Question for Atheists...

[ppp]

Find a nice quiet place away from all distractions

Go to Haagen-Dazs and order a black cherry Sunday. Eat it.

 

[F1fan]

I have found no religion that understands God at all. This means you can walk in a different direction.

Well it is true that a person can conjure up any God they want and don't need to follow an established religion. The issue is that this being a personal religion versus a collective religion is irrelevant, there is no reason to treat any God concept as real phenomenon. There is nothing to understand about a God in a religious way. Anyone can study the many concepts of gods and understand these as abstractions, but that is about it.

You still point to others.

Well, others exist, so at least I'm pointing at real things, eh?

Do you seek others to convince you to believe?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. If someone makes a claims about a proposition they had better have evidence and a coherent explanation.

I am doing things much different. I am pointing you in a direction by which you can Discover for yourself.

You assume there is something to find. Thus far what you describe seems more figments of your imagination than any actual destination for anyone. You might be trying to use others to validate your beliefs and unaware of this manipulation.

Think beyond you having it made. Look for the results and the changes that occur from the actions all around you.

Vague.

Without understanding, you will be as confused as those relying on beliefs instead of what actually is and exists around us all.

I'm not confused, I follow facts and use reason. I don't assume the things you do and as a result I avoid the confusion that is exhibited in your comments.

 

[F1fan]

That my friend is the problem materialists have. Is consciousness physical?

By all understanding consciousness is a natural phenomenon of living brains. It' doesn't seem accurate to call consciousness physical itself, but it is a product of physical phenomenon called brain activity.

Questions like these result in unending debates among materialists, or naturalists.

Yeah, because they are trying to understand what it actually is. You must be a immaterialist given your prejudical attitude against materialists, so if that is the case what do immaterialists say? Nonsense?

It's not a problem with Bible students.

They get indocrtinated with false claims, and learn to avoid reasoning.

The question you asked is a simple one though. I don't think that's debated.
However, ask if thoughts are physical, or radio waves. These might be more interesting.

They are both a physical phenomenon. Fact.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is consciousness physical?
However, ask if thoughts are physical, or radio waves. These might be more interesting.

Emergent properties. That is what thoughts and consciousness is. Radio waves are physical, they can interact with other physical things.
Quite simple.

You probably haven't met them. Hence your confusion.

I have met many, walls and not-walls. I do not deny a small number of not-walls in each religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It isn't a logical impossibility. That's enough to say it is a logical possibility.

No it's not.

In fact, I would say the contrary.
The "supernatural" are generally those things that violate / suspend the laws of nature.
When we say that some occurance is "impossible", what we really mean is that the laws of nature don't allow for it.

ie: floating off into space instead of falling back to earth when I jump up, is "impossible".
Meaning that it would violate gravitational laws etc.

As such, the supernatural would be impossible by definition, as it REQUIRES the "impossible" to happen anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That my friend is the problem materialists have.

No, the problem is entirely on the side of people who make assertions without evidence.

Is consciousness physical?

Yes. It is a function of physical brains.

Questions like these result in unending debates among materialists, or naturalists.

No. Theists who insist, without evidence, on the existence of "ghosts" or "spirits" or "souls" are the ones who "debate" this stuff.

It's not a problem with Bible students.

All they have are mere beliefs without evidence.

However, ask if thoughts are physical,

Yes. They are functions of physical brains.

or radio waves.

Yes. They are generated by charged particles undergoing acceleration.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Find a nice quiet place away from all distractions. Focus inward. Say to yourself: It's Me. This is who you really are. That physical body is no more than your transportation in this physical world.

This is indistinguishable from self-brainwashing.
It also sounds like trying to paint the bullseye around the arrow.
It's sheer confirmation bias. An assumed conclusion.

It's pretending to have the answers before even knowing what the questions are.

Still having problems? Seek out the very youngest of children. Many can tell the difference from who they are and their physical self. These children must be very young. This physical world carries so much sensory input that soon one is seduced into thinking this physical world is all there is.

Look closely at the very youngest of children. They have recently left God's arms. An Observant person can see God's reflection in them,

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

So you want small children who engage in magical thinking and who have no clue about the world to answer these questions?

Do you know why such small children like the "piekaboo" game? Why they cry when you leave the room?
Because when you hide behind the couch or enter another room, their brain thinks you are leaving existence itself.
They don't realize that you still exist behind the couch or in the other room.

If that is the sort of magical thinking you wish to base your understanding of reality on, be my guest. But it's kind of obvious that you're going to walk away with false conclusions.

 

[1213]

...Now, since it turns out that in any glacier / ice field in
the world, if one counts ( visual, and e- log) back to
the year 79 AD...

I have no problem with that glaciers could point to same 79 AD, it would not be against the great flood. And even if they would show similar layers, it is still possible that the layers doesn't present years correctly.

 

[1213]

It's kind of spooky how all the 'problems' in all the methods are just right to give a self consistent result that you don't like is wrong, don't you think?

It is kind of spooky to believe anything atheists claim. Would be nice to see the actual samples and from where they are exactly.

 

[ratiocinator]

Would be nice to see the actual samples and from where they are exactly.

This sort of thing is not secret. You can look up all the ways scientists calibrate dating systems against each other.

The problem is that even when I've provided direct links to popular explanations, they seem to be beyond any creationists' ability to comprehend, or perhaps bother to read, I'm not sure which, of if there's another explanation, all I know is that I might as well not have bothered for all the response I get. The conversation invariably just returns to flat denial from creationists and the same old claims of inaccuracy that just happens, by some sort of spooky coincidence, to give us an entirely consistent picture that (according to creationists) is totally wrong by many orders of magnitude. They do love to talk about improbability, except when it goes against them....

 

[Polymath257]

I have no problem with that glaciers could point to same 79 AD, it would not be against the great flood. And even if they would show similar layers, it is still possible that the layers doesn't present years correctly.

And how far off would they possibly be? We understand the mechanism. We have confirmation that they give accurate results when we can check them independently. We have *hundreds of thousands* of layers. Even if a few layers are missing or doubled, there is no way to introduce so much error that a global flood less than 10,000 years ago would be missed.

So, you reject the clear evidence in favor of a cherished belief. Do you really think that is the path of wisdom and knowledge?

 

[Polymath257]

I have pointed you on my last reply where you can Discover all the evidence you need for yourself.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!

And I have previously done that process and found nothing.

So it is also very clear to me.

Now, how can the dispute be resolved so we at least know who is wrong? What *further* evidence would convince you that you are wrong? And yes, you can ask the same of me.

 

[Polymath257]

It is kind of spooky to believe anything atheists claim. Would be nice to see the actual samples and from where they are exactly.

If you want to see an ice core sample, there are museums where such are on display.

We have cores that are *miles* long from, say Greenland. The individual layers are rather thin. I'd love to see an explanation that fits those cores into a time period of less than 10,000 years while maintaining agreement with other things we know.

 

[Audie]

I have no problem with that glaciers could point to same 79 AD, it would not be against the great flood. And even if they would show similar layers, it is still possible that the layers doesn't present years correctly.

Two points here.
1. You have no problem with ice core dating, as long as it does not contradict the flood.
2. Possible that the layers don't present years correctly.

I will hazard a guess that point 1 is not really what you
mean, as it would be such intellectual dishonesty,
such childish irrational denial of the obvious.

2. We have to distinguish between "possible" and
degrees of probability.

It is POSSIBLE that a kid can never make it to school
with his home workm because the dog ate it. Next day an eagle snatched it. Next day the hells angels burned his house, next day Donald Trump bought it for a million dollars, etc.

All of that is possible.

But the chances of it really happening are not worth considering very hard.

Every year atmospheric sulfuric acid concentration is different. It gets trapped in ice.

Each layer you can plainly see being formed each year
has a different concentration.

Count visually, shut eyes and count by e log. You get the same numbers.

Each and every glacier on earth gives the same date
for pinatubo, krakatoa, every other big eruption.
And sure enough, there is the ash, as distinct as a fingerprint, for that volcano.

Does this seem like a coincidence?

 

[Audie]

It is kind of spooky to believe anything atheists claim. Would be nice to see the actual samples and from where they are exactly.

So you just choose not to believe anything
Atheists say just coz they are atheists?
Really? It's what you said.
There are lots of online resources on ice core dating.

It has notuing to do with religion or atheism.
Two of the three people I know who have been involved
in ice cores are christians.

 

[nPeace]

I responded. You gave no actual examples. Proprioception, vestibular senses, and others are ALL physical senses. We even know the sense organs that pick up on these. Also, the mechanisms we use for determining hunger are known and are very definitely *physical* mechanisms.

So you have no succeeded in giving examples. Your claimed examples are all physical.

It looks like you are the one making the claims. However, I haven't looked at your response to my request as yet. I'll do that at some point.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no problem with that glaciers could point to same 79 AD, it would not be against the great flood. And even if they would show similar layers, it is still possible that the layers doesn't present years correctly.

really? why would you say that it is possible the layers do not present years correctly? Please explain, thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

And how far off would they possibly be? We understand the mechanism. We have confirmation that they give accurate results when we can check them independently. We have *hundreds of thousands* of layers. Even if a few layers are missing or doubled, there is no way to introduce so much error that a global flood less than 10,000 years ago would be missed.

So, you reject the clear evidence in favor of a cherished belief. Do you really think that is the path of wisdom and knowledge?

Can you please give examples of confirmation of results?

 

[YoursTrue]

It is kind of spooky to believe anything atheists claim. Would be nice to see the actual samples and from where they are exactly.

Exactly. Ask for more than a statement and how they arrive at the statement, seems like it's trouble.

 

[nPeace]

Among the scientists (not philosophers) who actually study how the brain works. I might suggest the book 'Behave' by Sapolsky.

Well, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference... with scientists incorporating philosophy where it's almost impossible to verify their claims.
However, I haven't read anything supporting your claims. Maybe your book does, but these don't.

THE nature of consciousness is truly one of the great mysteries of the universe because, for each of us, consciousness is all there is. Without it, there is no world, no self, no interior and no exterior. There is nothing at all.

The subjective nature of consciousness makes it difficult even to define. The closest we have to a consensus is that there is “something it is like to be conscious”.

While Scientists And Philosophers debate the subject, your people admit they haven't been able to conclusively nor scientifically demonstrate their belief.

No I don't know everything.

You don't?

But I do know some things.

I believe you do know some things. We all do.

Radio waves are a physical phenomenon. That is how we produce them and detect them.

Okay.
More on this later.

If I don't know something, I usually say so.

No you don't. You make claims about things you think you know. Isn't that true?

if someone disagrees and *gives evidence*, I am more than happy to admit it when I am wrong.

Good. Let's see if that's true. Though, I haven't seen that since I have been here, but admittedly, we are sometimes blinded by hubris. Not true?

Are you?

That's not even a question worth asking, since when I am talking to you guys, I always make sure I post links to support what I say. That is, if I haven't posted them more than once already.

I don't see you doing that. I hear you saying the equivalent of, This is the case, and This is so, and That is so, and That is not so... etc.

On a forum I came from, one of the rules was, basically, Don't make claims without providing a source backing them up. Otherwise it's just a claim which doesn't need to be considered, or taken seriously.
That's not what happens here. We hear lots of yapping. When asked to back up their claim... more yapping.

No. Not me. I backed up my claim of evidence for God, and I can do it again... and again... a hundred times over.