Empirical Evidence of God

[Jan Ardena]

So you believe, Jan. So you believe.

I don't have to believe it, as it is woven into any language.
Of course feel free to show that is not the case.

The person who owns my sense of I, my sense of self - and according to you that can't possibly make sense.

We're aren't talking about ''the sense of I'', and who is the ''me'' in this sentence?

It's entirely normal for children to believe in fairies or other mythical creatures. It's entirely normal for people to believe in superstitions.

Then you have some idea of where I'm coming from.

I learnt to think for myself, Jan.

Have you really?
It seems to me you're just going along with the usual atheist denial and rejection.

Which part, that I'm genuinely looking forward to the day you stop portraying someone who has given it minimal thought, and stop relying on repetition of mantras and statements of belief in lieu of argument? Or the part that my view will remain unchanged until you do?

But they're not mantras, Sarkus. They represent your fundamental position. The position you deny, and or reject.
You can't have your cake, and eat it.

Until then, your statement of not believing me is pretty much irrelevant.

I don't think that is the case Sarkus.

jan.

 

[sweetpea]

Because nature feels like it?

As I said , Evolution has no plan. We are here pondering things like origins because we are here pondering things like orgins. Evolution is not like your god thingy having thoughts and planning things ahead.

Good question. You should try and answer it honestly.

Things are only honest if they agree with your belief?

In what way are ''you'' nature?

Everything about me is a product of Nature via Evolution. You just can't accept that. I know I'm not a tree or a rock, that doesn't mean I was ''made'' by a god.

So again I ask. How is consciousness a part of nature, when nature left to it's own device is clearly not conscious?

My origin was in Nature and via Evolution I am Nature conscious and thinking.

What is the ultimate advantage of instinct? We see species become extinct, but what does it matter?
If every living being became extinct, and the universe imploded, becoming lifeless fragments, how is that anymore of an advantage, from your worldview perspective?

Don't understand where your coming from here? Is this something to do with your ace in the hole, your god?

I said God didn't become self-aware. Self-awareness is God in total. We are self-aware because God is self-aware.

You are aware that is only your belief.

Why do you accept there is no God, despite what you may think?

Because Nature via Evolution made me that way.

 

[Sarkus]

I don't have to believe it, as it is woven into any language.
Of course feel free to show that is not the case.

The ability to refer to something as one's own is certainly part of language. I haven't said otherwise. The issue is that you are trying to use the ability to talk of owning one's body (i.e. talking about "my body") as some sort of proof of substance dualism (the dualism between the body and the soul, the "I"). Yet when I quite validly offer as a contrary position the ability to talk about "my soul", or "my 'I'" you cry foul. You are simply attempting to special plead for the illegitimacy of any example that doesn't suit your case.
It has been noted. It has been called out.
I have no doubt you believe it, Jan, but your argument is fallacious, as demonstrated, despite your unwillingness to accept it.

We're aren't talking about ''the sense of I'', and who is the ''me'' in this sentence?

Is this a question or a statement? I ask as, though you have used a question-mark at the end, it makes no sense as a question in relation to what I said. Please can you clarify what you are asking.

Then you have some idea of where I'm coming from.

Yes, you are coming from a misunderstanding of a report that you read (or that was referenced in something you read) where you have taken propensity for humans to believe in the certain things as somehow being a reason for the beliefs to be beyond challenge, and to be unsupported.
When young we have a propensity to believe in superstition, in monsters, in mythical creatures. By your reasoning these things are beyond challenge. By your logic those no longer believing in those things must support their lack of belief.
Your critical thinking skills in this regard, Jan, really do seem to be those of just such a child.

Have you really?
It seems to me you're just going along with the usual atheist denial and rejection.

Yes, the "usual" being having no convincing reason to believe. To me that is convincing enough reason not to hold the belief. Why would that not be enough for you? Do you still believe in fairies, Santa, mythical creatures, the Easter Bunny?

But they're not mantras, Sarkus. They represent your fundamental position. The position you deny, and or reject.
You can't have your cake, and eat it.

They represent your strawman view of atheism, Jan. You patently refuse to listen to anything any atheist actually tells you other than when it neatly fits your strawman. And then you tend to latch on to it as if it proves your strawman is more than what it is.
The more you revert to them the more pointless your involvement on this website becomes, and given how frequently you use them...

I don't think that is the case Sarkus.

Irrelevant. So pretty much like most of what you say.

 

[Sarkus]

Just remember if you are not believed in the default is you exist

I think (I use the word think very lightly) the idea behind the concept is if you are not believing in something ergo there HAS to be SOMETHING for you NOT to believe in

Yep - bizarre thinking indeed.

That's why I have monsters under my bed and because I could not believe I had won the Miss Universe contest I have the trophy in my cabinet

You too?

 

[TheFrogger]

If there was God the conditions would have been as in a machine. Artificial intelligence!

 

[Write4U]

If there was God the conditions would have been as in a machine. Artificial intelligence!

Or perhaps more accurately put; a mathematical pseudo-intelligent function.
Something like a natural "cause --> effect" function of "if this" --> "then that".

 

[Michael 345]

You too?

As I recall you have the Miss World

Mine Miss Universe

And you have Big Foot

I have Loch Ness Monster

 

[Write4U]

As I recall you have the Miss World

Mine Miss Universe

And you have Big Foot

I have Loch Ness Monster

Here in Idaho we have ticks. Tick , tick , tick .........

 

[Michael 345]

Idaho

You have potatoes that go tick?


Neat

 

[Write4U]

You have potatoes that go tick?

View attachment 2046
Neat

Those too. Actually I have been working on a car that runs on potatoes. Results are promising.
So far a 10 lb bag of potatoes will give me 123 miles, and have 7 lbs of edible precooked mashed potatoes as a byproduct. One problem I am working on is cleaning the potato hopper while driving and packaging the mashed potatoes for resale . Space and aerodynamics are the main obstacle to overcome before we can go into production.....

p.s. I'm selling shares in the POTATOMOBILE, llc

 

[Write4U]

You have potatoes that go tick?

View attachment 2046
Neat .............

An additional detail in the potato clock is that the potatoes must be of exact same weight or the clock will run fast or slow depending on polarity....
Found that sprouts on the potatoes affect the polarity significantly.

But the beauty of the potato clock is that it also creates delicious baked potatoes "over time", no need to buy batteries ever again. Every week two delicious baked potatoes and a fresh clock.
I like potatoes..... tick......tick......tick...

 

[Michael 345]

Found that sprouts on the potatoes affect the polarity significantly.

To many sprouts and you find you reverse time

 

[Jan Ardena]

The issue is that you are trying to use the ability to talk of owning one's body (i.e. talking about "my body") as some sort of proof of substance dualism (the dualism between the body and the soul, the "I"). Yet when I quite validly offer as a contrary position the ability to talk about "my soul", or "my 'I'" you cry foul.

I'm not offering it as proof of anything.
It is simply a starting place. We are not our bodies.

Not everyone see the soul as the self, so yes people will refer to ''my soul''.
But no one refers to ''I'' as ''my I''. That would be illogical, and for good reason.

It has been noted. It has been called out.
I have no doubt you believe it, Jan, but your argument is fallacious, as demonstrated, despite your unwillingness to accept it.

It's not an argument, it is a fact. Now you can deny this fact, but it doesn't change it. We know we are not our bodies, instinctively.
The next obvious question should be, what are we, so we can understand who we are. Not trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

You are simply attempting to special plead for the illegitimacy of any example that doesn't suit your case.

We already know we don't have a sense of "me" or "I". Because that begs the question, who is having these sense.
You have to claim ownership. You cannot have a conversation where you can act as though you are the body.

I have no doubt you believe it, Jan, but your argument is fallacious, as demonstrated, despite your unwillingness to accept it.

Where have you demonstrated that?
You demonstrate I am right everytime you talk. But you want to set up a hypothetical scenario, where you can make your case, just as you do with God.
That way you can go on and on.

Is this a question or a statement? I ask as, though you have used a question-mark at the end, it makes no sense as a question in relation to what I said. Please can you clarify what you are asking.

Who is having the "sense of "I", in your scenario?

jan.

 

[TheFrogger]

...only the penitent man will pass.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm not offering it as proof of anything.
It is simply a starting place. We are not our bodies.

That is what you believe, and you support it through this ridiculous argument from language.

Not everyone see the soul as the self, so yes people will refer to ''my soul''.
But no one refers to ''I'' as ''my I''. That would be illogical, and for good reason.

It's not illogical at all, although you clearly need to see it as such to be able to dismiss it. I get that.

It's not an argument, it is a fact. Now you can deny this fact, but it doesn't change it.

If you think it a fact rather than just your belief, your opinion, then demonstrate this fact, Jan. Prove to me that we are not our bodies, that there is a substance dualism between the body and the self. Can you do that, please?

We know we are not our bodies, instinctively.

Some certainly believe it. Others do not. Neither belief need be instinctive. Furthermore, instincts can be wrong.

The next obvious question should be, what are we, so we can understand who we are. Not trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

For those who believe there are square holes and round pegs, it would undoubtedly seem a strange thing to do. Unfortunately for you, not everyone shares your belief. You can try to assert your belief as fact, but hopefully you have more to support it than mere assertion and an argument from language?

We already know we don't have a sense of "me" or "I". Because that begs the question, who is having these sense.

You don't have a sense of "I"? Seriously????
Now I know that you're just making shit up on the spot and trying to polish it as hard as you can.

You have to claim ownership. You cannot have a conversation where you can act as though you are the body.

Language is not proof of reality, Jan. It is merely an indication of cultural history and how thinks might appear.

Where have you demonstrated that?

Every time one refers to one's own sense of "I". Rather puts a gaping hole in the argument from language you were otherwise using.

You demonstrate I am right everytime you talk. But you want to set up a hypothetical scenario, where you can make your case, just as you do with God.
That way you can go on and on.

Ah, back to your lack of actual argument, I see. Just simple unwillingness to address any issue, and reversion to your state of ignorance.

Who is having the "sense of "I", in your scenario?

The individual, Jan. Not another individual, who has their own sense of I.

 

[Write4U]

To many sprouts and you find you reverse time

An intriguing question. Do you suppose the potato will keep growing in size or the univere will start shrinking in size, t0 accommodate some kind of differential time equation?

 

[Write4U]

...only the penitent man will pass.

Penitent for what? How dare you even suggest someone else needs to be penitent! Hubris!

Clean up your own garden before you critique someone else's garden. This is not funny....

 

[Michael 345]

An intriguing question. Do you suppose the potato will keep growing in size or the univere will start shrinking in size, t0 accommodate some kind of differential time equation?

Not sure about the shrinking although you could be right on that point

As I get older parts of my body appear to be shrinking

And Scientists looking at one of Saturn's moons remark it looks like a potato

It's a strange Universe we live in

What was the original post about? Can potatoes prove there is a god?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Not sure about the shrinking although you could be right on that point

As I get older parts of my body appear to be shrinking

And Scientists looking at one of Saturn's moons remark it looks like a potato

It's a strange Universe we live in

What was the original post about? Can potatoes prove there is a god?

///
Lord of the fries?

<>

 

[Michael 345]

///
Lord of the fries?

<>

Well would you believe?

What was the original post about? Can potatoes prove there is a god?

http://www.angelfire.com/pa2/potatogod/

As I mentioned We live in a strange Universe