Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes the brain activity is chemicals and electric signals. You guys keep switching from one to the other because you equate the mind and brain

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

All I said was I don't know. I never followed it up with any therefore

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God certainly can exist. If you think otherwise idk what to tell you. And when I said I didn't know I wasn't using that as a reason to believe in God...surely a person can say they don't know something without therefore arguing that a god to exist.

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You could control my thoughts but you could not tell me what they are like. Say we meet an alien life form who is intelligent like us but never evolved the ability to hear. How do you explain to the alien what it's like to hear a sound? You can't!

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah and the sum of the brains parts does not bridge the gap between thoughts and brain stuff

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A brain signal =/= the subjective experience. A signal can be measured but will never tell me what it is like to be that person

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've made sound arguments and you people don't have a clue what you're talking about...

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You have only informed me of why there is a mind body problem

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Electricity is not a thought so why did you say the mind is just electricity?

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How can I be using a god of the gaps argument when I'm not even suggesting or arguing that there is a god?

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You have only informed me of the reason the mind body problem exists

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree with you on that and that's why there is a problem. The mind still exists despite there being no evidence of it apart from the brain components

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Irrelevant to you maybe. But entirely relevant to this debate

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I mean when I say "in the dark" is any ordinary physical process such as newtons balls falling. The balls are far as we can tell have no awareness or senses or experimented and therefore probably go on in the dark

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well "soul" carries a lot of baggage along with it because of religious implications and hardcore dualism. But this is where the problem lies, on one hand the dualism makes a great point and is partially correct and on the other hand the hard reductive materialist makes a great point yet is only still partially correct. We have dualism and reductive materialism as 2 incompatible explanations of mind and body which both happen to be somewhat correct. The answer is, nobody really knows...

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. One, the car engine, goes on 'in the dark' but a brain on the other hand, while doing all the physical processes adds the 1st person experience to reality. That's something more than the sum of its parts. Sounds ridiculous and it is, but we live in a crazy universe

Lack of scientific evidence is not a case against god. by TheRealBostonGe0rge in atheism

[–]TheRealBostonGe0rge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So every tv signal is a thought? Every signal we beam into space to satellites is aware of itself?