Since: Mar 12

Devil's hometown

#1012 Apr 15, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> universal consciousness= complete awareness of the nature of beings.
So does universal consciousness exist as such?There is no consciousness is noticed in any of the non-living entities.How come you're so sure that universe itself is conscious?

Since: Mar 12

Devil's hometown

#1013 Apr 15, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> The propeling life-force that permeates and sustains all of existence.
There is no such force ever observed or proved and life isn't a force.It is a process or an observable physical status of a biological system.The vital force theory was debunked already in the 19th century.Which century are you living in?

Since: Jan 14

United States

#1014 Apr 15, 2014
fadu singh wrote:
<quoted text>
So does universal consciousness exist as such?There is no consciousness is noticed in any of the non-living entities.How come you're so sure that universe itself is conscious?
Universe includes all conscious humans.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1015 Apr 15, 2014
jide oni wrote:
NightSerf,
If a fraction of water in the atmosphere comes down as rain and sinks into the soil, isn't the exact percentage of this latter that will be missing in space?
The volume of water thrown out of your tank, isn't the exact volume going to be found as an increase somewhere outside the tank?
Note that the totality of water in space, on and below the earth surface, remains ever constant, except in varying proportions in space, on the earth surface and under the earth.
This is true, but that's a huge amount, easily sufficient to supply adequate rainfall to all of the earth's surface. Weather patterns determine which areas are arid or temperate. A drought in one area does not occur because rain in other areas has exhausted the available water supply, nor do droughts in some areas lead to floods in others.

You really ought to study the basics of meteorology before making a fool of yourself by expounding on it. Learn what jet streams are, for example, and how they affect temperature and rainfall patterns. Learn about boundary layers and fluid dynamics. Meteorological systems are better understood than at any time in history thanks to modern technology, but their complexity is such that it gave rise to chaos theory.

The science is daunting and has occupied the attention of many, if not most, of the great scientists throughout human history, but for the basics, the Wikipedia article is probably as good as any online source that you will find. I just looked at it , and almost everything that I have learned over the years is included there in one neat and succinct package. You can read it in less than an hour, which is an indication of my own limited understanding of the subject. But even at such a basic level, real science is so much more enlightening than the mishmash if religious speculation and philosophical abstraction that you write about.

Since: Jan 14

United States

#1016 Apr 15, 2014
fadu singh wrote:
<quoted text>There is no such force ever observed or proved and life isn't a force.It is a process or an observable physical status of a biological system.The vital force theory was debunked already in the 19th century.Which century are you living in?
I belong to the future centuries.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#1017 Apr 15, 2014
NightSerf,
The aspect of the law of balance I was trying to underline is the fact:
That there is no increase or decrease of anything in nature;
And that no new thing is coming into existence, nor is anything else going out of existence.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#1018 Apr 15, 2014
Folks,
Let it be known that I am not here to peddle any religious speculations or to indulge in any philosophical abstractions, rather I am here with a burning desire to present my half-century old assiduous searching and probing to the skeptics in this forum, that at the end of rigorous and unsparing screenings by all the fine brains here, a satisfactory compromise might be reached.
I have chosen the Atheism Forum on the understanding that it is only in a forum of this calibre that I can find the toughest challenges, given that I have been an atheist myself, and skeptics in general are no-nonsense philosophers.
Enough of the preambles. We should now get down to business in earnest. You are all welcome to the floor of the debate proper.
Thank you.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1019 Apr 15, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Folks,
Let it be known that I am not here to peddle any religious speculations or to indulge in any philosophical abstractions, rather I am here with a burning desire to present my half-century old assiduous searching and probing to the skeptics in this forum, that at the end of rigorous and unsparing screenings by all the fine brains here, a satisfactory compromise might be reached.
I have chosen the Atheism Forum on the understanding that it is only in a forum of this calibre that I can find the toughest challenges, given that I have been an atheist myself, and skeptics in general are no-nonsense philosophers.
Enough of the preambles. We should now get down to business in earnest. You are all welcome to the floor of the debate proper.
Thank you.
Compromise is for diplomats and politicians. It is entirely inappropriate in an unfettered search for truth and knowledge. Your assertion that there is a god whose existence must either be substantiated with evidence that is not riddles with logical fallacies and/or flimflamery or it must be rejected. There are no alternatives.

So far, you have failed to meet those challenges, and when they get too tough, you resort to tactics that are all too familiar to those who have been reading this forum for any length of time. You denigrate the challengers, demeaning their intelligence and claiming to possess authority that we should recognize and greatness that we should praise. You try to beat down challenges with tiresome repetition of assertions that have been refuted. You attempt to shift the burden of proof onto your challengers. You insist that unless alternatives are proposed, you assertions must be accepted as true.

We've seen this all before. If you were an atheist at one time, you were not a skeptic. Real skeptics apply more rigorous tests to their own ideas than to of any others that their minds encounter. If you had done so with those that you promote in the two threads that you started, you would have much better arguments for their reality than you do.

Be honest with yourself: How rigorously have you tested the ideas that you promote? How solid are the means by which you tested them? Are those means consistent with the scientific method? How much of them consists of intuition that you accepted simply because or felt right? How invested is your ego in holding onto them? If you realized that they were based on fallacious premises could you let go of your certitude and reexamine the logic that you thought supported the?

Again, be honest with yourself. If you reawakened any skepticism that you once had, would these ideas pass the tests that your own skepticism would demand of them?

If you are to have any hope of convince real skeptics of your ideas, you must first conduct that reexamination. Until you have gone through that process, your efforts will be in vain.

Since: Mar 12

Devil's hometown

#1020 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> Universe includes all conscious humans.
How does that make entire universe conscious?Universe is a complex heterogeneous system and it comprises both conscious and non-conscious entities.
You're a vacuous person.

Since: Mar 12

Devil's hometown

#1021 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> I belong to the future centuries.
You've very high opinion of yourself.All you have to offer us is your baseless assertions and you want us to accept them blindly.The dogmas you're presenting on this forum have no logical meaning let alone backing empirical evidences.Your ideas are also superficial and they don't give any deep insight into any philosophical disciplines.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can easily and assertively scoff off your claims.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#1022 Apr 16, 2014
nightserf,

thanks for your efforts thus far.

if you and the other posters in my threads had adopted the kind of method fadu singh has thus far employed, we would have gone a long way by now in ascestaining the true picture of my position.

there is no doubt in my mind that i am well primed with a most consistent corpus of irrefutable proofs in favor of the existence of god.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1023 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
nightserf,
thanks for your efforts thus far.
if you and the other posters in my threads had adopted the kind of method fadu singh has thus far employed, we would have gone a long way by now in ascestaining the true picture of my position.
there is no doubt in my mind that i am well primed with a most consistent corpus of irrefutable proofs in favor of the existence of god.
There is much doubt in mine, which you have done nothing to dispel. You have yet to present a single "irrefutable proof," only arguments that are ridiculously easy to refute. Indeed, the fallacies on which your arguments rely are so obvious that they refute themselves. Why is that?

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#1024 Apr 16, 2014
Ladies and Gentlemen,
On a serious note, let us now commence our discussion with the requirements of a true God, so to speak.
For any entity to qualify as a supreme Being, what should be Its requisite characteristics?
Please find below, what I consider the most acceptable absolute attributes of such a Divinity:
Perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omnibeneficent, just, infinite, unchanging, all-embracing, all-inclusive and has no exceptions. As a matter of fact, the attributes of a supreme Being cannot but be inexhaustible.
Your reactions, please.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1025 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
On a serious note, let us now commence our discussion with the requirements of a true God, so to speak.
For any entity to qualify as a supreme Being, what should be Its requisite characteristics?
Please find below, what I consider the most acceptable absolute attributes of such a Divinity:
Perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omnibeneficent, just, infinite, unchanging, all-embracing, all-inclusive and has no exceptions. As a matter of fact, the attributes of a supreme Being cannot but be inexhaustible.
Your reactions, please.
Fine. Now demonstrate that a god exists that has all of those attributes. Be aware that the same standards of evidence and logic that you have thus far failed to meet in defense of your other claims will be expected with this one.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1026 Apr 16, 2014
Oh, yeah. You don't get to use claims that you have failed to substantiate as evidence for this one. No karma. No reincarnation. None of them unless you substantiate them first.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#1027 Apr 16, 2014
fadu singh wrote:
<quoted text>
How does that make entire universe conscious?Universe is a complex heterogeneous system and it comprises both conscious and non-conscious entities.
You're a vacuous person.
Universe is all-inclusive, i.e. all space and the matter which exists in it.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#1028 Apr 16, 2014
fadu singh wrote:
<quoted text>
How does that make entire universe conscious?Universe is a complex heterogeneous system and it comprises both conscious and non-conscious entities.
You're a vacuous person.
We both are in the race, time will tell who is daft.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#1029 Apr 16, 2014
fadu singh wrote:
<quoted text>You've very high opinion of yourself.All you have to offer us is your baseless assertions and you want us to accept them blindly.The dogmas you're presenting on this forum have no logical meaning let alone backing empirical evidences.Your ideas are also superficial and they don't give any deep insight into any philosophical disciplines.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can easily and assertively scoff off your claims.
The characteristics I ascribe to the hypothetical supreme Being, what's your take?

Since: Mar 12

Devil's hometown

#1030 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> Universe is all-inclusive, i.e. all space and the matter which exists in it.
Does space has a mind?

Since: Mar 12

Devil's hometown

#1031 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> The characteristics I ascribe to the hypothetical supreme Being, what's your take?
Well,for me God could be anything or anyone.It depends upon the individual's concep.tion of God.Your attribution like omnipotence,omnibenevolence and omniscience is simply impossible.Why don't you simply see universe as a universe?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 48 min ChristineM 228,564
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Reason Personified 700
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 3 hr Dally Mama 5,587
Heaven 6 hr susanblange 2
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 7 hr Patrick 7
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 7 hr Patrick 152
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) 15 hr Patrick 140

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE