It appears to me that this is precisely what you tried to do using spray paint.
1 Like
He will neither acknowledge, nor I suspect understand, that he is using a false equivalence fallacy. His facile analogy is simply hilarious. or similarly the false dichotomy fallacy, he keeps parroting, that not knowing how consciousness could evolve from material processes, means we must assume magic was involved.
3 Likes
Please explain why.
I never said you must assume magic for anything. I told you that some papers refer to the idea of hard emergence as ‘magic’ emergence, and the notion that a property can emerge from nowhere is also considered magic.
If you simply say, ‘I don’t know,’ then fine. You don’t know where qualia originates, and I assume it emerges from more fundamental properties, just like all other known emergent properties.
Yes, it is impossible to measure and falsify, but these challenges apply to any explanation about qualia because qualia itself can’t be measured and all that.
"A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called “comparing apples and oranges.”
K’innel…
And who asserted consciousness “emerged from nowhere”?
It seems you’re adding another straw man fallacy.
Nope, consciousness as an emergent property of the brain is falsifiable, can be tested, and is objectively evidenced. Must we go through this fact anew every time?
Perhaps it’s time for @JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU to come clean, and tell us which deity he/she/they believe exists, and why?
I think it’s clear panpsychism is broadly, if not universally disbelieved here. I think why, has been made as clear as it ever can be.
Okay, I’ll simply ask him this question, who/what do you think exists, and is it responsible for the creation of the universe? Is he/she/it responsible for EVERYTHING that has happened in the past? Does it know what’s going to happen to every person who has lived, or who is living today, or what’s going to happen to everyone in the future?
Forget this consciousness’ origins stuff, why do tens of thousands of people starve to death every day? Their faith isn’t strong enough to save them, or their lack of faith, or even their lack of knowledge in your lord not enough?
Why do children die of bone cancer every single day? Why the fuck was our fourth granddaughter Piper stillborn 6 years ago 8 months into our daughter-in-law’s pregnancy?
FUCK this metaphysical crap, how the hell can you believe in a creator who oversees everyone/thing when this world is so fucked up?
1 Like
I believe that the Universe has always existed.
After all, why is it so easy to believe in a God that has always existed forever into past . . . yet not believe in a Universe that has always existed infinitely into the past?
As for why I think that the Universe has always existed? This position seems to satisfy the requirements of Occam’s Razor.
2 Likes
For me, at least, believing is not something based on an argument but rather a personal decision. So, I’m not sure at all that my answer will satisfy you, just to make that clear before starting.
To begin with, in my case, believing in God makes me more efficient when dealing with difficulties. I see existence as a chaotic place that I have to bring order to. It requires a lot of energy, hard work, making difficult decisions no one wants to make, and controlling my fears—whether about the future, the past, the present, or unexpected misfortunes. I have to find creative solutions for all of this and analyze situations to uncover the real causes of problems, and so on.
To accomplish all of this, I need an effective strategy. Particularly in terms of psychology, I require a robust structure to help me manage these challenges, because I cannot allow myself to fall into a spiral of despair, as those around me would also pay the price for it. This is why I found that believing in God simply works for me. It provides the strength, motivation, and sense of security to act, even when my mind is overwhelmed by fear.
So, to summarize, in my case, it’s a practical matter—I solve more problems believing than not believing.
1 Like
Then what, do tell, is the point of debating a subject at all?
3 Likes
Not everything we do or believe must have a rational argument behind it.
1 Like
Then what’s the difference between believing in God and believing in leprechuans?
3 Likes
I don’t care what you think you need to do in your own mind in order to deal with your difficulties. If your god exists, why is everything in the world so fucked up? How can you rationalize all of the suffering in the world if your imaginary friend is a loving, just, and righteous entity?
I noticed you didn’t address all of my questions, so why do children die every single day from leukemia or bone cancer? Was it god’s choice to punish our entire family by letting our fourth granddaughter die within the womb after 8 months of development?
Was it just a test of their faith for our daughter-in-law to have to have her labor induced, and to deliver their dead little girl hours later?
Can you solve any of these problems, even with your god’s help?
I didn’t think so.
1 Like
Obviously, the difference lies in the effect it has on individuals. The concept of belief is universal and can have many explanations, but people believe in something because it provokes a response in them—not all beliefs can do that. In this case, it’s important to be practical: observe the effects and evaluate whether the belief is worth holding.
Does this question help you solve the problem? Does providing an argument change any of this suffering? No.
What helps us overcome suffering is the ability to take action. I found my way, it works for me, and I won’t give it up because it allows me to do what’s best.
Maybe you need to find how you can contribute to improving the situation.
1 Like
You keep saying we, when I think you mean I?
2 Likes
What is the effect? Because I’ve met folks who had what could be called a very positive effect from a belief in a god. I’ve met folks who had what could be called a very negative effect from a belief in a god.
2 Likes
Do you think that there should be laws enacted (or maintained) based on it?
3 Likes
I don’t see anything in there about whether it is objectively true? Also this claim is made by people from wildly differing religious beliefs, and deities, and that also suggests that an emotional investment in a belief is not an effective way to measure it’s veracity. Indeed it seems like a way to invest more subjective bias, rather than remove it.
I am curious then, why you brought this belief to an atheist debate forum? As you must have known it would be subjected to critical scrutiny? That seems an odd thing to do, when the belief is clearly more important to you than critically examining that belief.
Also best for whom and in what way? Religious doctrines have caused, and still cause, a lot of harm after all.
3 Likes
Ok. A belief in the Abrahamic God has led to the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, lynchings of minority people in the American Deep South, slavery in the Deep South, Jihdism in Islam, the morality police in places like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, genocide of the Native Americans, the effort to teach creationism in public schools, and so on.
As for me . . . I’d rather believe in leprechuans.
No offense intended.
2 Likes