwin2 on July 14, 2007 at 11:37 am

Comment #56105 by Lauregon on July 13, 2007 at 6:58 pm

"The burden of proof is upon those who claim the existence of something supernatural, not upon those who don't claim the existence of something supernatural."

You are absolutely correct. When we die if we find ourselves conscious on the other side, I will make it a point to look you up and say "Lauregon here is the proof you are looking for!"

"Your views are far more subjective than mine in that yours appear to be idiosyncratic and specifically and singularly yours."

And vice-versa!

Other Comments by darwin2

124. Comment #56196 by darwin2 on July 14, 2007 at 11:49 am

Comment #56186 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 11:03 am

"When you go to a doctor or a lawyer, do you ask for their 'objective' or 'subjective' opinions?"

I sure do. If some doctor tells me I have cancer and 24 hours to live, I want to make sure his subjective diagnosis is objectively correct. I would therefore go to a second doctor for a confirmation.

If I was going to sue someone and my lawyer told me I had a great case but he wanted $10,000 up front to litigate my case, I would want to confirm that his subjective prognosis for my case matched objective reality. I would then ask him the following question. If my case is good, will you take it on consignment and charge only from the proceeds from winning my case? If he told me that he could not do this then I would conclude his subjective analysis did not match objective reality and I would not pursue my case.

Other Comments by darwin2

125. Comment #56197 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 12:10 pm

So, when it comes to doctors and lawyers, other people's 'subjective' opinions are to be avoided. What counts is reality and you want your advisors to be as 'objective' as possible.

You've already admitted your belief in the survival of consciousness has no objectivity, so what makes your 'subjective' belief more interesting than that of your doctor or lawyer?

Other Comments by robert s

126. Comment #56203 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Darwin2--for goodness sakes, aren't you aware with ANY of the arguments against you position?

here's one:

....We agree that God is infinite, all-powerful and all-knowing.

Problem of OMNISCIENCE and Omnipotence (I'm just cutting a pasting these now. )

The problem with the idea of omniscience is that it contradicts the attribute of omnipotence. If God knows the future with infallible certainty, he cannot change it—in which case he cannot be omnipotent. If God can change the future however, he cannot have infallible knowledge of it prior to it's actual happening—in which case he cannot be omniscient.

read this one a few times too.

Other Comments by PeterK

127. Comment #56206 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Darwin2 ALSO says:

"We agree that God created all that exists."

So God once existed before anything else did, if he created all that exists? RIGHT?

( and if the contents of post #32 on this thread had sunk in the first time, I wouldn't be posting this--again )

Other Comments by PeterK

128. Comment #56208 by roach on July 14, 2007 at 1:23 pm

darwin2,

Please change your handle. It's embarrassing.

I think I saw you claim to be a deist. If so, you are being disingenuous. If not, then that was a mistake on my part. I simply cannot believe that you have read all the arguments against your position and still hold onto your theistic beliefs.

What are these souls made of? are they energy or matter?

You also have the infinite regress and a whole bunch of other conceptual problems to deal with. You practice self-deception and wishful thinking better than anyone I have encountered. That's not a compliment.

Other Comments by roach

129. Comment #56278 by Lauregon on July 14, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Comment #56194 by darwin2 on July 14, 2007 at 11:37 am

You are absolutely correct. When we die if we find ourselves conscious on the other side, I will make it a point to look you up and say "Lauregon here is the proof you are looking for!"

1. Your burden of proof is HERE and NOW, not later.


"Your views are far more subjective than mine in that yours appear to be idiosyncratic and specifically and singularly yours." - Lauregon

And vice-versa! - Darwin2

Well, no. You're incorrect. You're the one here whose ideas are singular and ideosyncratic, not me.

I also don't believe you're really here to exchange ideas as you've claimed. You appear to be here to insist without proof or substance of any kind that YOUR subjective idiosyncratic beliefs are correct, while those of non-believers are incorrect. You're here as an insistent evanglist for YOUR singular ideas, but you have no ability whatsoever to support them with anything other than stubborn declarations of virtual certainty.

Other Comments by Lauregon

130. Comment #56282 by Lauregon on July 14, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Comment #56192 Let me list below the things I have in common with the Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith.

We agree that there is one God.
We agree that God is infinite, all-powerful and all-knowing.
We agree that God is loving, merciful and perfectly just.
We agree that God created all that exists.
We agree that God has a purpose for human existence.
We agree that humans have souls that survive the death of the body.
We agree that the soul is eternal.
We agree that a judgment for humans takes place after the death of the physical body.
We agree there is a hell where souls have to account for their transgressions against God's laws.
We agree that there is an eternal heaven.
We agree that human destiny is not on Earth but in the after-life.
We agree that angels exist although I call angels God's administrators.
We agree that God wants us to do good actions and avoid doing evil actions.
We agree Faith is necessary for our beliefs.
We agree that God wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves.
We agree that God wants us to love, respect and enjoy all of God's creations.

Where we differ is on the belief in an eternal hell. I believe in hell but only a temporary hell and Earth is a temporary hell. We disagree on the purpose of human existence, on redemption, on original sin, on the devil and on the nature of post-death judgment. And their concept of loving, merciful and perfectly just radically differs from mine. - Darwin2


In other words, you're an orthodox believer---with privileges.

Other Comments by Lauregon

131. Comment #56291 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 7:25 pm

You're here as an insistent evanglist for YOUR singular ideas, but you have no ability whatsoever to support them with anything other than stubborn declarations of virtual certainty.

so far, that's about it.

Other Comments by PeterK

132. Comment #56406 by darwin2 on July 15, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Comment #56197 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 12:10 pm

"So, when it comes to doctors and lawyers, other people's 'subjective' opinions are to be avoided. What counts is reality and you want your advisors to be as 'objective as possible"

Doctors have misdiagnosed and some lawyers have taken cases that they know their clients have no chance of winning. Their subjective opinions are definitely to be avoided if they don't match reality. That is unless you don't care if the doctor misdiagnoses you and has unnecessary surgery performed on you or your lawyer charges you $10,000 for your case when he knows your case is meritless.

"You've already admitted your belief in the survival of consciousness has no objectivity, so what makes your 'subjective' belief more interesting than that of your doctor or lawyer?"

I have never discussed my subjective beliefs with my doctor or lawyer and thus I don't know if my subjective beliefs are more interesting or less interesting than those of my doctor or lawyer.

Other Comments by darwin2

133. Comment #56409 by darwin2 on July 15, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Comment #56203 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm

"The problem with the idea of omniscience is that it contradicts the attribute of omnipotence. If God knows the future with infallible certainty, he cannot change it—in which case he cannot be omnipotent. If God can change the future however, he cannot have infallible knowledge of it prior to it's actual happening—in which case he cannot be omniscient."

"read this one a few times too."

Omniscience and omnipotent are not contradictory. If God wanted to change the variables of existence He can. Has God changed the variables in the past? I don't know. I have doubts that He did.

Other Comments by darwin2

134. Comment #56410 by darwin2 on July 15, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Comment #56206 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 1:09 pm

"So God once existed before anything else did, if he created all that exists? RIGHT?"

Yes God existed before any thing else.

( and if the contents of post #32 on this thread had sunk in the first time, I wouldn't be posting this--again )
From post #32 The problem here is that consciousness means to be conscious of SOMETHING, and if there is nothing to be conscious OF, there can be no consciousness. At that point the theist will say something like "God is conscious of himself." But God could not exist in the first place if his entire being is dependent on being conscious--which again means he must be conscious of something.

Again He is conscious of Himself

Other Comments by darwin2

135. Comment #56414 by darwin2 on July 15, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Comment #56208 by roach on July 14, 2007 at 1:23 pm

"Please change your handle. It's embarrassing. "

That's your problem not mine.

"What are these souls made of? are they energy or matter?"

As I have said frequently in these posts, our souls are made of pure energy. Please see comment# 62 above for further clarification.

"You also have the infinite regress and a whole bunch of other conceptual problems to deal with. You practice self-deception and wishful thinking better than anyone I have encountered. That's not a compliment."

Your belief that God does not exist or that consciousness does not continue after death may be your own self-deception and wishful thinking.

Other Comments by darwin2

136. Comment #56416 by krogercomplete on July 15, 2007 at 4:56 pm

"You also have the infinite regress and a whole bunch of other conceptual problems to deal with. You practice self-deception and wishful thinking better than anyone I have encountered. That's not a compliment."

Your belief that God does not exist or that consciousness does not continue after death may be your own self-deception and wishful thinking.

You're a dummy head!

No, YOU'RE a dummy head!!!

Other Comments by krogercomplete

137. Comment #56417 by darwin2 on July 15, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Comment #56278 by Lauregon on July 14, 2007 at 5:56 pm

"I also don't believe you're really here to exchange ideas as you've claimed. You appear to be here to insist without proof or substance of any kind that YOUR subjective idiosyncratic beliefs are correct, while those of non-believers are incorrect. You're here as an insistent evanglist for YOUR singular ideas, but you have no ability whatsoever to support them with anything other than stubborn declarations of virtual certainty"

I do not have any scientific evidence to prove my contention that God exists or that consciousness continues after death. You do not have any scientific evidence to prove your contention that God does not exist or that consciousness ceases at death. You accuse me of being an insistent evangelist to support my singular ideas about God and the survival of consciousness but aren't you an insistent evangelist to support your singular ideas about the non-existence of God and the cessation of consciousness at death. My fellow insistent evangelist it is a pleasure to meet you.

Other Comments by darwin2

138. Comment #56418 by darwin2 on July 15, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Comment #56282 by Lauregon on July 14, 2007 at 6:16 pm

In other words, you're an orthodox believer---with privileges.

That's an excellent description except I don't believe a Jew, Catholic or a Protestant would call me orthodox.

Other Comments by darwin2

139. Comment #56420 by darwin2 on July 15, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Comment #56291 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 7:25 pm

"You're here as an insistent evanglist for YOUR singular ideas, but you have no ability whatsoever to support them with anything other than stubborn declarations of virtual certainty."

"so far, that's about it."

Please see comment #137.

Other Comments by darwin2

140. Comment #56421 by darwin2 on July 15, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Comment #56416 by krogercomplete on July 15, 2007 at 4:56 pm

"You're a dummy head!"

"No, YOU'RE a dummy head!!!"

OUCH! DOUBLE OUCH!! TRIPLE OUCH!!!

Other Comments by darwin2

141. Comment #56428 by PeterK on July 15, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Darwin2 says

"I do not have any scientific evidence to prove my contention that God exists or that consciousness continues after death. You do not have any scientific evidence to prove your contention that God does not exist or that consciousness ceases at death. You accuse me of being an insistent evangelist to support my singular ideas about God and the survival of consciousness but aren't you an insistent evangelist to support your singular ideas about the non-existence of God and the cessation of consciousness at death. My fellow insistent evangelist it is a pleasure to meet you."

The problem with this above declaration is that if it were a valid argument, any person could claim the existence of anything, and attach limitless characteristics to it and then claim some sort of logical victory because no one can 'disprove it'.

Again, I don't think you've ever read or absorbed the contents of any book or documents that argues
against your position. In post #116 Laurengon mentions that the burden of proof lies with the person you postulates the existence of something. And in this case that would be you.

"Again He is conscious of Himself"

To say so, you are contradicting yourself, he couldn't then exist in the first place if he is pure consciousness ( i.e. a spirit )-- there is nothing to be conscious of.

( AGAIN, re-read post #32 )

This is simply an application of the principle called the primacy of existence. Existence must precede consciousness, not the other way around. God just cannot be around before anything else is.

call them "singular ideas" if you wish, but I at least logically support them.

Other Comments by PeterK

142. Comment #56432 by Lauregon on July 15, 2007 at 6:00 pm

#137 by Darwin2 I do not have any scientific evidence to prove my contention that God exists or that consciousness continues after death. You do not have any scientific evidence to prove your contention that God does not exist or that consciousness ceases at death. You accuse me of being an insistent evangelist to support my singular ideas about God and the survival of consciousness but aren't you an insistent evangelist to support your singular ideas about the non-existence of God and the cessation of consciousness at death. My fellow insistent evangelist it is a pleasure to meet you.

If I were posting on a religious believer's board, I might be said to be evangelizing religious believers with my non-theist views, though that would require a broadening of the most common definition of the word "evangelize." As it is, I'm posting as a non-theist on a non-theist board where it's not necessary to evangelize for non-theist views. You, on the other hand, are a theist posting on a non-theist board. That makes you an evangelist for your theist views. Please try to understand the difference---and please try to understand as well that the burden HERE and NOW on this board where you are evangelizing for theism, is on YOU to prove that your idiosyncratic, cherry-picked, supernatural "God" exists. The non-existence of something that isn't factually known to exist doesn't have to be proven to not exist. It's very foolish of you to keep missing that point.

Other Comments by Lauregon

143. Comment #56444 by PeterK on July 15, 2007 at 8:02 pm

133. Comment #56409 by darwin2 on July 15, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Comment #56203 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm

"The problem with the idea of omniscience is that it contradicts the attribute of omnipotence. If God knows the future with infallible certainty, he cannot change it—in which case he cannot be omnipotent. If God can change the future however, he cannot have infallible knowledge of it prior to it's actual happening—in which case he cannot be omniscient."

"read this one a few times too."

Omniscience and omnipotent are not contradictory. If God wanted to change the variables of existence He can. Has God changed the variables in the past? I don't know. I have doubts that He did.

darwin2--

I think the reason why every atheist I know is able to see the simple logic this statement, and how the two ideas contradict each other, and somehow it always seems to be beyond the grasp whenever presented to any theist.

(a)Either the theist doesn't understand the logic (and this is why he remains a theist.)
or Or(b) he does understand it, and rather than just admitting God is omniscient and omnipotent but only within reasonable parameters ( thus limiting His power )he again counters with an inapplicable argument, rather than just conceding his assertion was wrong.

Other Comments by PeterK

144. Comment #56558 by darwin2 on July 16, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Comment #56428 by PeterK on July 15, 2007 at 5:52 pm

"The problem with this above declaration is that if it were a valid argument, any person could claim the existence of anything, and attach limitless characteristics to it and then claim some sort of logical victory because no one can 'disprove it."

"Again, I don't think you've ever read or absorbed the contents of any book or documents that argues
against your position. In post #116 Laurengon mentions that the burden of proof lies with the person you postulates the existence of something. And in this case that would be you"

This is a website that allows participants to freely express their views on science and religion. I enjoy this website and enjoy expressing my views on these subjects and equally enjoy hearing the views of others. I realize my views on the issues on the existence of God and the survival of consciousness after death are my subjective views as are your views to the contrary. Objectively neither you or I can scientifically prove our views are correct. I live my life according to my beliefs and I lead a very moral life. Although your views differ from mine, I am inclined to believe you as well as most other people on this website lead very moral lives too.

Other Comments by darwin2

145. Comment #56560 by darwin2 on July 16, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Comment #56432 by Lauregon on July 15, 2007 at 6:00 pm

"If I were posting on a religious believer's board, I might be said to be evangelizing religious believers with my non-theist views, though that would require a broadening of the most common definition of the word "evangelize." As it is, I'm posting as a non-theist on a non-theist board where it's not necessary to evangelize for non-theist views. You, on the other hand, are a theist posting on a non-theist board. That makes you an evangelist for your theist views. Please try to understand the difference---and please try to understand as well that the burden HERE and NOW on this board where you are evangelizing for theism, is on YOU to prove that your idiosyncratic, cherry-picked, supernatural "God" exists. The non-existence of something that isn't factually known to exist doesn't have to be proven to not exist. It's very foolish of you to keep missing that point."

You are right. I am the aggressor. I am posting on a non-theist board and you are not posting on a theist board. You have called me an evangelist. Too be quite truthful I felt insulted at first by being called this name. But the more I think about it, the more I like it. Yes from now on I will consider myself an evangelist whose mission is to enlighten atheists that it is possible for One True God, the Designer and Creator of all universes to exist; it is also possible for consciousness to continue after death; and it is also possible for science and religion to be compatible and complementary.

Other Comments by darwin2

146. Comment #56561 by darwin2 on July 16, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Comment #56203 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm

"I think the reason why every atheist I know is able to see the simple logic this statement, and how the two ideas contradict each other, and somehow it always seems to be beyond the grasp whenever presented to any theist."

"(a)Either the theist doesn't understand the logic (and this is why he remains a theist.)
or Or(b) he does understand it, and rather than just admitting God is omniscient and omnipotent but only within reasonable parameters ( thus limiting His power )he again counters with an inapplicable argument, rather than just conceding his assertion was wrong."

I believe God created the laws of physics and does not interfere with them. I see no contradiction between omniscient and omnipotent.

Other Comments by darwin2

147. Comment #56566 by robert s on July 16, 2007 at 12:40 pm

I suspect that on your evangelical mission you'll find that rationalists will be as scathing of the poverty of your evidence and arguments as they are here and the theists will ask you for money.

Other Comments by robert s

148. Comment #56640 by PeterK on July 16, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Just a few thoughts about the question as to whether God exists or not, that I'm not sure has been touched on before. Mention has been made by recent atheist writers that it would seem the greater the intelligence and education, the less likely one is a theist, and conversely the less intelligent and educated, the more likely one is a theist.

In response to the recent atheist writers have been rebuttals from seemingly educated and
well spoken theist individuals vehemently defending their faith with their version of sound argument. I give credit to those who do so, mainly because unlike most theists, they have at least attempted to enter the playing field upon which the atheist plays upon. The fact that when attempts are made to present what they feel are profound arguments that rebut the atheists claims, the results resemble that of a fish on land. So far I have yet to see any theist even come close to successfully defending his position, but witness a virtual outpouring of logical fallacies knowing no bounds, and not really understanding the atheist position or how one arrives at it.

By this fact alone, it is clear which position is more than very likely the correct position. It just would not make sense that there exists a certain belief held by the less reasoned folk, and then a contradicting far more logically sound belief held by the more reasoned folk—and then the same belief held by the less reasoned and shared by the very most reasoned is shown to be true.

Other Comments by PeterK

149. Comment #56644 by Lauregon on July 16, 2007 at 6:20 pm

#145 by Darwin2 Yes from now on I will consider myself an evangelist whose mission is to enlighten atheists that it is possible for One True God, the Designer and Creator of all universes to exist; it is also possible for consciousness to continue after death; and it is also possible for science and religion to be compatible and complementary.


Better get back to the drawing board, Darwin2. This isn't Sunday School.

Other Comments by Lauregon

150. Comment #56648 by Lauregon on July 16, 2007 at 6:38 pm

# 148 - PeterK The fact that when attempts are made to present what they feel are profound arguments that rebut the atheists claims, the results resemble that of a fish on land.



I watched David Robertson's YouTube attempt at refuting RD this morning and could only groan and shake my head at his comments. Theists seem utterly incapable of grasping a non-theist perspective. Theists have only the rusty tools in their little black box to work with and absolutely don't GET that their tools simply aren't sufficient. The Rev David kept repeating as proof of one thing and another that "We're made in God's image" as if that were an indisputable fact instead of an article of faith.

Other Comments by Lauregon