I Know That God Does Not Exist

I had a different idea on the discussion.While the particles may be too complex for our complete understanding of their individual properties, as “simple” building blocks left to their combined influences and forces, even more complex macro-structures come into being pretty much all on their own.You and Sarah may be looking on different levels. More complexity built from already staggering complexity.

Sorry, GDR, you lost me.I know that's easy to do and getting easier every day, but... what?

What universal consensus? I didn't know there were other than human opinions.Are you in cahoots with the dolphins? Well, in this thread it's "I Know That God Does Not Exist".

That's a pretty good assumption since there is no evidence of anything to the contrary.

OK, Got it.Even though you cannot prove an external intelligence is responsible you push that thought because your emotional makeup doesn’t want to accept the other possibility. That is incredulity.The other argument to be made is that the wholesale lack of even the most minimal evidence in favor of a god proposal, after thousands of years and so many brains and so much activity in looking for any at all, has become its own set of data points against the proposal.Carl Sagan wasn’t wrong when he said “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” when it comes to other life in our galaxy. The numbers and processes in proposing such other life are too strong to be ignored and support considering such a speculation. Not the same with a god speculation where there is no evidence at all to support even proposing such a speculation. You're right, both are incredulous and for the same reasons - there is no evidence at all to support even proposing such speculations.

Because you keep saying so.You keep saying you believe something that cannot be shown to exist and, further, offers not the least bit of evidence that such a thing should be entertained to begin with. You believe this based upon your wide-ranging research, not of any facts, but of the emotional speculations of others. The emotional witness of the believers is more to your personal comfort level, which means, IMHO, you were pre-disposed toward belief to begin with and fell in with the emotional comfort of your fellow believers.That made the contrary proposal emotionally uncomfortable for your psyche thus less convincing. An emotional inability to believe, not evidenced-based. That is the very definition of incredulity. GDR, I am sorry for this, but, you have shown no evidence the universe gives any “appearance of design”. Your definition of evidence is not viable - not evidence-based but more emotional incredulity for a non-designed universe. Complexity has a more viable explanation than unevidenced design. Which atheistic beliefs? The lack of evidence for god? The evidence that there *is* no evidence, none at all, to support the consideration of a god speculation? In an evidence-based reality there is nothing that contradicts this atheistic conclusion.This is not some belief but is a conclusion based on the available evidence. The exact opposite of incredulity. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

So tell us, Village Idiot, how you know it didn't.

Just like their vow of chastity.Were you an alter boy?

Muslims, Hindus, Taoists etc etc would disagree. They, in their own many millions, think your spiritual epiphany and awareness of your god is both false and heretical.Reality is not a popularity contest. It doesn't care how many of you are wrong. Which means your path to christ is a path of ignorance.

Since consciousness is an emergent property of our physical biological being a connection is obvious. I don’t think anyone can show any evidence that this connection takes on the type of woo connection to some cosmic consciousness you may be hoping to believe. Again, as always, evidence, not some wishful hope, would be required to see consciousness as anything more than the human body’s user-interface into our local environment. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Agreed. Emergent properties are like that. They result in properties that would not seem to be present in their constituent parts. Like the complex piping and pumps and water emerging into the perceived “art” of a fountain.Philosophers love this kind of stuff. They can speculate for centuries on the “is”-ness of a casaba melon that in the end is not very useful. That is not what I think I hear you thinking. Others have already addressed this so, thankfully, I don’t have to. No one suggested the human body’s user-interface into our local environment was anything simple. It is indeed a highly complex interplay of chemistry, synaptic patterns and electrical impulses.And just to muddy the waters, there is the thought that the sub-conscious mind is the actual driver of all we think and do while the conscious mind is the not-so-simple facade to interface mind to world.

What assertion? That evidence is needed? If so then I'll assert that everywhere every time. Actually it is Methodological Naturalism ... on steroids. That's already been done. You just haven't accepted that reality.

BCRPS is a recognized scientific disposition that can explain auditory/visual hallucinations in these cases precisely.Science is not limited by *any* phenomenon humans can experience. We can science anything.Batshit Crazy Religious Person Syndrome is just another example.

Though as a youth I was exposed to batshit crazy religious people I was fortunate to avoid the cerebral contamination BCRPS describes.There were a number of times when I felt overwhelming body-wrenching out-of-mind episodes, complete with visions and voices, but these don’t fit the syndrome as they were in the midst of powerful orgasms.

Again, laymen are dangerous. Isn't this where the measurement problem comes in? Collapse of the wave function to a single spike? Is this not the actual (+- Heisenberg) location?