This thread is about why atheism is not rational and not about theism.
You think? I'd say that if gods are not real then atheism is essentially a rational outlook. If gods are real then atheism is silly.
In my opinion, ontological naturalism, which is base of atheism, is self refuting.
You know my assumptions, that a world exists external to the self, that our senses are capable of informing us of that world, that reason is a valid tool. They lead me directly to the observation that gods exhibit none of the qualities of real things. And if they're not real, the only thing they can be is imaginary. But if your conclusion applies to my view, I'm naturally curious to hear why you think my view is 'self-refuting'.
I have told you several times, the POV of Vedanta. God is the 'Subject', your true self. Subject cannot be defined without objectifying it. Try defining your "I" awareness. You cannot do that.
It boils down to, what is awareness? It's obviously a natural phenomenon, since we're creatures who've evolved in accordance with the ways of nature. It may be very complex, or it may arise from something quite simple, say a feed-back loop ─ we don't presently know.
What I think we
do know, though, is that an explanation is out there, and that if it can be found, reasoned enquiry, in particular scientific method, has a better chance of identifying, describing and explaining it than any other approach I've heard of.
All your comparisons are with human competence. A bicycle can outrun a man but that means nothing. Even if ever a computer passed the Turing test, a human would be required to declare that a computer had passed the Turing test. Consciousness is given in all situations, even when you negate it. So, consciousness is the 'whole'.
No, consciousness is limited to the individual. We can understand each other's experiences because we have mirror neurons and the power of inference from what we can thereby access, for example. No evidence suggests that our consciousness operates in any way external to the brain that creates it.
It is very convenient to claim a thing that can never be proven. Please tell me the mechanism or create consciousness under simulated photo life conditions to prove oft-repeated hypothesis, which is proposed as if it is a proven fact.
I haven't suggested, and don't suggest, that we presently know how consciousness arises in brains. I do however observe that brain research makes steady and demonstrable progress in extending our understanding, a claim I don't think can be made for any other system that uses examinable evidence and expresses its conclusions in falsifiable form.
Let me ask this: why should I think the Vedanta viewpoint is better than my own? What demonstration of its powers might show me that it offers more than reasoned enquiry, including scientific method, does?
