| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
dramcam
USA
24 Posts |
 Posted - 10 Jul 2003 : 3:42:55 PM
|
For all of our athesits out there, here's a question for you, that you will not be able to answer, so take into consideration, the fact that God does exist and science is proving his existence moreover than his non-existance.
"Please just explain conceptually, in the most broad terms, how consciousness could have arisen from atoms and molecules."
If you want some more evidence in the case for God, go to the website below and watch an atheist being grilled in a debate he cannot win!!!
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7709
  |
|
|
Lone Wiccan
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2003 : 5:21:35 PM
|
"Please just explain conceptually, in the most broad terms, how consciousness could have arisen from atoms and molecules."
I find it rather amusing that you think that you can "prove" God's existance by pointing out a lack of scientific knowledge.
It's like asking a caveman to explain how rubbing two sticks together creates fire, then telling him that it's got to be God, simply because he can't answer the question.
I don't know how this computer I'm typing on works. Would you suggest that it's the work of God since I can't describe how it works?
Harm it none, do what thou will. |
 |
|
|
CelticWitch
Canada
1243 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2003 : 5:48:39 PM
|
"Human knowledge is incomplete, therefore God must exist."
Petitio Principii - Fallacy of Presumption.
How often have we run into this hogwash?
Here's a question you can't answer, dramcam. How does not knowing the exact process of any natural phenomena prove your particular concept of a supreme being is correct?
Here's another one. Whereas the exact process of many natural phenomenae were not known in the past but are known now, and wheras you purport that not knowing the nature of a particular phenomena proves the existence of your god, does each scientific discovery that brings us closer to a complete knowledge of the universe render your God less real? Logic and your statements would seem to indicate so. |
Edited by - CelticWitch on 10 Jul 2003 5:49:24 PM |
|
|
|
modig
USA
1587 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2003 : 9:22:02 PM
|
Well the Human brain is composed of Nuerons. Nuerons are cells that can send electrical signals to other nuerons, and are generally connected to a few thousand other neurons. The connections between nuerons can vary in strength, and as one neurons gets enough input from other neruons, it can then "fire" and send signals to every neuron it is connected to, which may fire if enough other neruons are giving them input. Memories and learning are at least partially done by changing the strength of the connections between neurons. Apparently if you set up a system like this in the proper way, it can become concoious, as we can plainly see by looking at our selves.
Simple neural network models are powerful enough to preform many pattern recognition tasks, like handwriting recognition and voice recoginition, however out simplified nueral network models have yet to achieve conciousness, which is not surprising, because they are not nearly as complex as ever a fly's brain. They are often composed of just 2 or 3 layers, as opposed to the massive interconnection found in the brains of animals.
Neruons are very much like cells in the nervous system, I'm actually not sure if there is a significant different. Regardless, since nervous systems had evolved in organisms like the jellyfish, it is not surprising that more complex nueral connections formed, and eventually there were organisms with synapses, which are almost like little tiny mini-brains. As more and more complex connection schemes came about via mutation, they turned out to be useful, and survived. Repeat the process for a few hundred million years, and apparently conciousness isn't too hard to create.
-----------------------
That being said, even if I couldn't do that it doensn't mean your God exists. As CelticWitch said, just because we don't understand something, doesn't me a God did it. |
|
|
|
honeybadger
USA
542 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2003 : 11:20:16 PM
|
| science will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God, scientists do not know everything and they don't claim to, we learn new things each day, however there has never been any valid evidence to prove God's existence, just because i don't understand everything about how the universe works doesn't mean i need a God to be in control of it all, religion is based on faith not logic |
|
|
|
dramcam
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2003 : 10:52:12 AM
|
| Did any of you bother to check out the debate? I mean, the atheist is REALLY getting grilled-tough spot to be in! They've also got some other cool archived debates, like does absolute morality exist? Great fun over there, at Theologyonline! |
|
|
|
CelticWitch
Canada
1243 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2003 : 11:50:41 AM
|
| And if an atheist who happens to not have good debating skills gets "grilled" does that mean that your God exists? I don't think so. Despite all the religious rhetoric, the appeals to emotion, the ad hominem, the fallacies of logic, one thing remains. You cannot prove the existence of your God, you cannot even present one shred of substantive evidence, therefore your claim of absolute truth is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
honeybadger
USA
542 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2003 : 12:12:35 PM
|
| oh, wow, you can make fun of atheists, that really proves your God exists [insert sarcasm here]lol, i could direct you to a million sites that show how illogical christians can be but what's the point? |
|
|
|
modig
USA
1587 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2003 : 12:27:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dramcam
Did any of you bother to check out the debate? I mean, the atheist is REALLY getting grilled-tough spot to be in! They've also got some other cool archived debates, like does absolute morality exist? Great fun over there, at Theologyonline!
Yes I've checked out the debate, there is a thread about it, and you can see my posts in it, describing the mistakes Zakath is making, and how Bob is really a much better debater than him. However, you don't see me going around saying "did you see how I schooled him, he didn't even know what entropy is, do you agree with me now?" No, the truth doesn't depend on who believes it, or how eloquent they are. In fact, I suspect not a single person in the entire world actually believes the truth and only the truth, but it is still true, whatever it is. |
|
|
|
honeybadger
USA
542 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2003 : 1:15:02 PM
|
but it is still true, whatever it is.
how true, i don't think anyone has figured it out yet
"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy." -Hamlet |
|
|
|
CelticWitch
Canada
1243 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2003 : 2:32:19 PM
|
Yes I can agree that truth is absolute. Human perception of truth, however, is subjective in the extreme. Unless you can absolutely prove that you have absolute truth all you can lay claim to is a very subjective human perception of truth.
And that claim is certainly no better than anyone elses claim. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
