/sci/ - Science & Math

Science will make judgements on anything based on evidence. If it doesn't have evidence, science says there is no reason to believe it.

Therefore, science says there is no reason to believe in God. Although there is the possibility he may exist.

>>1378963

Paul (PBUH) is God. There IS evidence of His powers. He does exist.

The Christian God is a necessary being.
If He can exist, He must exist.

The job of the atheist is to demonstrate that a being greater than any other is logically impossible. I have yet to see this convincingly done.

>>1378965

Ok then:
1) Evidence for Paul please
2) Evidence that Paul is God

>>1378969

>If He can exist, He must exist.
That's why its so funny to see Dawkins say that the existence of God is possible(though incredibly unlikely). Dawkins is, in effect, claiming that God exists without realizing it.

>>1378973

Evidence for Paul (PBUH)? wtfamIreading?
google paul octopus.
shit brix.
bow down to your new god.

>>1378976

Oh shit. Checkmate, you got me.

>>1378969

>The Christian God is a necessary being.
>If He can exist, He must exist.

Explain. Because as it stands those are assertions with no backing.

>>1378969
I'm an editor.

>>1378987

Theists claim that their God has every logically sound perfection.
Necessary being is one of those perfections.

>>1378984

s'alright. now you know.

My grandfather is a doctor of theology and divinity, and recently sent me a small message about the existence of god. Its basis is *not*, however, in anything scientific; more the philosophical. Would anybody like me to post it?

>>1378996

Nope.

/sci/ - Science and Math
not
/sci/ - Philosophy and Faggotry

>>1378996
no, GTFO

>>1379002
>>1379003
Okay.

>>1378996

>Would anybody like me to post it?

Yes please.

▼
▼ ▼

>>1379002

/sci/ - Paul

>>1378969
>The job of the atheist is to demonstrate that a being greater than any other is logically impossible.

No, evidence does not support the existence of this "being greater than any other" which is not any deifinition of God I've ever heard. Whatever that may be, and whatever God may be, it's seldom useful to try to prove a negative, such as the impossibility of something's existence. It's also unnecessary to atheism.

>once and for all
>both sides stick to their guns come hell or high water
>no survivors

>OP is another (or same) troll
>sage
>implying herbs

>>1378996

This forum can only really discuss God in the context of evidence and reason, the area of science. Even that's stretching it a bit tbh.

Probably.

>>1378994

"I believe X exists, because one of it's properties is that it exists, derp derp"

That could be the most retarded argument I've ever heard for the existence of God. Poor theists...

>>1379016

>which is not any deifinition of God I've ever heard
You've never heard of Anselm's famous 'Ontological Argument'?

Anselm calls God "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"

>evidence does not support the existence of this "being greater than any other"
If He can exist, He must exist.
The conclusion necessarily follows from the premise.
It's like math bro.

>>1379023
If Anselm could use logic to develop that point he could have used logic to establish it. It's like poor math.

>>1379022

>Believing that something exists because it has to exist.
It's a pretty strong argument. We've seen some amazing modern versions which make great use of modal logic. You should explore one of them. It might convert you ;)

>>1379033

It's not that complicated.
If you can conceive of something, that thing is logically possible.

You can't conceive of square triangles; they cannot exist.
You can conceive of God; he can exist.

If God can exist; He must exist.

i like how you chase the only guy qualified to put forward a philosophical argument out of the thread because it's philosophy, and then proceed to discuss a philosophical argument

>>1379040
lold hard

>>1379036

While I'm willing to accept I could be wrong about Godm this a priori nonsense is pathetic. It assumes existence is more perfect than non-existence (good luck proving that). You saying it's a strong argument doesn't make it so.

>>1379040
Yeah, still no reason to throw in that last part. You're right, though, it's not complicated.

>>1379066
>>1379036

The perfect chocolate gateau is one that exists on my table right now...

Extrapolate from there.

>>1379066

>It assumes existence is more perfect than non-existence

Non-existence doesn't exist.
Everything that exists is good.

>>1379040
>You can conceive of God; he can exist.
okay

>If God can exist; He must exist.
no

>>1379023
...Paul is a greater being.

There I said it.

>>1379076

>Non-existence doesn't exist.
>Everything that exists is good.

Wow, more undefended assertions spring up. You're a like a Hydra of bullshittery.

>>1379074

>The perfect chocolate gateau is one that exists on my table right now...

Why hello Gaunilo.

That than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot be a material object. Being material is an imperfection.

As for a cake greater than every other cake. I'm sure there's one out there.

I can imagine a flying robot unicorn that can make all my dreams come true and has the property of existing.

Therefore it must exist.

ALWAYS, I WANNA BE WITH YOU!

What would convince you that God exists?

The answer for every atheist I've spoken to is if he did something which is impossible. God will never break the rules of physics which he himself created. Therefore they are searching in the wrong direction.

The answer to whether God exists is found in spiritual matters which atheists deny exists because they don't have enough faith to begin searching through spirituality to find God.

And that's the end of that.

>>1379091

>Wow, more undefended assertions spring up.
I have a feeling you'd feel the same way about any metaphysical claim. Am I wrong?

>>1379040
I think by writing "square triangle" you just conceived of it.

Does the number 2 exist? What about algebraic structures (groups, rings, ...)?

>>1379112

Any claim made without backing. Maybe there is a metaphysical claim with some support, but I've yet to see it.

>>1379106
AND MAKE BELIEVE WITH YOU

>>1379117

>Does the number 2 exist?
Yes. Numbers are intelligible realities.

>>1379108
How about two independently developed religions that have the exact same doctrine? That would be some pretty compelling evidence

>>1379040
The last line, no. The rest is fine.

>>1379136

AND LIVE IN HARMONY, HARMONY, OH LOVE!

>>1379117

>I think by writing "square triangle" you just conceived of it.

Logical contradictions are unthinkable though one may mistakenly believe he is thinking such a contradiction.

>>1379098
>Being material is an imperfection

Not when the subject is cake it isn't. When we're talking about a cake, being material is VERY MUCH more perfect than not.

>>1379138
The ancient Christian religion and the modern LDS church but you don't want to believe that at all so why would you bother to find out yourself?

>>1379108
>God will never break the rules of physics which he himself created

epicurus.jpg

>>1379138

>doctrine
Doctrine is an exoteric matter. Doctrinal concerns are conditioned by cultural conditions.

You want to see multiple identical containers.....
Why?

>>1379153

Oh please. They're very clearly linked.

>>1379153
Yes, because modern Christian churches developed independently from ancient ones.

>>1379149

>Not when the subject is cake it isn't.
You are trying to bring a perfect cake into the argument. You have no reason to.

Also, it isn't clear to me that a perfect cake would be material. As a Platonists, I would posit an ontologically prior intelligible cake(an archetypal paradigmatic cake). This immaterial cake is greater than its sensible "shadows".

>>1379159
>You want to see multiple identical containers.....
>Why?

Because that's how we verify things in science, through repeated confirmation. Any result that isn't reproducible isn't a result

>>1379137
Show me a "two" then. Not just the symbols we use to represent it, or some other embodiment of twoness...

>>1379147
Ever studied paraconsistent logic?

>>1379174

A non existent cake wouldnot be the Platonic perfect cake. It's non-existent because it's hypothetical, so we can still see it as a real cake in hypothetical situations like this one. Being material would not make it less perfect at all, in fact it's requirement.

>>1379226

>Show me a "two" then.
"Two" can be grasped with the mind.
You seem to be assuming a priori that only material things exist.

What is your justification for holding such a belief?

>>1379174

You wouldn't have any concept of a cake without having recieved the sensory input of one though. A brain in isolation doesn't contain any a priori knowlege, all our concept are formed by analysing and mixing our recorded sensory input. Platonian conceptial idealism is bullshit, as Kant said a lot more eloquently than I just did in Critique of Pure Reason.

Without sensibility no object would be given to us, without understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.

So Jesus is Paul's son?

>>1379174
>You are trying to bring a perfect cake into the argument. You have no reason to.

You are wrong. I have very good reason to bring the perfect cake into this discussion: if the idea of a perfect cake makes a cake real then I get a free cake whenever I want one. If the existence of God is a side-effect of this, then I'm willing to tolerate it.

/sci/ - Cake & God

>>1379233

Platonic cakes are potential actual, but essentially real.

>>1379252
>/sci/ - Cake

ftfy

>>1379240
>Without sensibility no object would be given to us
We use the sensibles as ladders to their intelligible essences. I don't really see this a problematic.

>>1379253

If platonic cakes are immaterial however, I can't eat them, an as such they are imperfect for my purposes. The definitions of good you're using when describing god are also arbitary.

>>1379248
>if the idea of a perfect cake makes a cake real
It makes it real, but not material. You can't eat immaterial cake.

>>1379253

>Platonic cakes are potential actual, but essentially real

Uhuh. How is this relevant to my point?

>>1379276

>imperfect for my purposes
There's your problem.

>>1379265

Because we have no reason to presume that the intelligible essences have any validity outside your personal dellusions. Occam's razor doesn't take kindly to that kind of superfluous bullshit.

>>1379285

You're persuming there's some objective scale of perfection though, without backing up the claim.

>>1379284

Your so called "hypotheticals" do in fact exist though they may not currently have material reflections.

The proposition of an all powerful entity is riddled with inconsistencies. For instance, if he is all powerful he may make an unbreakable stone, yet he cannot break the stone then he is not all powerful and if he breaks the stone, he has failed in his initial attempt.

Also, we can look to Occam's Razor. This states, if you are not familiar with it, that all things being equal the simpler explanation is usually true. Now either we slowly and gradually evolved to our current form because all conditions are just right, or a magical all powerful deity formed our universe then, left all the rest of it alone to focus on our insignificant planet form life then watch over us though he now a days has trouble putting a clear image of Jesus Christ on toast. You chose...

In addition, God has broken the very laws of physics he has created on several occasions. For instance the story where he turned some fish and bread into enough to feed an entire crowd breaks the Conservation Law of Energy and Matter.

>>1379298

That's a baseless assumption.

>>1379298

No. If they're not material they do not exist. Thye may exist hypothetically, but that's not saying anything more than going round the definition of hypothetical.

>>1379300

>For instance, if he is all powerful he may make an unbreakable stone, yet he cannot break the stone then he is not all powerful and if he breaks the stone, he has failed in his initial attempt.
Omnipotence does not entail contradiction. If an act is contrary to God's nature, He cannot do that act. It would be logically impossible for God to limit himself. Such limitations are beyond the scope of omnipotence as they entail contradiction.

>Also, we can look to Occam's Razor. This states, if you are not familiar with it, that all things being equal the simpler explanation is usually true.
This is not what the Razor claims. According to Occam, one should not posit unnecessary entities. God is necessary. He cannot be cut by the Razor.

>God has broken the very laws of physics he has created on several occasions. For instance the story where he turned some fish and bread into enough to feed an entire crowd breaks the Conservation Law of Energy and Matter.
It may appear as though the natural laws are being broken, but for all we know He was acting according to deeper natural laws which we don't understand yet. Your claim is presumptuous.

>>1379322
Very well put, although now you have to show how God is necessary

>>1379322

>Omnipotence does not entail contradiction.

>It would be logically impossible for God to limit himself.

>Such limitations are beyond the scope of omnipotence as they entail contradiction.

More and more baseless assertions. Why do you even bother?

>>1379322
>According to Occam, one should not posit unnecessary entities. God is necessary.

Not if you can imagine a universe that does not contain a god, or a perfect being as has been put earlier. You're basically trying to define god into existence by postulating existence as one of his traits. It's no more valid that me saying god is a flying spaghetti monster and has the trait of existence. Or there is a robot unicorn that has the trait of existence as mentioned earlier.

>>1379331

I refer you to the modal ontological argument.

>>1379336

>More and more baseless assertions.
That's what omnipotence is. It's the ability to do anything that makes logical sense. God can no more limit Himself than he can create square triangles.

>>1379322
What necessitate the existence of such a deity!
I agree that Occam's Razor states that, but the assumption that a deity does exist has no necessity and therefore an assumption that has no place.

All of your other response has no scientific validity and make no points.

I hope this guy realizes that you just can't find basis for something like god by using only philosophy, and such baseless assertions that there is some scale of perfection.

>>1379348

It states that a perfect being has the trait of existence. It doesn't prove that our universe contains a perfect being.

>>1379347
>'re basically trying to define god into existence by postulating existence as one of his traits
Existence is not one of God's intrinsic properties. Necessary existence is though. How can it be any other way? A perfect being must have necessary existence as a property. Anything less would be less than perfect.

>>1379363

But that doesn't mean our universe has to contain a perfect being. It's perfectly possible to imagine a universe that doesn't.

>>1379359

>It doesn't prove that our universe contains a perfect being.
Theists don't really claim this.
God cannot be contained by matter.

>>1379363

Great circular logic

That's like the old one of saying that god exists because the bible says so, and the bible is the word of god, so it has to be true

> It's perfectly possible to imagine a universe that doesn't.

It's perfectly possible to think one can imagine such a universe. One cannot. You'd be deluding yourself.

>>1379363

To make that claim you have to prove tha there's an objective messure of perfection though. Saying that necessary existence is a recuirement of absolute perfection is just using an arbitary qualifier that helps your argument. How can you even claim to know the required traits of absolute perfection unless you claim you have an infalible mind?

>>1379352

>That's what omnipotence is. It's the ability to do anything that makes logical sense.

See, this is another baseless assertion. You're simply assuming that omnipotence is logically sound by producing that definition. The laws of classical physics make logical sense, yet they've apparently been broken many times by God. God apparently knows what will happen in five minutes for certain (omniscience), but is also able to change it (omnipotence) which contradicts the certainty in the first place. Unless God is just a trundling machine with every action set out already and no free will...

>>1379372

No, you're trying to push your divine delusions on us.

I don't even know why we are dicussing this in /sci/ If you have no scintifically vaild claims to present why don;t you just go to /x/

>>1379348

Any one in particular? most of the ones I've read seem to rely on rather subjective terms

>>1379363

...and you're still assuming existence is more perfect than non-existence.

>>1379385
>How can you even claim to know the required traits of absolute perfection
If there is a better, there is a best.
God has all the "bests".

God has every trait that can be perfected.
There's nothing arbitrary about it.

>>1379395

Because /sci/ responds to every troll. It's what we do.

>>1379403
haha very true.

>>1379390

>God apparently knows what will happen in five minutes for certain (omniscience), but is also able to change it (omnipotence) which contradicts the certainty in the first place.

You forget that God is outside of time.
He sees everything as if it were the present(the eternal now).

>>1379401

But what is better relies on the situation. What may be ideal in one situation or for one usage may be totally useless in another one. There's no objective universal scale of betterness.

Just look into parapsychology.

>>1379397

>Any one in particular? most of the ones I've read seem to rely on rather subjective terms
I like Plantinga's version.

>>1379348
The Ontrological Argument is flawed, say I tink of a transporter. Though a transporter can not exist, not one that works properly anyway.

>>1379408

Wahey! Yet ANOTHER unsupported assertion. God is outside time and sees everything as the present. Right.

>>1379410

>But what is better relies on the situation.
Knowing all things can never be a bad thing.
The same goes with the other standard attributes.

Also, how exactly does God get into "situations".
What does that even mean?

>>1379401

Bull shit, that's the same argument you keep pulling out of your ass

Why do you think there is a best? You aren't perfect, so you can't say for sure that there is one

Again, why do you claim to know what constitutes a "best"? (if such a thing exists)

How is existing "better" than not existing? Don't give us that bullshit cake argument again fatty, give some SOLID proof that existing is good. An axe murderer is better to not exist than to exist, right.

etc etc

There is no divinity but Cthulhu,
and Paul is the Messenger of Cthulhu

FHTAGN FHTAGN
CTHULHU FHTAGN

>>1379421

>Wahey! Yet ANOTHER unsupported assertion.
None of my claims reside in a void. You need a background in traditional philosophy to see how it all fits together. How can you possibly seek to refute things you don't understand(Isn't that the standard claim made against creationists?)? You are making a fool of yourself by drawing attention to your ignorance.

>>1379423

Inb4 >But god's good, so he's better than an axe murderer

Use of an arbitrary scale of perfection, plus, god has killed way more people than the worst axe murderer according to the "infallible word of god"

>>1379433

This is /sci/ - Science & Math

Not philosophy.

>>1379433

>ignorance

Oh, I get it, it's funny because you are calling him something that yourself are!

>>1379433

>None of my claims reside in a void. You need a background in traditional philosophy to see how it all fits together. How can you possibly seek to refute things you don't understand(Isn't that the standard claim made against creationists?)? You are making a fool of yourself by drawing attention to your ignorance.

Ok, so instead of backing up your point you assume we don't believe you because of a lack of 'background in traditional philisophy'. Then you use 'ignorant' like it's a bad thing, when it's actually your fault for not explaining yourself properly. Your arrogance is astounding, and everyone on the thread will agree with me on that.

You now realise that people, smarter than you and me, have been discussing the existence of a higher power for centuries and even now neither sides have been proved right.

>>1379443
>implying philosophy isn't the foundation of science and math

>Believing in a Dunecoon's stories

reported and saged for religion trolling

>>1379471
It has not been proven out right because this has nothing to do with science, yet the lack of evidence and necessity point to atheism although some people are too stuck in their dogma to objectively look at a situation.

>>1379485
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, brah.

>>1379474

Not traditional science and math, no

>>1379474
>implying it is

>>1379493

It is really, just no very good evidence. Absence of seeing a unicorn in my room would be pretty good reason to believe there is no unicorn in my room, even if it doesn't totally disprove it.

>>1379496
>>1379495
Oh okay, so I guess we never needed logic for anything science related then. Ever.

>>1379502

>Implying Philosophy was the origin of logic

>>1379501
That's a lousy way of refuting God. I'm not trying to prove its existence, I for one don't give a shit, but people have come up with way better ways of (attempting to) disproving a higher power.

Insufficient data for either argument

/thread

>>1379503
>notsureifserious.png

>>1379508

Yeah, it is a lousy way. It may not disprove, but it's a fair reason among many not to believe.

>>1379501

>Absence of seeing a unicorn in my room would be pretty good reason to believe there is no unicorn in my room

>Absence of seeing gold on a distant planet would be a pretty bad reason to believe only the Earth has gold

Why is God like the first one and not like the second one?

>>1379509

>so believing there is a god and believing there is certainly no god is silly.
>not having belief in god fits neither option, therefore agnostic atheism wins.

>>1379517
Have you ever seen a unicorn?
What about gold? Ever seen gold with your own eyes?

>>1379517

Because gold is real, it's existence backed by the scientific method, the same isn't true for either unicorns or god

>>1379521
I have gold on my person at all times.

And I'm not even a Jew!

>>1379517

Because a unicorn is far more noticable than gold on a distant planet. God supposedly is omnipresent and permeates everything in the Universe, yet there is still no evidence of him.

>>1379512

Not the philosophy this dipshit is talking about, no

>>1379521

>Have you ever seen a mind?
Minds don't exist?

>>1379532

But seeing is not the only form of evidence. Herp derp.

>>1379532
>Did you see my post?
Have you read it?

>>1379538
Okay, have you ever heard a mind, smelled, touched or tasted it? No? Well fuck, then were is it!

WTF.
I can conceive of invisible elephants that live in space and shit stars. It could possibly exist, but it is highly unlikely.
Do you believe in the existence of these elephants?

>>1379543

You still haven't listed nearly a fraction of the possible avenues of evidence. We know minds exist because their effect can be detected on reality. The crucial point is that we are not accepting the existence of minds based on faith.

>>1379545

You misunderstand the way the argument works.
Read it again. Slower this time.

>>1379532

Yes, yes I have. They hook these electrodes onto someone's head, and we can see which neurons in the brain are firing and when. This is what we view as the "mind"

>>1379556
Which post are you referring to?
With the argument.

>>1379545
You're so over-simplifying everything. Unless those elephants shat out the Earth and all of life on it, it's a worthless analogy.

>>1379565
It shat out a star that eventually resulted in the creation of earth.

>>1379493
No it is not, however is it more reasonable to believe in something for which there is no evidence or to simply not believe in it unless evidence is brought forth.

>>1379551
>We know minds exist because their effect can be detected on reality.
Lest you can move objects with your mind, no it can not be detected on reality.

>>1379575
What is your definition of "mind"?

Suddenly, Pascal's Wager. Bitches.

>>1378952

10/10 for the picture.

>>1379575

I can, so...

>>1379575

Well I can. I'm typing this on instruction from my mind. Are you actually claiming the mind has no observable effect on reality?

>>1379580
To me, I see no scientific difference between a mind, a soul, karma, mana etc.

>>1378996
Philosophy major here, those arguments are old as dirt and have been effectively shown to be meaningless.

>>1379590
I don't believe it exists.

>>1379583
Even if God existed, why would I want to follow such a malevolent being?

>>1379588
Neurotransmitter =/= a mind

>>1379543

You believe in everything because it MIGHT exist? Santa, flying spaghetti monster, Russell's teapot etc etc?

>>1379594
Because of eternal hellfire and an endless loop of mediocre music.

>>1379596

But billions of neurotransmitters all transmitting to each other and gathering, storing and releasing information is indeed a mind.

>>1379596

I never said anything about neurotransmitters. Answer it: does the mind have a detectable effect on reality?

>>1379602
"the mind" doesn't exist.
There is no reason we should believe in its existence.
brain =/= soul

>>1379597
I don't necessarily believe in it, but unless it's proven with actual scientific methods instead of probablity, I keep an open mind.

>>1379602

You can detect the signals within the brain with modern day instruments

>>1379600
So the only reason you follow God is so that you won't be damned to eternal hell fire. What if I'm a good person just an atheist, I would be given the same fate as a serial rapist. Mmmm... justice.

>>1379610

Well, if you define mind within the same context of soul, then it doesn't exist.

If your definition of mind is basically the working brain, then yes, it exists

>>1379613
>>1379610

Guys guys guys, I'm arguing that the mind is a naturalistic phenomenon that we accept on evidence. I think you have me confused with someone else.

>>1379611

So you are retarded?

>>1379626
In that case it is fine.
I was referring to the idiot above who said that there is no evidence of the mind, and he was defining it as the soul.

>>1379616
That's the whole point of Pascal's Wager: if you're a good christian and you're right, you go to heaven. But if you're wrong then you're going to whatever it is that happens to our conscience after we die (be it an eternal dream-state or just nothing, that's not the point).

If you're a good ahteist and you're right, you get whatever afterlife there is, but if you're wrong, you get eternal hellfire.

>You can conceive of God; he can exist.
Like the luminiferous aether. I can perfectly imagine the luminiferous aether to be the medium in which light propagates.
>If God can exist; He must exist.
So if the luminiferous aether can exist, it must exist? No, it certainly doesn't. How exactly are you making this syllogism? The reason why scientists in the early 20th century thought it could exist, was because their theories where wrong. How is God different from the luminiferous aether? But wait there are even more counter examples:

- I could say the same thing about warmth, which scientists at first claimed to be some kind of substance that floats in and out of bodies. The amount of this warmth substance that is contained in a body determines it's temperature. Today we know, that warmth is the kinetic energy of uncoordinated motion of particles. And also to give a more recent example,

>>1379626
>>1379633
Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that the mind exists. Then what is consciousness?

>>1379634
What about all the other thousand of religions in existence, what about their fate for you?

>>1379637
- the same goes for dark matter and dark energy. Our theories suggest that these two exist. We can perfectly imagine them to be there. But it could also be perfectly true that the theories that suggest their existence are somehow flawed or even plain wrong.

tldr: Science and Religion make assumptions that are "a priori" assumed to be true. The difference however is, that in science you can construct experiments that have the potential to refute those "a priori" assumptions. We call this falsifiability. Science does not even claim to prove something. All that science can claim is something like this: "All experiments that we thought of up until now did not refute or <span class="math">dis[/spoiler]prove our initial theory. Therefore it is very likely for our theory to be true."
In science we construct theories and it is always possible to go either way from there. This theory can be either "<span class="math">wrong[/spoiler]" or "<span class="math">probably\;true[/spoiler]".

Religion on the other hand completely lacks this falsifiability. There is absolutely no way to think of an experiment that is in principle able to disprove gods existence. In Religion you guys construct theories and their can only be "<span class="math">true[/spoiler]". No other possibilities.

And yes, I'm mad.
inb4 you don't give a fuck.

why do people still bring up Pascal's Wager, its a worthless pile of bullshit, and the ONLY way it would be a valid argument is if theres only ONE religion in the world. There's not.

>>1379644
exactly

>>1379639
Part of the brain.

>>1379639

My definition of 'mind' is pretty much conciousness. Do you mean what do we think *causes* conciousness?

Pascal's wager is a pretty good litmus test. If your opponent uses it in a religious debate, you can be sure they are retarded and apply no critical throught to anything supporting their stance.

>>1379641
Good point. I think I'll just have to use a bit of everything then. After having pillaged a church for the glory of Odin, I'll do some yoga on a rug. On the first moon of the new month I'll sacrifice a virgin and after having raped my last child I'll sit under a tree for 40 years.

Eternal salvation is mine!

>>1379650
Of course. Do you think existence of an organism is the only requirement for consciousness? What about that fat fly bumping against my window for the 100th fucking time, does he have a mind? I sure hope not.

>>1379674

Well the fact that it behaves and makes decisions shows it has a mind, albeit a totally shit one.

>>1379665

>>1379676

This guy's right

>>1379676
Who says it makes decisions? It could very well be a purely instinctive, pre-programmed being. What about body cells, do they have a consiousness? I guess apoptosis and cancer proves they are.

This thread is dildos. Needs more Cake.

The correct answer:

"Who cares?"

god exists, so does predistination.... he's gone on vacation and will see us later.

>>1379722

Yep. Instinct and pre-programming are causing those decisions. Body cells and amoeba also make decisions, and to say theirs are any less under the total governance of chemistry and physics than us is inconsistent. At such a simplistic level it becomes pointless to still call it a mind in the useful sense we use for our conciousness, but it's working the same way nonetheless.