You have absolutely no Proof that lifeless inanimate matter produced consciousness . Consciousness has no use to a blind pitiless meaningless purposeless lifeless universe as it is not causally formed and it is pretty much useless to a quantitative universe.
If the universe is meaningless then how could you possibly know the universe is meaningless ?
The burden of proof for all of this lays clearly at your feet . You are making the claims .
Yeah but you must admit that goat herders have some amazing intellect and scientific knowledge , and dare I say it , even more than you . I mean thereâs this goat herder as well -
I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen that none will work without God.â
âScience is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.â
**â**Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory, and whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude to those of Einstein and Newton.
(James Clerk Maxwell, W. D. Niven (2003). The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, p.376, Courier Corporation).
âââ
[quote=âSid, post:1082, topic:3719, full:trueâ]
Nor did I claim to have, I said consciousness evolved, and we have overwhelming objective evidence for that. No matter how many times you repeat your lie, conflating abiogenesis with evolution, it will remain a lie.
Correct, but not the lies youâre pretending I made, do you really imagine we donât know what a straw man fallacy is? Youâre not the first theists to come here to peddle their unevidenced beliefs.
You canât demonstrate a shred of objective evidence that any deity or anything supernatural is even possible, you have no rational argument, as anyone can see your posts relentlessly use known common logical fallacies, as youâve done here.
We know the material universe exists, and we know organic life exists, and we know human consciousness exists, and of course we know natural phenomena are exist, the only things we have no objective evidence for at all are the imaginary deity and inexplicable magic youâre trying to add. Again then, this clearly violates Occamâs razor, and no one needs to know how life emerged to see your claim is irrational, and completely unevidenced.
Human emotions evolved, and several posters have offered ample objective evidence and scientific citations to support that, you on the other hand canât explain why you think love evidences your imaginary deity.
And whose unevidenced opinion on his subjective superstitious beliefs that you have quoted is clearly another appeal to authority fallacy.
"On January 3, 1954, Einstein sent the following reply to Gutkind: âThe word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. âŚâ
Anyone can create an appeal to authority fallacy, the fact remains that there is no scientific evidence for any deity, and this is of course reflected by the fact that atheism is vastly higher among scientists. Though of course all one need do is flick on any news channel to know science hasnât evidenced a deity, can you imagine the hypocritical furore that navel gazers would indulge.
Still no answer to this @Sid, as anyone reading your duplicitous obfuscation can see.
Itâs not going away champ, you can thrash around all you want.
Yes suggests, did you have a point? Or is suggest another word you donât understand the meaning of?
Suggest
verb
2. cause one to think that (something) exists or is the case.
SynonymsâŚindicateâŚshowâŚdemonstrateâŚ
So your pathetic semantics are simply dishonest evasion, to handwave the evidence that you asked for away, without honestly addressing it. Youâre happy to use irrational appeals to authority by quoting Nobel Laureates espousing unevidenced superstition, but then reject scientific evidence. This kind of hypocrisy is not new among religious apologists of course, weâve seen many come here and try to cherry pick scientific facts, and ignore their closed minded bias, but others will see through such duplicitous antics.
That is still true of course, and @Sidâs posts are demonstrating this fact every time.
*Jesus shaped crisp.
2 Likes
Yawn. Did any of these individuals find evidence for a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology? No they didnât. Your fatuous excursion into mythology fanboy âquotesâ territory fails on that basis.
Oh, and once again, scientists do not postulate that matter was created from ânothingâ. This is what your goat herder mythology asserts, namely that your cartoon magic man (if it ever existed) waved its magic todger about and poofed a universe into existence from nothing.
Instead, what scientists in the modern era actually postulate, is that testable natural processes were responsible for the formation of the matter we observe. Primordial hydrogen and helium appeared when the ambient temperature of the universe cooled sufficiently to allow neutral atoms to form from the protons and electrons present. Heavier elements up to iron and nickel were synthesised in the first generation of large mass stars, and indeed are being synthesised in subsequent generations thereof as I write this. We have the spectroscopic data informing us of this. Furthermore, spectroscopic analysis of supernova remnants informs us that elements beyond iron and nickel are being synthesised via neutron capture and subsequent beta decay along the neutron drip line.
Maxwell lived in an era when nuclear physics did not exist. Itâs not surprising that he thought the question was difficult to put it mildly, but guess what, Looby Loo? Weâve learned entire new physics since his time, and furthermore, have pressed that new physics into service to add a further 23 elements to the Periodic Table. Every element beyond Uranium (atomic number 92) was discovered via synthesis thereof in nuclear reactions. Americium first showed up in nuclear bomb fallout, and was then synthesised in controlled nuclear reactors. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory makes money by synthesising transuranic isotopes to order, as revealed in this video, provided by the University of Nottingham in itâs âPeriodic Table of Videosâ series:
Indeed, wait for it, Americium-241 is pressed into service in smoke detectors. I had three such detectors in my own home, until they reached their expiry dates, and replacements are on order.
Trying to use âquotesâ from a scientist who died before nuclear physics existed to try and prop up a strawman caricature about the nature of matter really is fucking dishonest
You never fucking learn anything, do you? This is the third time you resorted to the dishonest âquotesâ tactic of mythology fanboys, and itâs failed every time among those of us who paid attention in class, and learned basic facts that you manifestly never bothered to learn. I donât even have to address your blatant appeal to authority and blatant credential worshipping to demolish your shit.
But wait, thereâs more.
I was going to present the following material in its own post, but serendipitously youâve provided me with the perfect opportunity to demonstrate once again, that you have nothing of substance to offer, and that by contrast, science is discovering new knowledge that mythology fanboys like you are incapable of even fantasising about.
Iâll start by posting a link to the non-technical account of the latest finding here, but of more interest is the peer reviewed scientific paper, namely this one:
Spatial Variations In Aromatic Hydrocarbon Emission In A Dust-Rich Galaxy by Justin S. Spilker, Kedar A. Phadke, Manuel Aravena, Melanie Archipley, Matthew B. Bayliss, Jack E. Birkin, Matthieu BĂŠthermin, James Burgoyne, Jared Cathey, Scott C. Chapman, HĂĽkon Dahle, Anthony H. Gonzalez, Gayathri Gururajan, Christopher C. Hayward, Yashar D. Hezaveh, Ryley Hill, Taylor A. Hutchison, Keunho J. Kim, Seonwoo Kim, David Law, Ronan Legin, Matthew A. Malkan, Daniel P. Marrone, Eric J. Murphy, Desika Narayanan, Alex Navarre, Grace M. Olivier, Jeffrey A. Rich, Jane R. Rigby, Cassie Reuter, James E. Rhoads, Keren Sharon, J. D. T. Smith, Manuel Solimano, Nikolaus Sulzenauer, Joaquin D. Vieira, David Vizgan, Axel WeiĂ & Katherine E. Whitaker, Nature, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-05998-6 [source]
Oh wait, the authors of that paper detected via spectroscopic analysis, the presence of organic molecules relevant to the origin of life, in a galaxy 12 billion light years distant from Earth. Which means that those molecules were formed via relevant chemical processes 12 billion years ago.
Itâs hilarious seeing you post duplicitous excrement, only for your excursions into this realm to provide me with the opportunity to present scientific findings, that make your attachment to a goat herder mythology look not merely lame, but borderline insane.
Modern scientists are alighting upon data that increasingly destroys the ludicrous assertions of your sad little goat herder mythology, and your mendacious attempt to use past scientists not aware of this knowledge in your tedious and suppuratingly dishonest apologetics, merely speaks of your desperation in this matter.
Oh @Sid thinks his claims are exempt from any evidentiary support, thatâs why he doesnât bother trying. Of course this makes @Sidâs cherry picking the unevidenced superstitious claims of Nobel Laureates all the more ironic. He has zero interest in their scientific achievements, only in the irrational belief that these somehow lend some gravitas to their unevidenced religious beliefs.
But of course, he never learns from having this mendacity exposed for the sham that it is. Heâs becoming practically the poster child for mythology fanboy discoursive duplicity.
I think we can all agree, that you should stay away from picket fences.
Honestly though, Iâm glad you are alright.
This is a Hitchens level bitch slap, I even read it in my head, with the voice of Christopher himself.
Oh, it was Hitchens! No wonder then haha.
@Sid, please provide your definition for devout.
Who said that?!
And, fwiw, proof is not a proper noun.
2 Likes
The Nobel prize guy herds goats??? 
2 Likes
And explain how you think the existence of evolved human emotions like love, is evidence for any deity, without using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, since this was a claim you made?
Uh, it seems apropos to mention that the recently passed Tina Turner had a huge hit that speaks to the subject.
.
.
Edit ( hint: itâs not Proud Mary)
1 Like
LOL I love reading this shit!
1 Like
Hypothetically, Every scientist that has ever lived may believe in a god, that doesnât mean its a fact.
There is still no objective evidence in favor of the proposal, so you still have all your work ahead of you.
1 Like
Really, Skrit? Iâm a little confused here. What, exactly, has love got to do with living life beyond the Thunderdome?
Well, Iâm just saying we donât need another hero, so Iâm gonnaâ go find me a private dancer just outside Nutbush city limitsâŚ
3 Likes