It Wouldn't Take Much

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The anthropic principle is so huge it's amazing and virtually screams that God meant the whole thing in order to produce us and provide us with a place to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this atheist says that the anthropic principle screams that god meant it in order to submit all sentience to suffering and a place to experience it.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">

The atheists who shoo that aside are morons.




No, they are rebels. </font>

Should I have specified biblical God? The whole reason for my post was to point out that we are NOT rebels and that it really wouldn't take much for us to start suspecting that a supreme being of some sort existed.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is only slightly less dumb to adamantly believe there cannot be life after death. At least not until consciouness is explained better.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it's impossible to say for certain that there is no life after death, there is a lot of evidence pointing in that direction. I doubt you can name a single function of the human mind that can't be knocked out with careful destruction of the right brain tissue. Any of the five senses can be taken out (and the sixth sense, proprioception, even though most people don't even realise they have it). Higher cognition can be taken out. Personality and emotional tendencies can be altered. The ability to access old memories, or create new ones, can be destroyed. Given that progressive destruction of sections of the brain results in progressive destruction of the person's consciousness, it is reasonable to assume that total destruction of the brain results in total destruction of consciousness.

Note that consciousness itself, while still somewhat mysterious, is definitely something that can be switched off, like a light, just like the rest of the brain's functions. It happens all the time in sleep, general anaesthesia, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great example of why David ranks you so high!

[Lestat]

I don't think you're Catholic so maybe this won't register with you, but pretend you are just for a second...

Why wouldn't you expect God to keep a really good pope around for a few hundred years? I mean, this wouldn't require anything that broke the mystique. It's not like God would have to show Himself or break any major physical law.

I guess what I'm asking is, why does God always behave exactly as we'd expect Him to if He didn't exist? Why wouldn't He EVER behave as though He *might* actually exist?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

why does God always behave exactly as we'd expect Him to if He didn't exist?


[/ QUOTE ]

Would you really expect Him to become man, live a perfect life, die a horrible death and be resurrected - all because He loves us and wants to save us from our rebellion against Him?

[Lestat]

There's no improving on ChrisV's reply to your life after death and consciousness comment.

I'm not sure any thinking atheist "shoos aside" the question of how the universe came to be. However, I'm not sure it's wrong to shoo aside apparent reason. To assume some grand reason meaningul to earthlings is presumptuous at best.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

why does God always behave exactly as we'd expect Him to if He didn't exist?


[/ QUOTE ]

Would you really expect Him to become man, live a perfect life, die a horrible death and be resurrected - all because He loves us and wants to save us from our rebellion against Him?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have questions about this, but they're for a different thread. But even if I concede this story as being undeniable true (which of course, I don't), what about the last 2000 years?! Please provide some explanation for those of us who live in this day and age.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
While it's impossible to say for certain that there is no life after death, there is a lot of evidence pointing in that direction. I doubt you can name a single function of the human mind that can't be knocked out with careful destruction of the right brain tissue. Any of the five senses can be taken out (and the sixth sense, proprioception, even though most people don't even realise they have it). Higher cognition can be taken out. Personality and emotional tendencies can be altered. The ability to access old memories, or create new ones, can be destroyed. Given that progressive destruction of sections of the brain results in progressive destruction of the person's consciousness, it is reasonable to assume that total destruction of the brain results in total destruction of consciousness.

Note that consciousness itself, while still somewhat mysterious, is definitely something that can be switched off, like a light, just like the rest of the brain's functions. It happens all the time in sleep, general anaesthesia, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that one can destroy a being in no way obviates the soul/spiritual world. This is the inexorable miasma of abstract materialism. You're really presenting death but become estranged from it by flying up into thoughts which are divorced from reality. It seems that you are tearing yourself up into parts and pieces into the proverbial "dust" which in conventional scientific parlance is sodium, potassium, iron,etc.

OK, your thoughts have taken you to only perceiving yourself as material but you really haven't thoughtfully considered the consequences of your thinking. So I ask you; what are the consequences of the truths which you have presented? I would prefer a non equivocal answer. If you hedge you know you are wrong but refuse to state your position(YOUR HEDGE-"While it's IMPOSSIBLE to say for certain that there is no life after death, there is a lot of EVIDENCE POINTING in that direction".

So come to the conclusions of the non hedged portion of your statements. I think Bertram Russell is apropos here as when he came to the materialist conclusion and DID THINK FARTHER he fell into a MATERIALIST FUNK.This funk came about consequential to his intellectual honesty. You could say that it corrected, improved and brought growth to his soul.

If a human being has his arms cut off could you honestly say that this even comes close to disproving the soul/spiritual world because he could no longer feed himself?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of them talk about virtual particles and the like even though they barely understand them.

[/ QUOTE ] I brought up virtual particles only as an example of why something might appear from nothing and not necessarily have a reason. I should have just brought up your kid playing with his chemistry set in the fifth diminsion example. My sole contention with NR's comment was his claim that there needs to be a reason ( as in a specific Christian God, who created the universe solely so that we humans on earth could worship him). I concurred with NR that something from nothing is indeed mind blowing to me.

[Lestat]

I think ChrisV is simply (and eloquently), stating that as the brain dies, so does consciousness. As the brain is altered, so is consciousness. Therefore, it does not follow that only a moron would dismiss life/consciousness existing after death.

You are presupposing a soul plain and simple. You jump to a conclusion in order to arrive at a conclusion.