God:the early answer to a problem?

rather than reinvent my language, just indicate a conscious source that is not based on life
Click to expand...

A loaded statement that works on the very same presupposition that all life must be conscious. The question is also fallacious. That dead things aren't conscious does not in any way argue that all living things are. Of course it is always going to be an issue when you define life as consciousness and you define consciousness as not-dead. Enjoy your circular argument, I really don't have the patience.

to which I offered - find a dead thing, compare it to a live thing, and get back to us with the results
Click to expand...

But that does not take into account living things that aren't conscious unless you've already made the presupposition that everything living is conscious which is exactly why your entire argument is circular. Needless to add, that dead things are not conscious is not an argument that all living things are. If you think it is then you're not ready for serious discussion or you have some seriously warped definition of "life", (oh look, you do).

did you come to a different conclusion from your results?
Click to expand...

No, there are various forms of life that are not conscious. Studying the dead was of no relevance to that.

I'll have to join Enmos, you're clueless.
 
Snakelord
rather than reinvent my language, just indicate a conscious source that is not based on life
”
A loaded statement that works on the very same presupposition that all life must be conscious. The question is also fallacious. That dead things aren't conscious does not in any way argue that all living things are. Of course it is always going to be an issue when you define life as consciousness and you define consciousness as not-dead. Enjoy your circular argument, I really don't have the patience.
Click to expand...
once again, if you want to take this point of discussion further, simply indicate a conscious source that is not based on life.
As it stands though, contrasting a dead bug with a living bug is a simple way to indicate the nature of consciousness
“
to which I offered - find a dead thing, compare it to a live thing, and get back to us with the results
”
But that does not take into account living things that aren't conscious unless you've already made the presupposition that everything living is conscious which is exactly why your entire argument is circular.
Click to expand...
then indicate a living thing that is not conscious and perhaps we can go a little further with these definitions

Needless to add, that dead things are not conscious is not an argument that all living things are. If you think it is then you're not ready for serious discussion or you have some seriously warped definition of "life", (oh look, you do).
“
did you come to a different conclusion from your results?
”
No, there are various forms of life that are not conscious. Studying the dead was of no relevance to that.

I'll have to join Enmos, you're clueless.
Click to expand...
actually if you look at the definition emnos offered

Commonly accepted definition: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

you can see that it introduces the same concept that I began on.
If you can't fathom the simplest definition of consciousness, why on earth do you think the situation demands more complex defintions?
 
fusion4577 said:
The big bang theory, cloning, areas of scieance that have discussion on reproduction and the creation of man and matter
Click to expand...

There is an overwhelming amount of variables to consider the big bang theory a “fact”, that’s why it’s called “the big bang theory”. Even if it would be “fact”, how does that prove that there is no super natural being?


I curious as to how cloning would disprove God? This may be an interesting subject that I have yet to be enlightened on. Anyone care to explain further?
 
once again, if you want to take this point of discussion further, simply indicate a conscious source that is not based on life.
Click to expand...

Your argument again presupposes that because the dead are not conscious that all life must be. The argument is fallacious. So yes, you can example living organisms that are conscious and dead ones that are not, it is not an argument that all living organisms are. That you cannot understand that fact hints at a serious problem on your part.

contrasting a dead bug with a living bug is a simple way to indicate the nature of consciousness
Click to expand...

Incorrect. A dead bug versus a living bug indicates the nature of life, of which "consciousness" is not actually a given definition. That you pretend it is so doesn't change the fact.

then indicate a living thing that is not conscious and perhaps we can go a little further with these definitions
Click to expand...

Mycoplasma genitalium, cocoon mush, a blastocyst

But wait, according to the fallacious lg definition of consciousness, these things aren't even alive, and if someone says they are alive then they must be conscious, hence the circular argument.

actually if you look at the definition emnos offered
Click to expand...

I have noticed than when your idiocy is pointed out as the idiocy that it is you blame it on someone else. It's the thing with you witnessed in thread after thread after thread. From myself and Enmos here, Ice Aura in the other thread, to Myles and Tiassa and so on and so forth that all recognise that you cannot answer questions and when you do they are either irrelevant or just fallacious.

Let's get it straight lg, you were asked for your definition of life, (edit: and that took 20 posts), your definition of consciousness, (that is still technically wanting. The best we got was not-dead). That you provide a definition completely against the actual definition is your own fault. That you then try and defend an already faulty position is your own fault. "But you said a fish becomes a bird"... no, they never did.. it was purely your inaccuracy that led to your inaccurate conclusions. That you didn't listen when they pointed out your error is your own fault.

No lg, "life" does not mean consciousness. That dead things are not conscious does not mean all living things are unless you have a warped definition of consciousness and life, which you do given your own statements, (consciousness=not death life=consciousness). But wait, it's not you.. it's everyone else.

If you can't fathom the simplest definition of consciousness,
Click to expand...

Wait... does "simplest" mean 'actual' or 'lg version'?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top