Would you believe in God if...

[darkswordsman17]

If consciousness is shown to exist, in any form, within this universe, before biological evolution supposedly created it as a byproduct, then I would personally conclude, for myself only, that consciousness is more than a byproduct and that it is not here by accident. That is the extend of what I would conclude. FOR MYSELF. Get it? If I chose to claim there was some sort of god, to place a label on whatever might have put consciousness here, then that would become my faith position. I never said god would be taught as fact in science books.
If you tell me that my thinking is "wrong" and that i'm all screwed up for daring to declare my opinion in a hypothetical scenario, then you are a dick.

Define consciousness.

Basically you're arguing that if you pretend that consciousness is some basic fundamental component of the universe (as in it's right there with matter, antimatter, and the like), that then that wholly rationally enables your opinion that it wasn't "by accident" and therefore you labeling whatever created it as god.

Essentially you've constructed a "hypothetical scenario" for no reason. The same argument you're making already existed, only instead of this strange "consciousness", it was matter. You could literally make your same argument by saying that because matter existed fundamentally to our universe that you therefore believe that something had to create it first and that being you define as God.

All you've actually accomplished with your "hypothetical scenario" is exhibit that your understanding of these concepts is flawed (essentially your scenario exists only so that you can simplify "consciousness" even though it doesn't even have any actual bearing on your argument).

Most of your little thought experiment or whatever you think it is, is just plain nonsense.

Sorry, people pointing out and explaining the flaws in your scenario doesn't make them dicks. In this case literally you're thinking is wrong (as in it doesn't abide by basic logic, hence why you tried to construct your "hypothetical scenario") and therefore you are screwed up for thinking that your "hypothetical scenario" matters at all insofar as the opinion you're expressing.

Umm, a god showing its existence is "demonstrating" it's existence. What you cannot understand is that this would be done with no recourse to science and material means of explanation.

That's all your mind can handle, and why you'd never understand what I'm saying.

You don't seem to realize that arguing that your inability to define God in any sense other than God being beyond definition/comprehension/explanation literally contradicts the ability to "demonstrate" existence as well as God's existence (you're seriously arguing that God is beyond existence).

No we perfectly understand what argument you're making, the problem is you think you're arguing some next level thing about how people aren't able to physically observe God and therefore he's above and beyond basic perception, when people are just explaining that the basic foundation of your argument doesn't hold up since you're ignoring what words actually mean ("showing" or "demonstrating" existence literally contradicts it being beyond observance) to try and make your argument true.

 

[ThinClient]

What in the gods' names is wrong with you? Don't be such a dick.

What's wrong with religious people, always telling everyone else what to do and how to live? Fuck them. They need their bullshit thrown back into their faces as offensively as possible. Maybe they'll eventually shut the fuck up.

 

[alzan]

Fuck you and your telling other people how to live and how to be.

God dammit.

Allah dammit.

Thor dammit.

Ra dammit.

Fuck you.

I wasn't telling him anything, it was a suggestion. I personally find respecting believers' expressions of faith conducive to healthy dialogue and relationships.

What's wrong with religious people, always telling everyone else what to do and how to live? Fuck them. They need their bullshit thrown back into their faces as offensively as possible. Maybe they'll eventually shut the fuck up.

I'm about as far removed from "religious" as a person can be.

 

[ThinClient]

I wasn't telling him anything, it was a suggestion. I personally find respecting believers' expressions of faith conducive to healthy dialogue and relationships.

That's fine. Very few of them are open-minded enough to have a rational conversation about their beliefs to begin with. Those that are open-minded get a calm, respectful conversation. The close-minded bigots, like RobM, are the ones that deserve every single ounce of ridicule they receive, and more.

 

[Ruptga]

What's wrong with religious people, always telling everyone else what to do and how to live? Fuck them. They need their bullshit thrown back into their faces as offensively as possible. Maybe they'll eventually shut the fuck up.

What's wrong with ThinClient, always telling religious people what to do and how to live? Fuck him. He needs his bullshit thrown back in his face as offensively as possible. Maybe he'll eventually shut the fuck up.

See how persuasive that is? Oh you mean you haven't changed your mind at all? Maybe that's because being a dick to a dick doesn't make you a hero, it just makes you a dick.

 

[BudAshes]

What in the gods' names is wrong with you? Don't be such a dick.

:hmm:

 

[ThinClient]

What's wrong with ThinClient, always telling religious people what to do and how to live? Fuck him. He needs his bullshit thrown back in his face as offensively as possible. Maybe he'll eventually shut the fuck up.

See how persuasive that is? Oh you mean you haven't changed your mind at all? Maybe that's because being a dick to a dick doesn't make you a hero, it just makes you a dick.

I actually respect you more for taking the direct approach. :awe: I really don't give a shit. The close-minded delusional ones deserve to receive a dicking. They do not deserve the respect that comes with a civilized conversation since they're not interested in having one.

 

[Ruptga]

See, BudAshes sees what I did there. I actually agree, partially. There definitely are people that don't deserve civility, but they're generally few and far between. Making a sharp point while being civil is completely do-able, it just requires some mastery of subtlety and knowing everyone's positions inside and out.

Doing that, the people too dumb to see what you're saying won't make a ruckus because you said it nicely, and the people that are smart enough might actually appreciate your way of thinking. Plus, then those people will be able to admit it because they're seeing you as a person rather than as an enemy.

 

[ThinClient]

See, BudAshes sees what I did there. I actually agree, partially. There definitely are people that don't deserve civility, but they're generally few and far between. Making a sharp point while being civil is completely do-able, it just requires some mastery of subtlety and knowing everyone's positions inside and out.

Doing that, the people too dumb to see what you're saying won't make a ruckus because you said it nicely, and the people that are smart enough might actually appreciate your way of thinking. Plus, then those people will be able to admit it because they're seeing you as a person rather than as an enemy.

I understand, and I agree, to some degree. I'm more of a boot-in-your-face kinda fella. Being subtle is overrated. I like my mongo-smash style. :biggrin:

 

[moonbogg]

Fuck you and your telling other people how to live and how to be.

God dammit.

Allah dammit.

Thor dammit.

Ra dammit.

Fuck you.

You are easily trolled. Also, you are a dick.

Define consciousness.

Basically you're arguing that if you pretend that consciousness is some basic fundamental component of the universe (as in it's right there with matter, antimatter, and the like), that then that wholly rationally enables your opinion that it wasn't "by accident" and therefore you labeling whatever created it as god.

Essentially you've constructed a "hypothetical scenario" for no reason. The same argument you're making already existed, only instead of this strange "consciousness", it was matter. You could literally make your same argument by saying that because matter existed fundamentally to our universe that you therefore believe that something had to create it first and that being you define as God.

All you've actually accomplished with your "hypothetical scenario" is exhibit that your understanding of these concepts is flawed (essentially your scenario exists only so that you can simplify "consciousness" even though it doesn't even have any actual bearing on your argument).

Most of your little thought experiment or whatever you think it is, is just plain nonsense.

Sorry, people pointing out and explaining the flaws in your scenario doesn't make them dicks. In this case literally you're thinking is wrong (as in it doesn't abide by basic logic, hence why you tried to construct your "hypothetical scenario") and therefore you are screwed up for thinking that your "hypothetical scenario" matters at all insofar as the opinion you're expressing.



You don't seem to realize that arguing that your inability to define God in any sense other than God being beyond definition/comprehension/explanation literally contradicts the ability to "demonstrate" existence as well as God's existence (you're seriously arguing that God is beyond existence).

No we perfectly understand what argument you're making, the problem is you think you're arguing some next level thing about how people aren't able to physically observe God and therefore he's above and beyond basic perception, when people are just explaining that the basic foundation of your argument doesn't hold up since you're ignoring what words actually mean ("showing" or "demonstrating" existence literally contradicts it being beyond observance) to try and make your argument true.

Did you just insult me? You are a dick.

 

[alzan]

You are easily trolled. Also, you are a dick.



Did you just insult me? You are a dick.

Yes. May his consciousness, no matter it's origin, smite him.

 

[moonbogg]

Yes. May his consciousness, no matter it's origin, smite him.

Any such consciousness would certainly punish such behavior. I know it because I can feeeeel that its true.

 

[ThinClient]

Also, you are a dick.

Also, man landed on the moon :awe:

 

[Retro Rob]

Believers don't debate the existence of G-d? Which of the following are you saying:

1) Do you mean all believers that are living or who have lived never debated the existence of G-d?

2) That you personally have never met a believer that debated the existence of G-d?

3) That you as a believer don't debate the existence of G-d and because your understanding of the word "believer" is the only one that counts, any other believer that does debate the existence of G-d is not a "true" believer in your eyes?

How exactly is a non-believer religious?

1) Are you saying they are zealous in their non-belief?

2) Are you saying they are devoted in their non-belief?

3) Are you saying they are rigorous or scrupulous in their non-belief?

OK, I think I see my mistake here.

When I said believers don't debate God, I meant that they don't debate whether or not God exists in reality (that God is an actual person that lives), but they do debate his existence from a logical standpoint.

 

[alzan]

OK, I think I see my mistake here.

When I said believers don't debate God, I meant that they don't debate whether or not God exists in reality (that God is an actual person that lives), but they do debate his existence from a logical standpoint.

Thank you.

I'll admit to being somewhat pedantic but really the words we choose to use, whether in face-to-face conversation, online forum posts, etc. are important.

 

[Retro Rob]

Thank you.

I'll admit to being somewhat pedantic but really the words we choose to use, whether in face-to-face conversation, online forum posts, etc. are important.

But that depends as well. You're not what I would call an "asshole". Most times, I can normally shrug it off because of your post history with myself.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

OK, I think I see my mistake here.

When I said believers don't debate God, I meant that they don't debate whether or not God exists in reality (that God is an actual person that lives), but they do debate his existence from a logical standpoint.

Here's my understanding of your meaning:

In your view, believers are those who have been previously convinced of the existence of a god. To them, the matter was settled at some time in the past. They no longer "mull it over," or "wrestle with the idea." For them, a debate has already taken place; it is concluded, and "a god exists" won.

That is a separate issue from whether or not a believer engages in academic debate with non-believers in attempt to reasonably establish the conclusion that "a god exists" in a manner that is consistent and equally compelling to the initial thought process which led the believer to originally accept "a god exists" as a fact in his or her reality.

Added shortly after clicking "submit":

If this is indeed a reasonably accurate description of your view, I still think it ignores the continuous spectrum of certainties that lie between "I'm 100% certain a god exists," and "I'm 100% that no gods exist." I reckon that there are a fair number of individuals that count themselves as believers, but might rate their certainty at, say, 75%, for example. For them, I do not think it is a stretch to suppose that they occasionally debate internally about the relative merits of the alleged fact "a god exists."

 

[moonbogg]

Also, man landed on the moon :awe:

Well played.