Waco1947 said:

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

I thought you said that "God is Love". Maybe your god doesn't love people enough to heal them?

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

It does not follow that if evil "exists" it comes from "God's creative hand." "Evil" is not a physical thing.

Why do you believe that good and evil exist, as opposed to saying that there is no good or evil?

You demand that God control the actions of everyone at all times. I do not.

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

I thought you said that "God is Love". Maybe your god doesn't love people enough to heal them?

---

No, in this theology, there is no "Theo."

aka, apostate47

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Are you contending then, Waco, that Evil is a Creation?

Are you denying that Evil exists?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

Try again. I believe in my the not good and if God is absolute good then there is no room for not good. But your theism says God is responsible b cause ALL these NAS come from God.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

Try again. I believe in my the not good and if God is absolute good then there is no room for not good. But your theism says God is responsible b cause ALL these NAS come from God.

---

No, maybe YOU should try again - at making sentences coherent enough so that others don't have to spend so much energy trying to decode what you're saying. I'd respond to this if I knew what the heck you're trying to say here.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

So in your view - what? Is there no such thing as evil? Did evil arise by itself? Is your god not "good"? Please clarify your position.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

So in your view - what? Is there no such thing as evil? Did evil arise by itself? Is your god not "good"? Please clarify your position.

---

His "God" is "good," but cannot intervene in any way in the physical universe.There is no difference between his theology and that of a materialist.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

So you'll accept the supernatural, but only if we can prove there's nothing supernatural about it.

---

If you can produce empirical objective proof of any (imaginary) supernatural being, why wouldn't I accept it. I won't hold my breath while waiting.

---

If you mean scientifically testable proof, then by definition you're not talking about the supernatural. There is historical evidence, but there we encounter another problem -- any historical account that supports the supernatural is automatically unreliable in your view. Whether knowingly or not, you've designed a paradoxical standard of proof. It excludes any possibility that you would recognize evidence of the supernatural even if it did exist. This ought to be a huge red flag if you're really trying to pursue a rational inquiry.

---

If the supernatural exists, it should be testable, i.e. the Duke prayer tests. Historical accounts that you are relying upon are unreliable. They are nothing more than hearsay. Do you believe Romulus ascended to heaven as a god July 5, 717 BC, as the sky turned black, strong thunder was heard, lightning struck, and people panicked? Do you believe he later revealed himself as a god to a patrician? Give me falsifiable, objective, empirical evidence, and I will accept the same way I accept any other scientific evidence. If there is a supernatural power who wants people to believe in it, then why hide in obscurity, relying upon mystical lore? What you're saying is there is no emprical objective evidence, and therefore you must accept a story that is completely at odds with everything we know to be true about natural laws, on the basis of decades later "after the fact" written, conflicting, lore, of very primitive and superstitious people with a religious agenda. That should be a huge red flag if you're really trying to pursue a rational inquiry.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

---

It's a biologic function of physics.

We obviously have the ability to make assumptions, evaluations and decisions within the context of our learned frame of reference.

Decision making is a contained a neuro-biological process. Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain.

---

If it is just a biologic function of physics, then any assumption, evaluation, or decision you make is still the determined result of physics. Your whole learned frame of reference is the product of deterministic physics, you had no choice in the matter. Anything that stems from this learned frame of reference, likewise, is strictly determined by physics alone.

If this is the case, then why do you care about those who believe in religion? They had no choice but to believe it, physics determined it. In your grand scheme of things, their belief in religion is not "wrong" because there is no such thing as "wrong" in determinism.

In addition, since your thinking is similarly dispositioned, there is no basis on which to claim your perceptions accurately reflect ultimate reality and truth. Your "objectivity" and "empiricism" are determined only by physics, and so any reasoning derived from these is only confirming the learned frame of reference from which they themselves are derived....a learned frame of reference that itself is also derived only from physics. In essence, you are claiming that physical reality is ultimate truth and reality....because of physics. Circular logic, a fallacy.

---

Everyone (who is not mentally impaired) has the ability to analyze and make decisions base upon what they have learned.

People's beliefs are based upon what they have learned, regardless of its accuracy or veracity. They have the ability to change those fallacious beliefs when presented with accurate information, once they can overcome the hurdle of recognizing their beliefs and knowledge were based upon error, and inaccuracies.

Your premises and reasoning are flawed by your reductionist desire to oversimplify complexity, in an attempt to make a point, that shows you don't understand physics, and science.

---

If there is any mental impairment or lack of understanding, it is on your part for your failure to understand the logical implications of your thinking.

If everyone has the ability to analizye and make decisions based on what they learned, and then CHANGE them based on their perception of "correctness" and "error" - are they doing this freely, or is it merely the inevitable result of unguided physics? You can not have it both ways. Either you can guide the biology and physics in your brain, or you can't. If you say we CAN guide the biology and physics, then you are invoking the supernatural. If you say we CAN'T, then whatever a person ends up thinking, whether "right" or "wrong" in your view, or whether or not they can "change" their thinking to conform to whatever is "right" or "wrong" in your view, is merely the end result of the pathway that was determined by physics alone. If all there is is physics, then it couldn't be any other way.

You say that everyone "who is not mentally impaired" has the ability to analyze, learn, and make decisions. Serious question - how do you know that YOU aren't mentally impaired to a degree? Mentally impaired people are only that way because it was the end result of physics, right? So how can you assume that the physics that resulted in you, landed in all the right ways for you to have the ability to accurately perceive truth and reality?

---

A dog has a limited ability to analyze a simple problem and resolve it for the desired outcome. A chimp, or a monkey can do the same, as many other animals. Do you believe they have the same supernatural abilities that you have? Clearly brain development and advancement is a factor that sets species apart from one another.

Clearly we have an advanced brain in comparison to other animals. Whether it is through a species unique evolutionary development, or through individual development, physical impairment from trauma or disease, the brain is where cognition occurs in all species. Consciousness and cognition are physical biological processes, as any other biological function. Because of our evolutionary advanced state, we have the most advanced ability to reason and make choices. Some more than others (autism for example). Consciousness depends upon brain activity. You didn't have consciousness until your brain was sufficiently developed after conception. There is no evidence that consciousness and cognition can extend beyond and without brain activity. We don't have to understand all of the details and intricacies to make that observation.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

So you'll accept the supernatural, but only if we can prove there's nothing supernatural about it.

---

If you can produce empirical objective proof of any (imaginary) supernatural being, why wouldn't I accept it. I won't hold my breath while waiting.

---

where in a search for evidence (you say proof ) is a presupposition against something, a useful thing?

---

Science is built upon attempting to falsify an hypothesis through testing.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

---

It's a biologic function of physics.

We obviously have the ability to make assumptions, evaluations and decisions within the context of our learned frame of reference.

Decision making is a contained a neuro-biological process. Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain.

---

If it is just a biologic function of physics, then any assumption, evaluation, or decision you make is still the determined result of physics. Your whole learned frame of reference is the product of deterministic physics, you had no choice in the matter. Anything that stems from this learned frame of reference, likewise, is strictly determined by physics alone.

If this is the case, then why do you care about those who believe in religion? They had no choice but to believe it, physics determined it. In your grand scheme of things, their belief in religion is not "wrong" because there is no such thing as "wrong" in determinism.

In addition, since your thinking is similarly dispositioned, there is no basis on which to claim your perceptions accurately reflect ultimate reality and truth. Your "objectivity" and "empiricism" are determined only by physics, and so any reasoning derived from these is only confirming the learned frame of reference from which they themselves are derived....a learned frame of reference that itself is also derived only from physics. In essence, you are claiming that physical reality is ultimate truth and reality....because of physics. Circular logic, a fallacy.

---

Everyone (who is not mentally impaired) has the ability to analyze and make decisions base upon what they have learned.

People's beliefs are based upon what they have learned, regardless of its accuracy or veracity. They have the ability to change those fallacious beliefs when presented with accurate information, once they can overcome the hurdle of recognizing their beliefs and knowledge were based upon error, and inaccuracies.

Your premises and reasoning are flawed by your reductionist desire to oversimplify complexity, in an attempt to make a point, that shows you don't understand physics, and science.

---

If there is any mental impairment or lack of understanding, it is on your part for your failure to understand the logical implications of your thinking.

If everyone has the ability to analizye and make decisions based on what they learned, and then CHANGE them based on their perception of "correctness" and "error" - are they doing this freely, or is it merely the inevitable result of unguided physics? You can not have it both ways. Either you can guide the biology and physics in your brain, or you can't. If you say we CAN guide the biology and physics, then you are invoking the supernatural. If you say we CAN'T, then whatever a person ends up thinking, whether "right" or "wrong" in your view, or whether or not they can "change" their thinking to conform to whatever is "right" or "wrong" in your view, is merely the end result of the pathway that was determined by physics alone. If all there is is physics, then it couldn't be any other way.

You say that everyone "who is not mentally impaired" has the ability to analyze, learn, and make decisions. Serious question - how do you know that YOU aren't mentally impaired to a degree? Mentally impaired people are only that way because it was the end result of physics, right? So how can you assume that the physics that resulted in you, landed in all the right ways for you to have the ability to accurately perceive truth and reality?

---

A dog has a limited ability to analyze a simple problem and resolve it for the desired outcome. A chimp, or a monkey can do the same, as many other animals. Do you believe they have the same supernatural abilities that you have? Clearly brain development and advancement is a factor that sets species apart from one another.

Clearly we have an advanced brain in comparison to other animals. Whether it is through a species unique evolutionary development, or through individual development, physical impairment from trauma or disease, the brain is where cognition occurs in all species. Consciousness and cognition are physical biological processes, as any other biological function. Because of our evolutionary advanced state, we have the most advanced ability to reason and make choices. Some more than others (autism for example). Consciousness depends upon brain activity. You didn't have consciousness until your brain was sufficiently developed after conception. There is no evidence that consciousness and cognition can extend beyond and without brain activity. We don't have to understand all of the details and intricacies to make that observation.

---

That's not really addressing the central question in the post you quoted.

If there is nothing beyond the material, nothing anyone does or thinks can be a result of a choice. However, you claim that the ability to choose exists. These two beliefs, which you seem to hold, are incompatible with each other.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

Try again. I believe in the "not good" being in the world. But if God is absolute good then there is no room for the not good. But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

No, maybe YOU should try again - at making sentences coherent enough so that others don't have to spend so much energy trying to decode what you're saying. I'd respond to this if I knew what the heck you're trying to say here.

---

My god you were absolutely right. I was incomprehensible. I corrected my post so here is is. My sincere apologies
I believe in the "not good" being in the world. But if God is absolute good then there is no room for the not good. But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

---

It's a biologic function of physics.

We obviously have the ability to make assumptions, evaluations and decisions within the context of our learned frame of reference.

Decision making is a contained a neuro-biological process. Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain.

---

If it is just a biologic function of physics, then any assumption, evaluation, or decision you make is still the determined result of physics. Your whole learned frame of reference is the product of deterministic physics, you had no choice in the matter. Anything that stems from this learned frame of reference, likewise, is strictly determined by physics alone.

If this is the case, then why do you care about those who believe in religion? They had no choice but to believe it, physics determined it. In your grand scheme of things, their belief in religion is not "wrong" because there is no such thing as "wrong" in determinism.

In addition, since your thinking is similarly dispositioned, there is no basis on which to claim your perceptions accurately reflect ultimate reality and truth. Your "objectivity" and "empiricism" are determined only by physics, and so any reasoning derived from these is only confirming the learned frame of reference from which they themselves are derived....a learned frame of reference that itself is also derived only from physics. In essence, you are claiming that physical reality is ultimate truth and reality....because of physics. Circular logic, a fallacy.

---

Everyone (who is not mentally impaired) has the ability to analyze and make decisions base upon what they have learned.

People's beliefs are based upon what they have learned, regardless of its accuracy or veracity. They have the ability to change those fallacious beliefs when presented with accurate information, once they can overcome the hurdle of recognizing their beliefs and knowledge were based upon error, and inaccuracies.

Your premises and reasoning are flawed by your reductionist desire to oversimplify complexity, in an attempt to make a point, that shows you don't understand physics, and science.

---

If there is any mental impairment or lack of understanding, it is on your part for your failure to understand the logical implications of your thinking.

If everyone has the ability to analizye and make decisions based on what they learned, and then CHANGE them based on their perception of "correctness" and "error" - are they doing this freely, or is it merely the inevitable result of unguided physics? You can not have it both ways. Either you can guide the biology and physics in your brain, or you can't. If you say we CAN guide the biology and physics, then you are invoking the supernatural. If you say we CAN'T, then whatever a person ends up thinking, whether "right" or "wrong" in your view, or whether or not they can "change" their thinking to conform to whatever is "right" or "wrong" in your view, is merely the end result of the pathway that was determined by physics alone. If all there is is physics, then it couldn't be any other way.

You say that everyone "who is not mentally impaired" has the ability to analyze, learn, and make decisions. Serious question - how do you know that YOU aren't mentally impaired to a degree? Mentally impaired people are only that way because it was the end result of physics, right? So how can you assume that the physics that resulted in you, landed in all the right ways for you to have the ability to accurately perceive truth and reality?

---

A dog has a limited ability to analyze a simple problem and resolve it for the desired outcome. A chimp, or a monkey can do the same, as many other animals. Do you believe they have the same supernatural abilities that you have? Clearly brain development and advancement is a factor that sets species apart from one another.

Clearly we have an advanced brain in comparison to other animals. Whether it is through a species unique evolutionary development, or through individual development, physical impairment from trauma or disease, the brain is where cognition occurs in all species. Consciousness and cognition are physical biological processes, as any other biological function. Because of our evolutionary advanced state, we have the most advanced ability to reason and make choices. Some more than others (autism for example). Consciousness depends upon brain activity. You didn't have consciousness until your brain was sufficiently developed after conception. There is no evidence that consciousness and cognition can extend beyond and without brain activity. We don't have to understand all of the details and intricacies to make that observation.

---

You have no proof that consciousness arises from the brain. Show me the math.

What if the brain picks up consciousness like an antenna and has an effect on it?

You don't even know if what you're conscious experience is revealing to you is fundamental reality. Space and time itself very well could be a useful fiction brought on by natural selection so that we have utility because fundamental reality is too complex to handle.

You click on a folder on your computer screen and put it into the trash. You couldn't toggle millions of voltages in a second to make that happen. Reality very well may be similar. We know for a fact that we can only perceive a very small piece of the color spectrum, so why wouldn't that mechanism extend to all of reality?

The math on evolutionary game theory shows there's a zero percent chance that our consciousness reveals fundamental reality. That theory has never been debunked.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

So you'll accept the supernatural, but only if we can prove there's nothing supernatural about it.

---

If you can produce empirical objective proof of any (imaginary) supernatural being, why wouldn't I accept it. I won't hold my breath while waiting.

---

where in a search for evidence (you say proof ) is a presupposition against something, a useful thing?

---

Science is built upon attempting to falsify an hypothesis through testing.

---

Correct, scientist look into things. They don't disregard them from the start.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

Try again. I believe in the "not good" being in the world. But if God is absolute good then there is no room for the not good. But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

No, maybe YOU should try again - at making sentences coherent enough so that others don't have to spend so much energy trying to decode what you're saying. I'd respond to this if I knew what the heck you're trying to say here.

---

My god you were absolutely right. I was incomprehensible. I corrected my post so here is is. My sincere apologies
I believe in the "not good" being in the world. But if God is absolute good then there is no room for the not good. But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

Assuming you believe we have free will and assuming God is good, what happens when we use our free will to reject God?

From my point of view, removing the good would be defined as evil. Just as we don't produce darkness but remove light.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

---

It's a biologic function of physics.

We obviously have the ability to make assumptions, evaluations and decisions within the context of our learned frame of reference.

Decision making is a contained a neuro-biological process. Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain.

---

If it is just a biologic function of physics, then any assumption, evaluation, or decision you make is still the determined result of physics. Your whole learned frame of reference is the product of deterministic physics, you had no choice in the matter. Anything that stems from this learned frame of reference, likewise, is strictly determined by physics alone.

If this is the case, then why do you care about those who believe in religion? They had no choice but to believe it, physics determined it. In your grand scheme of things, their belief in religion is not "wrong" because there is no such thing as "wrong" in determinism.

In addition, since your thinking is similarly dispositioned, there is no basis on which to claim your perceptions accurately reflect ultimate reality and truth. Your "objectivity" and "empiricism" are determined only by physics, and so any reasoning derived from these is only confirming the learned frame of reference from which they themselves are derived....a learned frame of reference that itself is also derived only from physics. In essence, you are claiming that physical reality is ultimate truth and reality....because of physics. Circular logic, a fallacy.

---

Everyone (who is not mentally impaired) has the ability to analyze and make decisions base upon what they have learned.

People's beliefs are based upon what they have learned, regardless of its accuracy or veracity. They have the ability to change those fallacious beliefs when presented with accurate information, once they can overcome the hurdle of recognizing their beliefs and knowledge were based upon error, and inaccuracies.

Your premises and reasoning are flawed by your reductionist desire to oversimplify complexity, in an attempt to make a point, that shows you don't understand physics, and science.

---

If there is any mental impairment or lack of understanding, it is on your part for your failure to understand the logical implications of your thinking.

If everyone has the ability to analizye and make decisions based on what they learned, and then CHANGE them based on their perception of "correctness" and "error" - are they doing this freely, or is it merely the inevitable result of unguided physics? You can not have it both ways. Either you can guide the biology and physics in your brain, or you can't. If you say we CAN guide the biology and physics, then you are invoking the supernatural. If you say we CAN'T, then whatever a person ends up thinking, whether "right" or "wrong" in your view, or whether or not they can "change" their thinking to conform to whatever is "right" or "wrong" in your view, is merely the end result of the pathway that was determined by physics alone. If all there is is physics, then it couldn't be any other way.

You say that everyone "who is not mentally impaired" has the ability to analyze, learn, and make decisions. Serious question - how do you know that YOU aren't mentally impaired to a degree? Mentally impaired people are only that way because it was the end result of physics, right? So how can you assume that the physics that resulted in you, landed in all the right ways for you to have the ability to accurately perceive truth and reality?

---

A dog has a limited ability to analyze a simple problem and resolve it for the desired outcome. A chimp, or a monkey can do the same, as many other animals. Do you believe they have the same supernatural abilities that you have? Clearly brain development and advancement is a factor that sets species apart from one another.

Clearly we have an advanced brain in comparison to other animals. Whether it is through a species unique evolutionary development, or through individual development, physical impairment from trauma or disease, the brain is where cognition occurs in all species. Consciousness and cognition are physical biological processes, as any other biological function. Because of our evolutionary advanced state, we have the most advanced ability to reason and make choices. Some more than others (autism for example). Consciousness depends upon brain activity. You didn't have consciousness until your brain was sufficiently developed after conception. There is no evidence that consciousness and cognition can extend beyond and without brain activity. We don't have to understand all of the details and intricacies to make that observation.

---

Complexity doesn't solve your problem. Complexity is just more physics. The ultimate question before you is whether you can guide that physics or not. If you can, then by what mechanism? By logical necessity it must be outside physics, i.e. supernatural. If not, then whether you're a simple ant, a dog, a monkey, or a complex human - whatever you think, analyze, learn, whatever "desire" you have for a certain outcome, it is all just the inevitable result of unguided physics playing itself out. Consequently, there can be no such thing as "right" or "wrong" thinking. It's all just physics, and you're just along for the ride. Your mind is no more significant than a fart in the wind, going where the wind takes it.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

---

It's a biologic function of physics.

We obviously have the ability to make assumptions, evaluations and decisions within the context of our learned frame of reference.

Decision making is a contained a neuro-biological process. Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain.

---

If it is just a biologic function of physics, then any assumption, evaluation, or decision you make is still the determined result of physics. Your whole learned frame of reference is the product of deterministic physics, you had no choice in the matter. Anything that stems from this learned frame of reference, likewise, is strictly determined by physics alone.

If this is the case, then why do you care about those who believe in religion? They had no choice but to believe it, physics determined it. In your grand scheme of things, their belief in religion is not "wrong" because there is no such thing as "wrong" in determinism.

In addition, since your thinking is similarly dispositioned, there is no basis on which to claim your perceptions accurately reflect ultimate reality and truth. Your "objectivity" and "empiricism" are determined only by physics, and so any reasoning derived from these is only confirming the learned frame of reference from which they themselves are derived....a learned frame of reference that itself is also derived only from physics. In essence, you are claiming that physical reality is ultimate truth and reality....because of physics. Circular logic, a fallacy.

---

Everyone (who is not mentally impaired) has the ability to analyze and make decisions base upon what they have learned.

People's beliefs are based upon what they have learned, regardless of its accuracy or veracity. They have the ability to change those fallacious beliefs when presented with accurate information, once they can overcome the hurdle of recognizing their beliefs and knowledge were based upon error, and inaccuracies.

Your premises and reasoning are flawed by your reductionist desire to oversimplify complexity, in an attempt to make a point, that shows you don't understand physics, and science.

---

If there is any mental impairment or lack of understanding, it is on your part for your failure to understand the logical implications of your thinking.

If everyone has the ability to analizye and make decisions based on what they learned, and then CHANGE them based on their perception of "correctness" and "error" - are they doing this freely, or is it merely the inevitable result of unguided physics? You can not have it both ways. Either you can guide the biology and physics in your brain, or you can't. If you say we CAN guide the biology and physics, then you are invoking the supernatural. If you say we CAN'T, then whatever a person ends up thinking, whether "right" or "wrong" in your view, or whether or not they can "change" their thinking to conform to whatever is "right" or "wrong" in your view, is merely the end result of the pathway that was determined by physics alone. If all there is is physics, then it couldn't be any other way.

You say that everyone "who is not mentally impaired" has the ability to analyze, learn, and make decisions. Serious question - how do you know that YOU aren't mentally impaired to a degree? Mentally impaired people are only that way because it was the end result of physics, right? So how can you assume that the physics that resulted in you, landed in all the right ways for you to have the ability to accurately perceive truth and reality?

---

A dog has a limited ability to analyze a simple problem and resolve it for the desired outcome. A chimp, or a monkey can do the same, as many other animals. Do you believe they have the same supernatural abilities that you have? Clearly brain development and advancement is a factor that sets species apart from one another.

Clearly we have an advanced brain in comparison to other animals. Whether it is through a species unique evolutionary development, or through individual development, physical impairment from trauma or disease, the brain is where cognition occurs in all species. Consciousness and cognition are physical biological processes, as any other biological function. Because of our evolutionary advanced state, we have the most advanced ability to reason and make choices. Some more than others (autism for example). Consciousness depends upon brain activity. You didn't have consciousness until your brain was sufficiently developed after conception. There is no evidence that consciousness and cognition can extend beyond and without brain activity. We don't have to understand all of the details and intricacies to make that observation.

---

The only observation you're making, is that biology is a necessary component of consciousness. You are not proving that it is a sufficient component. To illustrate, here is an analogy of your argument, bolded above:

"Seeing moving pictures depends on TV activity. You couldn't see the pictures until the TV was finished being built from the factory. There is no evidence that the pictures can be seen without the TV being "on". We don't have to understand all the details of how the pictures are made to make that observation."

This argument can NOT be used to claim that the entirety of being able to view pictures comes from the physical TV itself. While it is correct that you need a physical TV to see the picture (it's necessary), it completely misses the fact that the TV is merely a physical receiver of an outside signal that is completely independent from the TV, and can not produce the pictures without it (it's not sufficient). Doc's example of the radio antenna is just a reiteration of this point.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

Try again. I believe in the "not good" being in the world. But if God is absolute good then there is no room for the not good. But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

No, maybe YOU should try again - at making sentences coherent enough so that others don't have to spend so much energy trying to decode what you're saying. I'd respond to this if I knew what the heck you're trying to say here.

---

My god you were absolutely right. I was incomprehensible. I corrected my post so here is is. My sincere apologies
I believe in the "not good" being in the world. But if God is absolute good then there is no room for the not good. But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

It doesn't make any logical sense that "if God is absolute good then there is no room for the not good." If God is absolute good, by logical necessity the concept of "not good" must exist. Otherwise, "good" doesn't mean anything. You believe God has a "will" right? You believe God is "love", correct? Then you are recognizing that there are things which are NOT love and NOT according to His will. But you believe God is ALL love, so there shouldn't be any room for NOT love, right? Clearly, this doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

Try again. I believe in the "not good" being in the world. But if God is absolute good then there is no room for the not good. But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

No, maybe YOU should try again - at making sentences coherent enough so that others don't have to spend so much energy trying to decode what you're saying. I'd respond to this if I knew what the heck you're trying to say here.

---

...But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

My "theism" does not say that God is responsible for all evil, or that evil comes from God. God created man and angels with the capacity to understand good and evil, and choose between them. Yes, God does ALLOW us to choose to do evil, and allows the painful consequences to be felt. But God is able to to use all sin and evil for His good purpose in the end. In this way, God's knowledge, power, and "goodness" will be glorified.

"Assuming you believe we have free will and assuming God is good, what happens when we use our free will to reject God?
We live a rather desperate, selfish, self destructive life if we reject the love and grace God offers.

From my point of view, removing the good would be defined as evil. Just as we don't produce darkness but remove light."Not sure what you mean.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

Try again. I believe in the "not good" being in the world. But if God is absolute good then there is no room for the not good. But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

No, maybe YOU should try again - at making sentences coherent enough so that others don't have to spend so much energy trying to decode what you're saying. I'd respond to this if I knew what the heck you're trying to say here.

---

...But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

My "theism" does not say that God is responsible for all evil, or that evil comes from God.Yes, your theism does make God responsible for evil because you believe God is ALL power.

God created man and angels with the capacity to understand good and evil, and choose between them. Yes, God does ALLOW us to choose to do evil, and allows the painful consequences to be felt. But God is able to to use all sin and evil for His good purpose in the end. In this way, God's knowledge, power, and "goodness" will be glorified.

---

In your theism Omnipotence means God has ALL the power yet our ability to make decisions in our free will means God relinquishes some of God's power in which case God is not ALL powerful because share power with us.
So secular asks, "If God is ALL powerful and God must all powerful all the time then why would a good and gracious God not use that ALL powerfulness?"

You have no answer other than "God shares power with us in our free will."

Again, the secular world says "If shares then your God is not ALL powerful and cannot stop evil. That God is not my God."

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

Try again. I believe in the "not good" being in the world. But if God is absolute good then there is no room for the not good. But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

No, maybe YOU should try again - at making sentences coherent enough so that others don't have to spend so much energy trying to decode what you're saying. I'd respond to this if I knew what the heck you're trying to say here.

---

My god you were absolutely right. I was incomprehensible. I corrected my post so here is is. My sincere apologies
I believe in the "not good" being in the world. But if God is absolute good then there is no room for the not good. But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

Assuming you believe we have free will and assuming God is good, what happens when we use our free will to reject God?

From my point of view, removing the good would be defined as evil. Just as we don't produce darkness but remove light.

---

People also have an elementary view of free will. They offer the example of a single choice and emphasize its mechanistic underpinnings as proof of determinism without including all the successive choices we made to get there and also without their subsequent determination to the outcome of the choice.

Orders of magnitude happened prior to you choosing what to eat today. You're pulling from many previous experiences to make a choice. You're also arriving at a choice based on the choices our ancestors made along with how the universe has played out. The orders of magnitude for a deterministic universe would require our universe to come into existence on a non infinite calculation. This doesn't jive with Gödel's incompleteness theorems which say there's infinite infinities to syntax/math.

Waco1947 said:

---

In your theism Omnipotence means God has ALL the power yet our ability to make decisions in our free will means God relinquishes some of God's power in which case God is not ALL powerful because share power with us.

---

Bless your heart.

Your whole syllogism is completely incorrect. That's not what Omnipotence means. Omnipotence "refers to God's all-powerful character. To say that God is omnipotent is to recognize that there is nothing outside of His ability to accomplish and no one who can exercise power over Him."

Waco1947 said:

---

So secular asks, "If God is ALL powerful and God must all powerful all the time then why would a good and gracious God not use that ALL powerfulness?"

You have no answer other than "God shares power with us in our free will."

Again, the secular world says "If shares then your God is not ALL powerful and cannot stop evil. That God is not my God."

---

This isn't a matter of sharing power. We having and exercising free-will does not contradict the actual meaning of omnipotence. Free-will work in concordance with His omnipotence.

Sometimes we make stupid choices and bad things happen. That's our fault, not God's.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but did your seminary training cover philosophy? I can only assume that these basic concepts would have been studied in the first few days of the class.

I only ask because I know that in the Catholic church, Deacons must take two philosophy classes during their 5.5 years of study (my dad is a deacon in our diocese). Catholic Priests must do the same, if not even more philosophical study.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

Try again. I believe in the "not good" being in the world. But if God is absolute good then there is no room for the not good. But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

No, maybe YOU should try again - at making sentences coherent enough so that others don't have to spend so much energy trying to decode what you're saying. I'd respond to this if I knew what the heck you're trying to say here.

---

...But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

My "theism" does not say that God is responsible for all evil, or that evil comes from God.Yes, your theism does make God responsible for evil because you believe God is ALL power.

God created man and angels with the capacity to understand good and evil, and choose between them. Yes, God does ALLOW us to choose to do evil, and allows the painful consequences to be felt. But God is able to to use all sin and evil for His good purpose in the end. In this way, God's knowledge, power, and "goodness" will be glorified.

---

In your theism Omnipotence means God has ALL the power yet our ability to make decisions in our free will means God relinquishes some of God's power in which case God is not ALL powerful because share power with us.
So secular asks, "If God is ALL powerful and God must all powerful all the time then why would a good and gracious God not use that ALL powerfulness?"

You have no answer other than "God shares power with us in our free will."

Again, the secular world says "If shares then your God is not ALL powerful and cannot stop evil. That God is not my God."

---

if God stopped all evil, what would be the need for grace?

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

Try again. I believe in the "not good" being in the world. But if God is absolute good then there is no room for the not good. But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

No, maybe YOU should try again - at making sentences coherent enough so that others don't have to spend so much energy trying to decode what you're saying. I'd respond to this if I knew what the heck you're trying to say here.

---

...But your theism says that God is responsible because ALL the good and the not good come from God.

---

My "theism" does not say that God is responsible for all evil, or that evil comes from God.Yes, your theism does make God responsible for evil because you believe God is ALL power.

God created man and angels with the capacity to understand good and evil, and choose between them. Yes, God does ALLOW us to choose to do evil, and allows the painful consequences to be felt. But God is able to to use all sin and evil for His good purpose in the end. In this way, God's knowledge, power, and "goodness" will be glorified.

---

In your theism Omnipotence means God has ALL the power yet our ability to make decisions in our free will means God relinquishes some of God's power in which case God is not ALL powerful because share power with us.
So secular asks, "If God is ALL powerful and God must all powerful all the time then why would a good and gracious God not use that ALL powerfulness?"

You have no answer other than "God shares power with us in our free will."

Again, the secular world says "If shares then your God is not ALL powerful and cannot stop evil. That God is not my God."

---

Thanks to CokeBear for saving me a lot of work.

But let's not pretend that all of this hasn't been answered for you before - many, many times.

The central problem with your "secular world" thinking, is that you believe that since God does not immediately stop evil, then it MUST mean by necessity that God does not have the power to do so. This is completely flawed logic. These do not have to be mutually exclusive. You are leaving out the possibility that God, who is certainly able to stop evil at any time He wishes, is only temporarily allowing it for His good purpose in the end. For God to be able to use the evil that man and angels choose, and turn it into good - that would be the highest demonstration of His goodness and omnipotence, and God is ultimately glorified.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Are you contending then, Waco, that Evil is a Creation?

Are you denying that Evil exists?

---

Repeating:

Quote:

---

Are you contending then, Waco, that Evil is a Creation?

Are you denying that Evil exists?

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

---

It's a biologic function of physics.

We obviously have the ability to make assumptions, evaluations and decisions within the context of our learned frame of reference.

Decision making is a contained a neuro-biological process. Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain.

---

If it is just a biologic function of physics, then any assumption, evaluation, or decision you make is still the determined result of physics. Your whole learned frame of reference is the product of deterministic physics, you had no choice in the matter. Anything that stems from this learned frame of reference, likewise, is strictly determined by physics alone.

If this is the case, then why do you care about those who believe in religion? They had no choice but to believe it, physics determined it. In your grand scheme of things, their belief in religion is not "wrong" because there is no such thing as "wrong" in determinism.

In addition, since your thinking is similarly dispositioned, there is no basis on which to claim your perceptions accurately reflect ultimate reality and truth. Your "objectivity" and "empiricism" are determined only by physics, and so any reasoning derived from these is only confirming the learned frame of reference from which they themselves are derived....a learned frame of reference that itself is also derived only from physics. In essence, you are claiming that physical reality is ultimate truth and reality....because of physics. Circular logic, a fallacy.

---

Everyone (who is not mentally impaired) has the ability to analyze and make decisions base upon what they have learned.

People's beliefs are based upon what they have learned, regardless of its accuracy or veracity. They have the ability to change those fallacious beliefs when presented with accurate information, once they can overcome the hurdle of recognizing their beliefs and knowledge were based upon error, and inaccuracies.

Your premises and reasoning are flawed by your reductionist desire to oversimplify complexity, in an attempt to make a point, that shows you don't understand physics, and science.

---

If there is any mental impairment or lack of understanding, it is on your part for your failure to understand the logical implications of your thinking.

If everyone has the ability to analizye and make decisions based on what they learned, and then CHANGE them based on their perception of "correctness" and "error" - are they doing this freely, or is it merely the inevitable result of unguided physics? You can not have it both ways. Either you can guide the biology and physics in your brain, or you can't. If you say we CAN guide the biology and physics, then you are invoking the supernatural. If you say we CAN'T, then whatever a person ends up thinking, whether "right" or "wrong" in your view, or whether or not they can "change" their thinking to conform to whatever is "right" or "wrong" in your view, is merely the end result of the pathway that was determined by physics alone. If all there is is physics, then it couldn't be any other way.

You say that everyone "who is not mentally impaired" has the ability to analyze, learn, and make decisions. Serious question - how do you know that YOU aren't mentally impaired to a degree? Mentally impaired people are only that way because it was the end result of physics, right? So how can you assume that the physics that resulted in you, landed in all the right ways for you to have the ability to accurately perceive truth and reality?

---

A dog has a limited ability to analyze a simple problem and resolve it for the desired outcome. A chimp, or a monkey can do the same, as many other animals. Do you believe they have the same supernatural abilities that you have? Clearly brain development and advancement is a factor that sets species apart from one another.

Clearly we have an advanced brain in comparison to other animals. Whether it is through a species unique evolutionary development, or through individual development, physical impairment from trauma or disease, the brain is where cognition occurs in all species. Consciousness and cognition are physical biological processes, as any other biological function. Because of our evolutionary advanced state, we have the most advanced ability to reason and make choices. Some more than others (autism for example). Consciousness depends upon brain activity. You didn't have consciousness until your brain was sufficiently developed after conception. There is no evidence that consciousness and cognition can extend beyond and without brain activity. We don't have to understand all of the details and intricacies to make that observation.

---

That's not really addressing the central question in the post you quoted.

If there is nothing beyond the material, nothing anyone does or thinks can be a result of a choice. However, you claim that the ability to choose exists. These two beliefs, which you seem to hold, are incompatible with each other.

---

That's simply not true. Are you saying a supernatural power makes your choices for you? Choice can be the product of a neurological process. You certainly can't make a choice if your brain is sufficiently impaired. A choice you do make could be a bad choice based upon that impairment. If there is a supernatural component, a bad choice would not be possible. Everything we observe and understand about consciousness indicates it is a biological function. You have no evidence there is a supernatural component involved.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

---

It's a biologic function of physics.

We obviously have the ability to make assumptions, evaluations and decisions within the context of our learned frame of reference.

Decision making is a contained a neuro-biological process. Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain.

---

If it is just a biologic function of physics, then any assumption, evaluation, or decision you make is still the determined result of physics. Your whole learned frame of reference is the product of deterministic physics, you had no choice in the matter. Anything that stems from this learned frame of reference, likewise, is strictly determined by physics alone.

If this is the case, then why do you care about those who believe in religion? They had no choice but to believe it, physics determined it. In your grand scheme of things, their belief in religion is not "wrong" because there is no such thing as "wrong" in determinism.

In addition, since your thinking is similarly dispositioned, there is no basis on which to claim your perceptions accurately reflect ultimate reality and truth. Your "objectivity" and "empiricism" are determined only by physics, and so any reasoning derived from these is only confirming the learned frame of reference from which they themselves are derived....a learned frame of reference that itself is also derived only from physics. In essence, you are claiming that physical reality is ultimate truth and reality....because of physics. Circular logic, a fallacy.

---

Everyone (who is not mentally impaired) has the ability to analyze and make decisions base upon what they have learned.

People's beliefs are based upon what they have learned, regardless of its accuracy or veracity. They have the ability to change those fallacious beliefs when presented with accurate information, once they can overcome the hurdle of recognizing their beliefs and knowledge were based upon error, and inaccuracies.

Your premises and reasoning are flawed by your reductionist desire to oversimplify complexity, in an attempt to make a point, that shows you don't understand physics, and science.

---

If there is any mental impairment or lack of understanding, it is on your part for your failure to understand the logical implications of your thinking.

If everyone has the ability to analizye and make decisions based on what they learned, and then CHANGE them based on their perception of "correctness" and "error" - are they doing this freely, or is it merely the inevitable result of unguided physics? You can not have it both ways. Either you can guide the biology and physics in your brain, or you can't. If you say we CAN guide the biology and physics, then you are invoking the supernatural. If you say we CAN'T, then whatever a person ends up thinking, whether "right" or "wrong" in your view, or whether or not they can "change" their thinking to conform to whatever is "right" or "wrong" in your view, is merely the end result of the pathway that was determined by physics alone. If all there is is physics, then it couldn't be any other way.

You say that everyone "who is not mentally impaired" has the ability to analyze, learn, and make decisions. Serious question - how do you know that YOU aren't mentally impaired to a degree? Mentally impaired people are only that way because it was the end result of physics, right? So how can you assume that the physics that resulted in you, landed in all the right ways for you to have the ability to accurately perceive truth and reality?

---

A dog has a limited ability to analyze a simple problem and resolve it for the desired outcome. A chimp, or a monkey can do the same, as many other animals. Do you believe they have the same supernatural abilities that you have? Clearly brain development and advancement is a factor that sets species apart from one another.

Clearly we have an advanced brain in comparison to other animals. Whether it is through a species unique evolutionary development, or through individual development, physical impairment from trauma or disease, the brain is where cognition occurs in all species. Consciousness and cognition are physical biological processes, as any other biological function. Because of our evolutionary advanced state, we have the most advanced ability to reason and make choices. Some more than others (autism for example). Consciousness depends upon brain activity. You didn't have consciousness until your brain was sufficiently developed after conception. There is no evidence that consciousness and cognition can extend beyond and without brain activity. We don't have to understand all of the details and intricacies to make that observation.

---

That's not really addressing the central question in the post you quoted.

If there is nothing beyond the material, nothing anyone does or thinks can be a result of a choice. However, you claim that the ability to choose exists. These two beliefs, which you seem to hold, are incompatible with each other.

---

That's simply not true. Are you saying a supernatural power makes your choices for you? Choice can be the product of a neurological process. You certainly can't make a choice if your brain is sufficiently impaired. A choice you do make could be a bad choice based upon that impairment. If there is a supernatural component, a bad choice would not be possible. Everything we observe and understand about consciousness indicates it is a biological function. You have no evidence there is a supernatural component involved

---

It indicates that the brain influences it, but we still don't have outright proof that it's generated from the brain. You can't make that assumption.

This conscious agents theory that just dropped yesterday is promising and the math is sound:

Our paper describing a map from conscious agents to spacetime via decorated permutations is here.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN

— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) May 9, 2023

Quote:

---

However, physicists tell us that spacetime cannot be fundamental. Spacetime, they say, is doomed. We heed the physicists, and drop the assumption that spacetime is fundamental. We assume instead that subjects and experiences are entities beyond spacetime, not within spacetime. We make this precise in a mathematical theory of conscious agents, whose dynamics are described by Markov chains. We show how (1) agents combine into more complex agents, (2) agents fuse into simpler agents, and (3) qualia fuse to create new qualia. The possible dynamics of n agents form an n(n1)(1)-dimensional polytope with nn vertices the Markov polytope Mn. The total fusions of n agents and qualia form an (n1)(1)-dimensional simplex the fusion simplex Fn. To project the Markovian dynamics of conscious agents onto scattering processes in spacetime, we define a new map from Markov chains to decorated permutations. Such permutations along with helicities, or masses and spins invariantly encode all physical information used to compute scattering amplitudes. We propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

---

It's a biologic function of physics.

We obviously have the ability to make assumptions, evaluations and decisions within the context of our learned frame of reference.

Decision making is a contained a neuro-biological process. Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain.

---

If it is just a biologic function of physics, then any assumption, evaluation, or decision you make is still the determined result of physics. Your whole learned frame of reference is the product of deterministic physics, you had no choice in the matter. Anything that stems from this learned frame of reference, likewise, is strictly determined by physics alone.

If this is the case, then why do you care about those who believe in religion? They had no choice but to believe it, physics determined it. In your grand scheme of things, their belief in religion is not "wrong" because there is no such thing as "wrong" in determinism.

In addition, since your thinking is similarly dispositioned, there is no basis on which to claim your perceptions accurately reflect ultimate reality and truth. Your "objectivity" and "empiricism" are determined only by physics, and so any reasoning derived from these is only confirming the learned frame of reference from which they themselves are derived....a learned frame of reference that itself is also derived only from physics. In essence, you are claiming that physical reality is ultimate truth and reality....because of physics. Circular logic, a fallacy.

---

Everyone (who is not mentally impaired) has the ability to analyze and make decisions base upon what they have learned.

People's beliefs are based upon what they have learned, regardless of its accuracy or veracity. They have the ability to change those fallacious beliefs when presented with accurate information, once they can overcome the hurdle of recognizing their beliefs and knowledge were based upon error, and inaccuracies.

Your premises and reasoning are flawed by your reductionist desire to oversimplify complexity, in an attempt to make a point, that shows you don't understand physics, and science.

---

If there is any mental impairment or lack of understanding, it is on your part for your failure to understand the logical implications of your thinking.

If everyone has the ability to analizye and make decisions based on what they learned, and then CHANGE them based on their perception of "correctness" and "error" - are they doing this freely, or is it merely the inevitable result of unguided physics? You can not have it both ways. Either you can guide the biology and physics in your brain, or you can't. If you say we CAN guide the biology and physics, then you are invoking the supernatural. If you say we CAN'T, then whatever a person ends up thinking, whether "right" or "wrong" in your view, or whether or not they can "change" their thinking to conform to whatever is "right" or "wrong" in your view, is merely the end result of the pathway that was determined by physics alone. If all there is is physics, then it couldn't be any other way.

You say that everyone "who is not mentally impaired" has the ability to analyze, learn, and make decisions. Serious question - how do you know that YOU aren't mentally impaired to a degree? Mentally impaired people are only that way because it was the end result of physics, right? So how can you assume that the physics that resulted in you, landed in all the right ways for you to have the ability to accurately perceive truth and reality?

---

A dog has a limited ability to analyze a simple problem and resolve it for the desired outcome. A chimp, or a monkey can do the same, as many other animals. Do you believe they have the same supernatural abilities that you have? Clearly brain development and advancement is a factor that sets species apart from one another.

Clearly we have an advanced brain in comparison to other animals. Whether it is through a species unique evolutionary development, or through individual development, physical impairment from trauma or disease, the brain is where cognition occurs in all species. Consciousness and cognition are physical biological processes, as any other biological function. Because of our evolutionary advanced state, we have the most advanced ability to reason and make choices. Some more than others (autism for example). Consciousness depends upon brain activity. You didn't have consciousness until your brain was sufficiently developed after conception. There is no evidence that consciousness and cognition can extend beyond and without brain activity. We don't have to understand all of the details and intricacies to make that observation.

---

You have no proof that consciousness arises from the brain. Show me the math.

What if the brain picks up consciousness like an antenna and has an effect on it?

You don't even know if what you're conscious experience is revealing to you is fundamental reality. Space and time itself very well could be a useful fiction brought on by natural selection so that we have utility because fundamental reality is too complex to handle.

You click on a folder on your computer screen and put it into the trash. You couldn't toggle millions of voltages in a second to make that happen. Reality very well may be similar. We know for a fact that we can only perceive a very small piece of the color spectrum, so why wouldn't that mechanism extend to all of reality?

The math on evolutionary game theory shows there's a zero percent chance that our consciousness reveals fundamental reality. That theory has never been debunked.

---

Quote:

---

You have no proof that consciousness arises from the brain. Show me the math.

---

Math isn't required. We have observation. Show me the math for the supernatural.

Quote:

---

What if the brain picks up consciousness like an antenna and has an effect on it?

---

What ifs? What if you only exist in a computer simulation, and when the simulation ends you end? All you have is science fiction.

Quote:

---

You don't even know if what you're conscious experience is revealing to you is fundamental reality. Space and time itself very well could be a useful fiction brought on by natural selection so that we have utility because fundamental reality is too complex to handle.

---

Where is your evidence for this other than your own science fiction. Clearly we don't understand everything, but what knowledge we have acquired through science has never suggested or pointed to supernatural mysticism to explain anything. Science is in the business to unravel complexity. Assigning complexity of what we have not unraveled or may be unable to unravel, to a supernatural answer is nothing more than plugging in a god of the gaps answer.

Quote:

---

You click on a folder on your computer screen and put it into the trash. You couldn't toggle millions of voltages in a second to make that happen. Reality very well may be similar. We know for a fact that we can only perceive a very small piece of the color spectrum, so why wouldn't that mechanism extend to all of reality?

---

What? What we can't see we know about through other scientific investigation. We know it's there through scientific investigation, even if we can't see it with our eyes. If your idea of the supernatural is true, then you should be able to see those other electromatic magnetic waves in the color spectrum.

Quote:

---

The math on evolutionary game theory shows there's a zero percent chance that our consciousness reveals fundamental reality. That theory has never been debunked.

---

Math games are simply that, math games. In and of themselves, they prove nothing. Our consciousness is a biological component of the whole that gives us the physical ability to investigate and understand reality. We're not required to understand or even be able to understand every aspect of reality.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

So you'll accept the supernatural, but only if we can prove there's nothing supernatural about it.

---

If you can produce empirical objective proof of any (imaginary) supernatural being, why wouldn't I accept it. I won't hold my breath while waiting.

---

where in a search for evidence (you say proof ) is a presupposition against something, a useful thing?

---

Science is built upon attempting to falsify an hypothesis through testing.

---

Correct, scientist look into things. They don't disregard them from the start.

---

As opposed to religion. Religion claims to already know the answer, disregarding everything else, until science forces religion to change its answer

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

---

It's a biologic function of physics.

We obviously have the ability to make assumptions, evaluations and decisions within the context of our learned frame of reference.

Decision making is a contained a neuro-biological process. Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain.

---

If it is just a biologic function of physics, then any assumption, evaluation, or decision you make is still the determined result of physics. Your whole learned frame of reference is the product of deterministic physics, you had no choice in the matter. Anything that stems from this learned frame of reference, likewise, is strictly determined by physics alone.

If this is the case, then why do you care about those who believe in religion? They had no choice but to believe it, physics determined it. In your grand scheme of things, their belief in religion is not "wrong" because there is no such thing as "wrong" in determinism.

In addition, since your thinking is similarly dispositioned, there is no basis on which to claim your perceptions accurately reflect ultimate reality and truth. Your "objectivity" and "empiricism" are determined only by physics, and so any reasoning derived from these is only confirming the learned frame of reference from which they themselves are derived....a learned frame of reference that itself is also derived only from physics. In essence, you are claiming that physical reality is ultimate truth and reality....because of physics. Circular logic, a fallacy.

---

Everyone (who is not mentally impaired) has the ability to analyze and make decisions base upon what they have learned.

People's beliefs are based upon what they have learned, regardless of its accuracy or veracity. They have the ability to change those fallacious beliefs when presented with accurate information, once they can overcome the hurdle of recognizing their beliefs and knowledge were based upon error, and inaccuracies.

Your premises and reasoning are flawed by your reductionist desire to oversimplify complexity, in an attempt to make a point, that shows you don't understand physics, and science.

---

If there is any mental impairment or lack of understanding, it is on your part for your failure to understand the logical implications of your thinking.

If everyone has the ability to analizye and make decisions based on what they learned, and then CHANGE them based on their perception of "correctness" and "error" - are they doing this freely, or is it merely the inevitable result of unguided physics? You can not have it both ways. Either you can guide the biology and physics in your brain, or you can't. If you say we CAN guide the biology and physics, then you are invoking the supernatural. If you say we CAN'T, then whatever a person ends up thinking, whether "right" or "wrong" in your view, or whether or not they can "change" their thinking to conform to whatever is "right" or "wrong" in your view, is merely the end result of the pathway that was determined by physics alone. If all there is is physics, then it couldn't be any other way.

You say that everyone "who is not mentally impaired" has the ability to analyze, learn, and make decisions. Serious question - how do you know that YOU aren't mentally impaired to a degree? Mentally impaired people are only that way because it was the end result of physics, right? So how can you assume that the physics that resulted in you, landed in all the right ways for you to have the ability to accurately perceive truth and reality?

---

A dog has a limited ability to analyze a simple problem and resolve it for the desired outcome. A chimp, or a monkey can do the same, as many other animals. Do you believe they have the same supernatural abilities that you have? Clearly brain development and advancement is a factor that sets species apart from one another.

Clearly we have an advanced brain in comparison to other animals. Whether it is through a species unique evolutionary development, or through individual development, physical impairment from trauma or disease, the brain is where cognition occurs in all species. Consciousness and cognition are physical biological processes, as any other biological function. Because of our evolutionary advanced state, we have the most advanced ability to reason and make choices. Some more than others (autism for example). Consciousness depends upon brain activity. You didn't have consciousness until your brain was sufficiently developed after conception. There is no evidence that consciousness and cognition can extend beyond and without brain activity. We don't have to understand all of the details and intricacies to make that observation.

---

Complexity doesn't solve your problem. Complexity is just more physics. The ultimate question before you is whether you can guide that physics or not. If you can, then by what mechanism? By logical necessity it must be outside physics, i.e. supernatural. If not, then whether you're a simple ant, a dog, a monkey, or a complex human - whatever you think, analyze, learn, whatever "desire" you have for a certain outcome, it is all just the inevitable result of unguided physics playing itself out. Consequently, there can be no such thing as "right" or "wrong" thinking. It's all just physics, and you're just along for the ride. Your mind is no more significant than a fart in the wind, going where the wind takes it.

---

You're trying to find a simplistic answer to complexity. I don't think 'guide' is a good description. It's systemic interaction. Clearly a dog is physically limited in its ability to learn, and to reason through a problem compared to a human. Right and wrong is something that is learned and stored for recall limited by a species' or individual's neuro capacity. It's applied physics as opposed to 'along for the ride' out of control.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

---

It's a biologic function of physics.

We obviously have the ability to make assumptions, evaluations and decisions within the context of our learned frame of reference.

Decision making is a contained a neuro-biological process. Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain.

---

If it is just a biologic function of physics, then any assumption, evaluation, or decision you make is still the determined result of physics. Your whole learned frame of reference is the product of deterministic physics, you had no choice in the matter. Anything that stems from this learned frame of reference, likewise, is strictly determined by physics alone.

If this is the case, then why do you care about those who believe in religion? They had no choice but to believe it, physics determined it. In your grand scheme of things, their belief in religion is not "wrong" because there is no such thing as "wrong" in determinism.

In addition, since your thinking is similarly dispositioned, there is no basis on which to claim your perceptions accurately reflect ultimate reality and truth. Your "objectivity" and "empiricism" are determined only by physics, and so any reasoning derived from these is only confirming the learned frame of reference from which they themselves are derived....a learned frame of reference that itself is also derived only from physics. In essence, you are claiming that physical reality is ultimate truth and reality....because of physics. Circular logic, a fallacy.

---

Everyone (who is not mentally impaired) has the ability to analyze and make decisions base upon what they have learned.

People's beliefs are based upon what they have learned, regardless of its accuracy or veracity. They have the ability to change those fallacious beliefs when presented with accurate information, once they can overcome the hurdle of recognizing their beliefs and knowledge were based upon error, and inaccuracies.

Your premises and reasoning are flawed by your reductionist desire to oversimplify complexity, in an attempt to make a point, that shows you don't understand physics, and science.

---

If there is any mental impairment or lack of understanding, it is on your part for your failure to understand the logical implications of your thinking.

If everyone has the ability to analizye and make decisions based on what they learned, and then CHANGE them based on their perception of "correctness" and "error" - are they doing this freely, or is it merely the inevitable result of unguided physics? You can not have it both ways. Either you can guide the biology and physics in your brain, or you can't. If you say we CAN guide the biology and physics, then you are invoking the supernatural. If you say we CAN'T, then whatever a person ends up thinking, whether "right" or "wrong" in your view, or whether or not they can "change" their thinking to conform to whatever is "right" or "wrong" in your view, is merely the end result of the pathway that was determined by physics alone. If all there is is physics, then it couldn't be any other way.

You say that everyone "who is not mentally impaired" has the ability to analyze, learn, and make decisions. Serious question - how do you know that YOU aren't mentally impaired to a degree? Mentally impaired people are only that way because it was the end result of physics, right? So how can you assume that the physics that resulted in you, landed in all the right ways for you to have the ability to accurately perceive truth and reality?

---

A dog has a limited ability to analyze a simple problem and resolve it for the desired outcome. A chimp, or a monkey can do the same, as many other animals. Do you believe they have the same supernatural abilities that you have? Clearly brain development and advancement is a factor that sets species apart from one another.

Clearly we have an advanced brain in comparison to other animals. Whether it is through a species unique evolutionary development, or through individual development, physical impairment from trauma or disease, the brain is where cognition occurs in all species. Consciousness and cognition are physical biological processes, as any other biological function. Because of our evolutionary advanced state, we have the most advanced ability to reason and make choices. Some more than others (autism for example). Consciousness depends upon brain activity. You didn't have consciousness until your brain was sufficiently developed after conception. There is no evidence that consciousness and cognition can extend beyond and without brain activity. We don't have to understand all of the details and intricacies to make that observation.

---

Complexity doesn't solve your problem. Complexity is just more physics. The ultimate question before you is whether you can guide that physics or not. If you can, then by what mechanism? By logical necessity it must be outside physics, i.e. supernatural. If not, then whether you're a simple ant, a dog, a monkey, or a complex human - whatever you think, analyze, learn, whatever "desire" you have for a certain outcome, it is all just the inevitable result of unguided physics playing itself out. Consequently, there can be no such thing as "right" or "wrong" thinking. It's all just physics, and you're just along for the ride. Your mind is no more significant than a fart in the wind, going where the wind takes it.

---

You're trying to find a simplistic answer to complexity. I don't think 'guide' is a good description. It's systemic interaction. Clearly a dog is physically limited in its ability to learn, and to reason through a problem compared to a human. Right and wrong is something that is learned and stored for recall limited by a species' or individual's neuro capacity. It's applied physics as opposed to 'along for the ride' out of control.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

---

It's a biologic function of physics.

We obviously have the ability to make assumptions, evaluations and decisions within the context of our learned frame of reference.

Decision making is a contained a neuro-biological process. Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain.

---

If it is just a biologic function of physics, then any assumption, evaluation, or decision you make is still the determined result of physics. Your whole learned frame of reference is the product of deterministic physics, you had no choice in the matter. Anything that stems from this learned frame of reference, likewise, is strictly determined by physics alone.

If this is the case, then why do you care about those who believe in religion? They had no choice but to believe it, physics determined it. In your grand scheme of things, their belief in religion is not "wrong" because there is no such thing as "wrong" in determinism.

In addition, since your thinking is similarly dispositioned, there is no basis on which to claim your perceptions accurately reflect ultimate reality and truth. Your "objectivity" and "empiricism" are determined only by physics, and so any reasoning derived from these is only confirming the learned frame of reference from which they themselves are derived....a learned frame of reference that itself is also derived only from physics. In essence, you are claiming that physical reality is ultimate truth and reality....because of physics. Circular logic, a fallacy.

---

Everyone (who is not mentally impaired) has the ability to analyze and make decisions base upon what they have learned.

People's beliefs are based upon what they have learned, regardless of its accuracy or veracity. They have the ability to change those fallacious beliefs when presented with accurate information, once they can overcome the hurdle of recognizing their beliefs and knowledge were based upon error, and inaccuracies.

Your premises and reasoning are flawed by your reductionist desire to oversimplify complexity, in an attempt to make a point, that shows you don't understand physics, and science.

---

If there is any mental impairment or lack of understanding, it is on your part for your failure to understand the logical implications of your thinking.

If everyone has the ability to analizye and make decisions based on what they learned, and then CHANGE them based on their perception of "correctness" and "error" - are they doing this freely, or is it merely the inevitable result of unguided physics? You can not have it both ways. Either you can guide the biology and physics in your brain, or you can't. If you say we CAN guide the biology and physics, then you are invoking the supernatural. If you say we CAN'T, then whatever a person ends up thinking, whether "right" or "wrong" in your view, or whether or not they can "change" their thinking to conform to whatever is "right" or "wrong" in your view, is merely the end result of the pathway that was determined by physics alone. If all there is is physics, then it couldn't be any other way.

You say that everyone "who is not mentally impaired" has the ability to analyze, learn, and make decisions. Serious question - how do you know that YOU aren't mentally impaired to a degree? Mentally impaired people are only that way because it was the end result of physics, right? So how can you assume that the physics that resulted in you, landed in all the right ways for you to have the ability to accurately perceive truth and reality?

---

A dog has a limited ability to analyze a simple problem and resolve it for the desired outcome. A chimp, or a monkey can do the same, as many other animals. Do you believe they have the same supernatural abilities that you have? Clearly brain development and advancement is a factor that sets species apart from one another.

Clearly we have an advanced brain in comparison to other animals. Whether it is through a species unique evolutionary development, or through individual development, physical impairment from trauma or disease, the brain is where cognition occurs in all species. Consciousness and cognition are physical biological processes, as any other biological function. Because of our evolutionary advanced state, we have the most advanced ability to reason and make choices. Some more than others (autism for example). Consciousness depends upon brain activity. You didn't have consciousness until your brain was sufficiently developed after conception. There is no evidence that consciousness and cognition can extend beyond and without brain activity. We don't have to understand all of the details and intricacies to make that observation.

---

The only observation you're making, is that biology is a necessary component of consciousness. You are not proving that it is a sufficient component. To illustrate, here is an analogy of your argument, bolded above:

"Seeing moving pictures depends on TV activity. You couldn't see the pictures until the TV was finished being built from the factory. There is no evidence that the pictures can be seen without the TV being "on". We don't have to understand all the details of how the pictures are made to make that observation."

This argument can NOT be used to claim that the entirety of being able to view pictures comes from the physical TV itself. While it is correct that you need a physical TV to see the picture (it's necessary), it completely misses the fact that the TV is merely a physical receiver of an outside signal that is completely independent from the TV, and can not produce the pictures without it (it's not sufficient). Doc's example of the radio antenna is just a reiteration of this point.

---

You have no observation to suggest that biology is anything otherwise. Biologic function is not a component of consciousness, it is the totality of which consciousness is a component and product.
That's a poor analogy. Ability to view and process what is observed on a TV is a part of the brain's conscious function. This is true of any observations made by the brain. There is no comparison between the operation of a television and the brain, other than the laws of physics govern the operation of both. A TV is an inanimate object.