Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,390 members, 7,781,119 topics. Date: Friday, 29 March 2024 at 09:21 AM

Atheism: The “No-God” Religion - Religion (7) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Atheism: The “No-God” Religion (10513 Views)

Athiesm The "No God" Religion / A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) / Atheist State Your Reasons For Not Believing In God/Religion (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 6:11pm On Jun 12, 2012
thehomer:

What is the great and profound foolishness in atheism?

The failure to recognise elementary causality as well as the denial of thoroughly obvious elements of design in living beings.

But worst of all, the goat-like obtuseness in failing to recognise knowing consciousness for what it is.

These are spectacularly foolish deficiencies within the atheistic worldview.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 6:17pm On Jun 12, 2012
Kay 17:

Also, why do you suggest the universe is created?

Why would you suggested it to be uncreated?
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by thehomer: 6:24pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:

The failure to recognise elementary causality as well as the denial of thoroughly obvious elements of design in living beings.

Does this "elementary causality" have a mind?
The idea of design in living beings is well explained by the theory of evolution.

Deep Sight:
But worst of all, the goat-like obtuseness in failing to recognise knowing consciousness for what it is.

What is this "knowing consciousness"?

Deep Sight:
These are spectacularly foolish deficiencies within the atheistic worldview.

How on earth does one not accepting the idea of a God make any atheistic worldview deficient? You believe in some God, others don't therefore you think any worldview they adopt is deficient. Yet you do not accept the Christian God. If Christians say (as they do) that this means any worldview you can adopt is severely deficient, how do you respond?
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by thehomer: 6:25pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:

Why would you suggested it to be uncreated?

It doesn't have to be created. If you think it was created, what was it created from?
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 6:30pm On Jun 12, 2012
thehomer:

Does this "elementary causality" have a mind?

I did not say any such thing. Please learn to stop your atheistic enthusiasm from preventing you reading properly.

The idea of design in living beings is well explained by the theory of evolution.

Oh no it is not.

Evolution does occur, but by no means explains complex design. Not in the least.

What is this "knowing consciousness"?

It is knowing consciousness.

How on earth does one not accepting the idea of a God make any atheistic worldview deficient? You believe in some God, others don't therefore you think any worldview they adopt is deficient. Yet you do not accept the Christian God. If Christians say (as they do) that this means any worldview you can adopt is severely deficient, how do you respond?

Oh no, I don't want anybody to accept my views necessarily. I do however, ask people that pretend to logic, to adopt logical viewpoints.

That's not too much to ask, is it?
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 6:34pm On Jun 12, 2012
thehomer:

It doesn't have to be created.

O yes it does, because matter, being mutable, cannot be self-existent and as such cannot be eternal in the past.

If you think it was created, what was it created from?

The energy resulting from that which is "the compound of infinite self existent laws" - which is called God.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 6:34pm On Jun 12, 2012
Repeated post.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by thehomer: 6:35pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:

I did not say any such thing. Please learn to stop your atheistic enthusiasm from preventing you reading properly.

Are you then implying that a God doesn't need to have a mind?

Deep Sight:
Oh no it is not.

Evolution does occur, but by no means explains complex design. Not in the least.

What complex design are you referring to?

Deep Sight:
It is knowing consciousness.

I'm sure you can do better than this or I would take it to mean that you have no idea of what you wish to say.

Deep Sight:
Oh no, I don't want anybody to accept my views necessarily. I do however, ask people that pretend to logic, to adopt logical viewpoints.

That's not too much to ask, is it?

No it isn't but you're yet to show the deficiencies you're referring to because it may be that what you think is a deficiency actually isn't a deficiency.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 6:40pm On Jun 12, 2012
thehomer:

Are you then implying that a God doesn't need to have a mind?

It is not my trouble if you cannot see that causality is an observed principle in elementary science, and not a being said to have a mind.

What complex design are you referring to?

That within your brain, for example, or your Central Nervous System, or the inter-play between your organs.

I'm sure you can do better than this or I would take it to mean that you have no idea of what you wish to say.

To be more precise, you should take it that you do not know the meaning of the English words "knowing" and "consciousness". For that, I will suggest you consult a dictionary, as I have found that atheists do not know the meaning of most words, especially when it suits them.

No it isn't but you're yet to show the deficiencies you're referring to because it may be that what you think is a deficiency actually isn't a deficiency.

Oh yes I have but perhaps you need to read again and then also consult a dictionary.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by thehomer: 6:40pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:

O yes it does, because matter, being mutable, cannot be self-existent and as such cannot be eternal in the past.

My my conception of creation is different from formation. Creation requires a mind while formation doesn't necessarily need one.

Deep Sight:
The energy resulting from that which is "the compound of infinite self existent laws" - which is called God.

I hope you realize that you've effectively said that the universe is created from something physical.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by thehomer: 6:46pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:

It is not my trouble if you cannot see that causality is an observed principle in elementary science, and not a being said to have a mind.

Are you saying that God caused the universe or aren't you?

Deep Sight:
That within your brain, for example, or your Central Nervous System, or the inter-play between your organs.

It is explained by the theory of evolution. Maybe you need to look into it before you continue along these lines.

Deep Sight:
To be more precise, you should take it that you do not know the meaning of the English words "knowing" and "consciousness". For that I will suggest you consult a dictionary, as I have found that atheists do not know the meaning of most words, especially when it suits them.

Deep Sight. This isn't the first time that we're having this sort of conversation revolving around the meaning of a phrase. I've shown you before that a phrase can have a different meaning from the words that make it up. If you have a clear idea of what you're referring to, why don't you simply come out and say it? If you think there is a link that explains the meaning of this phrase, by all means, present it.

Deep Sight:
Oh yes I have but perhaps you need to read again and then also consult a dictionary.

You have merely asserted that not believing in a God is a deficiency. Can you actually demonstrate this assertion? Saying that is no better to me than saying that a non-belief in Santa Claus is a deficiency.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 6:47pm On Jun 12, 2012
thehomer:

My my conception of creation is different from formation. Creation requires a mind while formation doesn't necessarily need one.

Well where you are dealing with an entire universe and life therein, that has intent inscribed upon it - for the simple reason that matter itself is not eternal in the past and as such would have had to definitively come into existence at a point. Again, the form of the resulting universe discloses a mind.

I hope you realize that you've effectively said that the universe is created from something physical.

I will not quibble about this here: having seen Mr. Idehn make a fuss about physical or non-physical, no matter. The point still stands so long as the universe is caused to be by a pre-existent being.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 6:55pm On Jun 12, 2012
thehomer:

Are you saying that God caused the universe or aren't you?

That, we have always said. That does not mean that causality as a scientific principle is what has a mind.

It is explained by the theory of evolution.

No it is not.

Deep Sight. This isn't the first time that we're having this sort of conversation revolving around the meaning of a phrase. I've shown you before that a phrase can have a different meaning from the words that make it up. If you have a clear idea of what you're referring to, why don't you simply come out and say it? If you think there is a link that explains the meaning of this phrase, by all means, present it.

Indeed, it is not the first time that people such as yourself anf Idehn have ridiculously asserted simple words to suddenly be very difficult or even incomprehensible. I have learnt my lesson. I will not play such daft games with anyone any more. If you are having challenges understanding any words, just consult a dictionary, thank you very much.

As to phrases, I see that you yourself actually compose whole sentences! Surely then, good friend, mere phrases cannot be difficult. If they are, ask a friend or family member around you. Just be careful not to ask another like yourself or Idehn, who will claim not to know the meaning of such simple words.

You have merely asserted that not believing in a God is a deficiency. Can you actually demonstrate this assertion? Saying that is no better to me than saying that a non-belief in Santa Claus is a deficiency.

No, I have asserted that since observed science discloses causality, then it is unscientific to argue the reverse with regard to the material universe. This is what I said is foolish, and yes of course it is eminently and goatishly foolish.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by thehomer: 6:57pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:

Well where you are dealing with an entire universe and life therein, that has intent inscribed upon it - for the simple reason that matter itself is not eternal in the past and as such would have had to definitively come into existence at a point. Again, the form of the resulting universe discloses a mind.

You're making another rather bold claim here. Life may be said to have local intent not some sort of cosmic intent. If you disagree, then I would like to see what sort of intent you're conferring upon life in general. How does the universe we see disclose a mind? This is the core question you're yet to answer.

Deep Sight:
I will not quibble about this here: having seen Mr. Idehn make a fuss about physical or non-physical, no matter. The point still stands so long as the universe is caused to be by a pre-existent being.

You are being inconsistent.
You've said matter is not eternal in the past and you've also said that what you're referring to as God i.e "the compound of infinite self existent laws" made things out of energy which is physical.
You're also saying that an infinite bunch of laws have a mind. What on earth do you mean? How can laws have a mind? Or are you using a new concept of mind?
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 7:01pm On Jun 12, 2012
thehomer:

You're making another rather bold claim here. Life may be said to have local intent not some sort of cosmic intent. If you disagree, then I would like to see what sort of intent you're conferring upon life in general. How does the universe we see disclose a mind? This is the core question you're yet to answer.

Oh yes it does, grand cycle that it is, chuff, chuff.

You are being inconsistent.
You've said matter is not eternal in the past and you've also said that what you're referring to as God i.e "the compound of infinite self existent laws" made things out of energy which is physical.

All energies are one energy. There's your answer.

You're also saying that an infinite bunch of laws have a mind.

But of course. They not being laws of man, but self-existent realities that could not but be.

What on earth do you mean? How can laws have a mind? Or are you using a new concept of mind?

There is but one mind. There's your answer.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by Kay17: 7:02pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:

Why would you suggested it to be uncreated?

There are lots of possibilities. To suggest the existence of a creator god, you will need to explain first why the universe is not just caused but designed.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 7:06pm On Jun 12, 2012
Kay 17:

There are lots of possibilities. To suggest the existence of a creator god, you will need to explain first why the universe is not just caused but designed.

O that's simple. How do you pack a universe into a dot? And yet that's what we see as the implication of the big ba[i]n[/i]g. That takes some doing.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by thehomer: 7:06pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:

That, we have always said. That does not mean that causality as a scientific principle is what has a mind.

I never implied that it was a scientific principle that has a mind neither did I say that you implied the same.

Deep Sight:
No it is not.

What makes you say this?

Deep Sight:
Indeed, it is not the first time that people such as yourself anf Idehn have ridiculously asserted simple words to suddenly be very difficult or even incomprehensible. I have learnt my lesson. I will not play such daft games with anyone any more. If you are having challenges understanding any words, just consult a dictionary, thank you very much. As tp phrases, I see that you yourself actually compose whole sentences. Mere phrases then cannot be difficult. If they are, ask a friend or family member around you. Just be careful not to ask another like yourself or Idehn, who will claim not to know the meaning of such simple words.

Can you present a link that explains what you wish to say? The phrase "knowing consciousness" doesn't turn up any relevant meaning on search engines, online dictionaries or online encyclopaedias.
If you cannot, then you simply have to accept that the phrase is simply a word salad unless you actually define it concisely.

Deep Sight:
No, I have asserted that since observed science disclsoes causality, then it is unscientific to argue the reverse with regard to the material universe. This is what I said is foolish, and yes of course it is eminently foolish.

Causality is a philosophical concept that is used in science but with quantum mechanics, that principle is actually being questioned.
I hope you realize that the God claim you're making extends beyond the mere philosophical concept of causality. You're also assigned certain attribute(s) to this God.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by thehomer: 7:12pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:

Oh yes it does, grand cycle that it is, chuff, chuff.

Which one? Local intent or cosmic intent? The presence of a cycle in no way says that there is a mind running things.

Deep Sight:
All energies are one energy. There's your answer.

Are you saying that energy is eternal?

Deep Sight:
But of course. They not being laws of man, but self-existent realities that could not but be.

What concept of mind are you using?

Deep Sight:
There is but one mind. There's your answer.

Do the presidents of Nigeria and Ghana have independent minds or are they sharing the same mind?
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by Kay17: 7:12pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:
The energy resulting from that which is "the compound of infinite self existent laws" - which is called God.

In very simple words, God nevertheless a mechanism. But it would be one in a void. That would make no sense. Also, he is must be qualitative to a body/substance/personality, as a descriptive law.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by Kay17: 7:17pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:

O that's simple. How do you pack a universe into a dot? And yet that's what we see as the implication of the big ba[i]n[/i]g. That takes some doing.
no how is a universe spilled out of a dot? There isn't any extraordinary effort necessary to effect that. It could purely be mechanical.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 7:20pm On Jun 12, 2012
thehomer:

I never implied that it was a scientific principle that has a mind neither did I say that you implied the same.

Oh yes you did. Read your post.

Anyway, since you have retracted, no matter.

What makes you say this?

Microscopic life thrives in even greater abundance than complex life forms. As such, given the principle of survival of the fittest, life should have been evolving towards micro-scopic forms and not towards complex forms. Not to speak of towards forms of such stupendous complexity as a human brain, for example.

Can you present a link that explains what you wish to say? The phrase "knowing consciousness" doesn't turn up any relevant meaning on search engines, online dictionaries or online encyclopaedias.
If you cannot, then you simply have to accept that the phrase is simply a word salad unless you actually define it concisely.

Ok, I'll help you a little. You know what the word "consciousness" means, right? Good. So "Knowing consciousness" is that consciousness that is world-aware in that it conceives the world, the universe, and even abstraction, as opposed to such life forms that maybe conscious only, but not knowing in this way: e.g: an earthworm, a goat. . . . (or a goat-minded atheist or religionist. . !)

Causality is a philosophical concept that is used in science but with quantum mechanics, that principle is actually being questioned.

Unsuccessfully, so far.

Disastrously and calamituously, in the attempted case of virtual particles, for example. Failure. Goatish failure.

I hope you realize that the God claim you're making extends beyond the mere philosophical concept of causality. You're also assigned certain attribute(s) to this God.

For the purpose of these discussions we can start with that concept of causality first. And it is not just philosophical - causality is the founding ground of science. Science itself is an inquiry into causality.

Yes, God has other attributes. But if Goatists cannot get past such a fundamental scientific one, we dare not challenge them with more.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 7:32pm On Jun 12, 2012
thehomer:

Which one? Local intent or cosmic intent? The presence of a cycle in no way says that there is a mind running things.

Oh, not where such cosmos emerges unbidden out of a dot, certainly that has implications.

Are you saying that energy is eternal?

But ofcourse. Not as known in this universe though. It transcends this universe only and I speak of the one eternal energy that permeates all things.

What concept of mind are you using?

What else, but the one eternal mmind that is.

Do the presidents of Nigeria and Ghana have independent minds or are they sharing the same mind?

Don't you think that the answer to this question is beyond your materialism. Well the answer is that they are permeated by the one eternal mind that is.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by Kay17: 7:37pm On Jun 12, 2012
We should note that causality might be exclusive to the universe, as time is said to flow along with the universe into existence.

Thus outside such a framework, causality might not be possible.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 7:43pm On Jun 12, 2012
Kay 17: no how is a universe spilled out of a dot? There isn't any extraordinary effort necessary to effect that. It could purely be mechanical.

Could be, would you care to show how, and what triggers such?
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 7:44pm On Jun 12, 2012
Kay 17: We should note that causality might be exclusive to the universe, as time is said to flow along with the universe into existence.

Thus outside such a framework, causality might not be possible.

Exactly, which is why self-existent things are self existent.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by Kay17: 7:53pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:

Could be, would you care to show how, and what triggers such?

No the burden is on you to specifically provide why there is a creation. I'm to show other possibilities. Of which a dot spilling out its content could well be mechanical.
Deep Sight:

Exactly, which is why self-existent things are self existent.
to concede to an absolute time frame is fatal.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by DeepSight(m): 7:56pm On Jun 12, 2012
Kay 17:

No the burden is on you to specifically provide why there is a creation. I'm to show other possibilities. Of which a dot spilling out its content could well be mechanical.

Not at all, you should be the one to show me just how normal it is for universes to be contained in dots, and exactly why such dots dont spill before or after the time at which they spill, but specifically at that time.

Rather, everything about such an occurrence evinces an ACT.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by Kay17: 8:10pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:

Not at all, you should be the one to show me just how normal it is for universes to be contained in dots, and exactly why such dots dont spill before or after the time at which they spill, but specifically at that time.

Rather, everything about such an occurrence evinces an ACT.
no we don't have other experiences of other universes not spilling or spilling out of dots. So there is no "normal/regular course". Since this did, we shouldn't see as a supernatural event. Also, its not obvious such an event is clearly that of a creation.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by thehomer: 8:41pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:

Oh yes you did. Read your post.

Anyway, since you have retracted, no matter.

I cannot retract what I didn't say.

Deep Sight:
Microscopic life thrives in even greater abundance than complex life forms. As such, given the principle of survival of the fittest, life should have been evolving towards micro-scopic forms and not towards complex forms. Not to speak of towards forms of such stupendous complexity as a human brain, for example.

Are you saying that the presence of macroscopic organisms despite the abundance of microscopic organisms somehow shows that the theory of evolution is wrong? This is simply a misunderstanding of what the theory is for. The theory is to explain the diversity of life observed on earth.
Your core assumption that evolution should only be directed "towards" microscopic life is simply mistaken especially when one understands that evolution isn't directed in that sense.

Deep Sight:
Ok, I'll help you a little. You know what the word "consciousness" means, right? Good. So "Knowing consciousness" is that consciousness that is world-aware in that it conceives the world, the universe, and even abstraction, as opposed to such life forms that maybe conscious only, but not knowing in this way: e.g: an earthworm, a goat. . . . (or a goat-minded atheist or religionist. . !)

I see you've now realized that you've been saying gibberish all this while but you're still saying rubbish because we recognize consciousness in other humans. Humans are "world-aware" and conceive the universe and abstraction.
You need to try harder.

Deep Sight:
Unsuccessfully, so far.

Disastrously and calamituously, in the attempted case of virtual particles, for example. Failure. Goatish failure.

Once again, you misunderstand the purpose of certain concepts in science. The presence of virtual particles isn't to violate the concept of causality. It is simply information we have about the universe.

Deep Sight:
For the purpose of these discussions we can start with that concept of causality first. And it is not just philosophical - causality is the founding ground of science. Science itself is an inquiry into causality.

Yes, God has other attributes. But if Goatists cannot get past such a fundamental scientific one, we dare not challenge them with more.

What do you want to say about concept of causality when you've already said that energy is eternal?
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by thehomer: 8:54pm On Jun 12, 2012
Deep Sight:

Oh, not where such cosmos emerges unbidden out of a dot, certainly that has implications.

How does this answer the simple question I asked? Here, let me try again.

thehomer:
Which one? Local intent or cosmic intent?

Deep Sight:
But ofcourse. Not as known in this universe though. It transcends this universe only and I speak of the one eternal energy that permeates all things.

So the energy you're talking about is "not-energy" i.e energy that isn't the sort of energy in this universe? Now you're simply making stuff up. This new "energy" (I'll call it DSEnergy for simplicity) that you're talking about, how did you come to know about it? How are you able to tap into this DSEnergy you're talking about?

Deep Sight:
What else, but the one eternal mmind that is.

That isn't what I asked you. Please take a look at this article and let me know the idea of mind that you're referring to because I cannot make sense out of what you're saying despite your making the word "is" bold.

Deep Sight:
Don't you think that the answer to this question is beyond your materialism. Well the answer is that they are permeated by the one eternal mind that is.

If you think it is beyond materialism, then by all means, explain what you mean but what you've said above implies that they're sharing the same mind which is of course doubtful. You're sounding like a solipsist on relapse.
Re: Atheism: The “No-God” Religion by MrAnony1(m): 9:31pm On Jun 12, 2012
Idehn:
This can be true to some extent. So then, how do you know when you are are angry?

I can answer that this simply as "I know I am angry because I feel anger within me. You understand that this may lead to further questions like, "what do you mean by within you?", "how do you explain a feeling?" etc etc which will make us continue going round and round because we consider the mind to be different things

Idehn:
A good and fair question to ask. For me the mind is defined as the central mechanism by which an organism regulates/manages behaviors, such as thought, memorization,recognition, situational judgement,learning as well as direct physiological activity/responses such as walking/flight/jumping/communication etc. . .. It would be hard to tally everything the mind does though. For humans however, this mechanism is clearly the human brain. Any notion of the human mind must be in some way physically accountable/relatable to the brain. It is also true to varying degrees for most animals(96% I believe have brains).

Not saying the brain is the only kind of mechanism that can/does exist, just that it is the only one we know of and the one most animals have and use. Needless to say it is/can be physically related to the body of all organism that have it.

Ok so far our understanding of the physical tallies. Where we don't agree is the meaning of mind. This is the Webster's dictionary definition of mind
a mind is the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons

Now your definition agrees with the dictionary definition except where you try to describe the mind solely by physical attributes. (I believe this is because prior to this debate you have ruled out the possibility of anything non-physical)

Now this is where the dictionary definition doesn't agree with you - notice you emphasize on organisms - humans and others but the dictionary uses the word "individual" which is a word that i think is key and I'll tell you why.
To explain this, I'll use a concept I'll call levels of mind where the mind of organisms can be ranked accord to complexity. Now if the brain/nervous system is the mechanism for reasoning* in most animals, how do you explain how insects that cannot feel pain know to escape danger and seek comfort. Even the simplest of life forms will try to escape death and stay alive. This suggests an individual consciousness in the least complex of organisms. I could argue that every human being knows himself as separate from his body. it could be argued that a man's consciousness as it were can be transferred (if we knew how) from one body (including the brain) to another and it would still be the same. It could also be argued that even if one was paralyzed such that he is without sight, hearing, taste, smell, and feel the person will still know that he is himself an individual and is different from another person or object even though he may not be able to communicate it. This would be evidenced in a brain that is still alive while a person is in a coma (the brain would still work i.e. regulate blood flow, breathing, food digestion etc to keep the person alive. The question is why would it want to stay alive if it isn't really responding to external stimuli? There is no input and yet it is giving an output)

I'll put it another way assuming I was working on a computer and your task was to explain what software was on my computer by observing the processor and the memory. Yes you will notice changes but they will be meaningless in explaining what I am doing on the computer. You may even record the exact same reaction for a word document as for a short movie clip. The only way you can know for sure what is going on on my computer is if you saw my screen.
The computer software is in virtual space and it is accessed using hardware. If as you claim, it is physically stored, then it would have to occupy physical space. This would mean that a 200mb memory stick must always be larger in physical size than a 100mb memory stick. This is not true.

So as I said earlier, our brain is only a mechanism for us to access consciousness and our mind i.e the consciousness itself is a totally different entity.

So if a mind that doesn't have a physical mass regulates the body. Is it not possible in this case the precision and order in the universe be explained as evidence of it having a mind of sorts? or to borrow DeepSight's words an "unembodied mind"?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply)

Chilling Confessions Of A Zambian Satanist!!! / I Condemn The Paris Attack / Ifa Divination ~ How To Consult Ifa

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 101
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.