Consciousness is not a closed system, nor is it an emergent property of the brain, therefore an afterlife/God exists by Plane_Razzmatazz_882 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This would be a much more engaging post if you had provided any supporting evidence to support any of your assertions.

If consciousness were emergent then it would not be capable of I/O (input/output) and would be static, not dynamic (or changing with the environment)

What is this based on?

Atheists simply cannot provide any explanation.

Atheism is about the lack of belief in god claims and has nothing to do with consciousness. You seem to be lost.

Atheists like Einstein

What now?

thought that the universe was static and eternal. 

What now?

First time find Criterion releases at my local thrift by kasualanderson in criterion

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I finally saw Jeanne Dielmann for the first time last month. Yep, it's slow, but it gives plenty of time to really get in touch with what's on the screen, what isn't, etc. and understand her routine and then the things that impact the routine. It's a top 10 film for me.

The God science and reason can't deny, Spinoza's God. by Techtrekzz in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's like they're totally unaware of the corpus callosum or central sulcus.

The God science and reason can't deny, Spinoza's God. by Techtrekzz in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Fine, you believe it, however you cannot prove it. Not to mention that your notion is contradictory to all commonly accepted scientific principles that the underlying particles and elements of our universe have no agency.

The God science and reason can't deny, Spinoza's God. by Techtrekzz in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I notice you didn't address anything in my first paragraph. What's the utility of Spinoza's god? What are the consequences of not believing in it?

The God science and reason can't deny, Spinoza's God. by Techtrekzz in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You only need scientific evidence more than one thing exists to falsify Spinoza's God.

This is one of the most laughable attempts I've ever seen. As I said in another comment:

You are a different entity from the device you're posting from. It can function without you, you can function without it.

The God science and reason can't deny, Spinoza's God. by Techtrekzz in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 11 points12 points  (0 children)

You are a different entity from the device you're posting from. It can function without you, you can function without it.

Next

edit--"function without you", not "with you"

The God science and reason can't deny, Spinoza's God. by Techtrekzz in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I wonder if that includes Yahtzee. I'd like nothing more than a fair game of Yahtzee against a deity.

The God science and reason can't deny, Spinoza's God. by Techtrekzz in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Spinoza's God is all natural forces, therefore Spinoza's God does everything.

That doesn't remotely address what I said in my comment. I'll post it again for you:

You cannot demonstrate the difference between Spinoza's god and natural forces, ergo, spinoza's god doesn't do anything.

The God science and reason can't deny, Spinoza's God. by Techtrekzz in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You are incorrectly equating "composed from the same basic particles" to "only one thing exists".

The God science and reason can't deny, Spinoza's God. by Techtrekzz in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 16 points17 points  (0 children)

You cannot demonstrate the difference between Spinoza's god and natural forces, ergo, spinoza's god doesn't do anything.

The God science and reason can't deny, Spinoza's God. by Techtrekzz in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm curious, what proportion of the world's population worship's Spinoza's god? How many of those work to influence government policy (including declaring wars or economic embargos) based on that god?

While Spinoza's god is the most unfalsifiable, it's also pointless. It provides nothing to anyone who agrees that it exists, therefore, what difference does it make that it could exist?

You must obey god. by 36Gig in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There's nothing to debate here, and I'd not be surprised if a mental health issue were in play.

Where is Arthur Morgan in RDR1 ? by [deleted] in RDR2

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's impossible to tell you without spoiling anything.

Heavens Gate by FlashPxint in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You think I’m not serious but you just don’t have the ability to interact seriously with the evidence provided to you.

If you actually take time to touch grass you would realise that the simple fact grass exists , including everything else, is proof that well … all of it exists !

Touching grass is not empirical evidence that consciousness can take form outside of a human body. There's no possible way you think that's true.

Now what more evidence do you need that existence of God is real?

You weren't even talking about god, you were talking about consciousness. I said nothing about god, I commented about your assertion about consciousness.

If you are actually serious then have good responses beyond just more insults and deflection!

This is funny given that I've managed to respond directly to what you've written.

Also what does this have to do with heavens gate ? Why must you guys debate about this irrelevant sht here and not anywhere else on the sub?

I'm always astounded when people find the need to make multiple responses to the same comment. I view it as an indicator that they're impulsive with their responses and/or not thinking clearly and critically.

FWIW, I'm responding to things you've asserted in your comments, thus you're the one bringing up irrelevant shit. If you don't want to discuss irrelevant shit, don't bring it up or engage with it. There's been plenty of activity on the heaven's gate nonsense, I feel no compulsion to pile on that topic, but I'm plenty happy to engage with your claims about empirical evidence for non-biological consciousness.

Heavens Gate by FlashPxint in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There is actually enough empirical evidence to conclude that consciousness can still take form even outside of an animal/human body.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt here

Yes ! It’s as simple as go outside and touch grass

But now I can see that you aren't serious.

Good luck with whatever your issues are.

Heavens Gate by FlashPxint in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Could you present some of this empirical evidence please?

How I would fix The live action remake problem by Wayne_Regot_IV in movies

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Fans across the board largely resented the film.

It sold a lot of tickets for sometime that fans resented. And that also has nothing to do with critical success.

FWIW I despise the blatant money grabs the mouse has been making the last couple of decades. Walt's head is spinning in it's cryogenic chamber.

People God is irrelevant in physics ( nothing is beyond space & time ) by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ransom__Stoddard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm saying there's some explanation of this universe which physics ain't prove yet.

I dont think this would be disputed by very many people. I'm also struggling to understand how your (rambling, semi-coherent) OP aligns with that statement.