The joys of life without God

[superluminal]

What about mild transient ischemic attacks?

[S.A.M.]

What about mild transient ischemic attacks?

I use them for spiritual nourishment like the mild electric shocks MJ used to wake himself up with.

[TimeTraveler]

My one enlightened statement. God is alive. I challenge all to prove the death of God, or that God is dead. We have the option, shall God be alive or dead? Life or death?

If you believe God is dead, you still believe in God. If you believe science is real, you still believe in truth. If you believe in love, you'll find God there, if you believe in hate, you'll find God there(or the Devil).

A human mind without God, is a human without a governing force. So God is real, or what is real?

[superluminal]

My one enlightened statement. God is alive. I challenge all to prove the death of God, or that God is dead. We have the option, shall God be alive or dead? Life or death?

If you believe God is dead, you still believe in God. If you believe science is real, you still believe in truth. If you believe in love, you'll find God there, if you believe in hate, you'll find God there(or the Devil).

A human mind without God, is a human without a governing force. So God is real, or what is real?

1) God is a childs fantasy and therefore is not dead or alive. "god" is just a story.

2) A human mind without the "god" disease is a mind free to experience the universe as it really is.

[(Q)]

spiritual nourishment

Is that like invisible ink?

[(Q)]

God is alive. I challenge all to prove the death of God, or that God is dead.

God was never alive.

The challenge is complete.

[Enterprise-D]

ED
Despite your insistence that I did mention it I still can't recall it - perhaps you will have to go back there and find out exactly where I did mention "avid church going"

Lightee, of course you never used the words "avid churchgoing". I said that "avid churchgoing" meets your epistemology thread list criteria! What is so hard to understand about that?

Seriously, how old are you?

So do you still disagree that there is a strong connection between correct process and correct material?

Scientific process requires correct material. Faith process does not. Your epistemological process has no material. It requires listening and ignorance.

But you still didn't answer
And if it is perceivable to you but it is not perceivable to me does it still remain as proof? ”

The answer is, if it is provable, it is perceivable by anyone. Since you are operating from an unprovable premise, your result is therefore unperceivable. Outside of mass hysteria.

BTW I haven't looked; did I make your insults thread?

thats part of the problem with quantum physics
and its your problem too if you want to work out of it

Point? Again, it is unreasonable to reject a field of study simply because the experts are not finished, in favor of a panacea organization that declares "god is all and absolute" with no proof, no evidence, requires blind faith and takes your money for it.

I'd have been glad to work on it had I continued with physics instead of I.T.

This is what I mean by dull matter - obviously you don't accept that term so here it is - to save a lot of confusion just tell us whether this is the scientific model you work out of to determine what qualifies as evidence or not - given your little foray into scientific example it seems to be ....

Dull matter means nothing. It is a fad phrase (like "jinkies" or "cowabunga") that you used, which was invented by a flailing institution.

I am just cutting to the chase - I figured that if I type less you have less to get confused about

Uh huh

[lightgigantic]

Brain activity can clearly be seen to increase while dreaming.

Now please, answer the question that was put before you rather than try and sidestep.

The essential argument regarding dreaming - brain scans aside - is that a person enters a comatose state which appears bereft of consciousness - the reason its called persistent is that they have not woekn out of it - so when a person is seen to recover from a vegetative state (just like a person is seen to recover from deep dreamless sleep) with a perfect in tact sense of "I", its obvious that the "I" was only in a dormant state, otherwise if it had well and truly disappeared there would be no question of it coming back.

[lightgigantic]

Oh come on LG. You don't know a thing about science, and what physicists do or why. Lagrangian mechanics has been around since Lagrange - late 1700's and has nothing to do with your previous statements re Newton and Einstein. Smoke screens using technical (and inappropriate) terms don't help you.

Ok lets take this nice and slow

1 - If knowing A is dependant on knowing B,C, D, E, F, G and H , B-H are the fundamentals for knowing A

2 - If it is later ascertained that one can know A with only I,J,K,L, I-L become the new and improved fundamentals for knowing A

3 - If it is later ascertained that A, M and N can be known with only O,P and Q then knowing A (as well as M and N) becomes reliant on merely knowing O, P and Q.

Before I spell out which number is Newtonian physics, which is Langragian physics and which set of physics were developed by einstein do you agree that the fundamentals for knowing A are superceded from 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3?

[lightgigantic]

Sorry. Not.

http://www.ijpsy.com/ver_archivo.php...20of%20self%22

You (and the article you refer to) are talking about loss of the self as it pertains to the body.

I am talking about the loss of self as it pertains to one's perception of one's consicous self - for instance if a person is thinking, feeling and willing they have not lost the sense of self, since it is "I" think, "I" feel etcetc

[lightgigantic]

ED

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
ED
Despite your insistence that I did mention it I still can't recall it - perhaps you will have to go back there and find out exactly where I did mention "avid church going" ”



Lightee, of course you never used the words "avid churchgoing". I said that "avid churchgoing" meets your epistemology thread list criteria! What is so hard to understand about that?

so in other words it is your idea not mine

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So do you still disagree that there is a strong connection between correct process and correct material? ”



Scientific process requires correct material. Faith process does not. Your epistemological process has no material. It requires listening and ignorance.

well since you think that its all about merely avid church attendence and sitting on one's brains its understandable where you got the idea about ignorance from

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
But you still didn't answer
And if it is perceivable to you but it is not perceivable to me does it still remain as proof? ” ”



The answer is, if it is provable, it is perceivable by anyone. Since you are operating from an unprovable premise, your result is therefore unperceivable. Outside of mass hysteria.

On the contary I am not operating on that premise - you are

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
thats part of the problem with quantum physics
and its your problem too if you want to work out of it ”



Point? Again, it is unreasonable to reject a field of study simply because the experts are not finished, in favor of a panacea organization that declares "god is all and absolute" with no proof, no evidence, requires blind faith and takes your money for it.

I'd have been glad to work on it had I continued with physics instead of I.T.

I'm not rejecting it - I am just establishing the paradigm that you are relying on - regardless of whether you know it or not

[Sarkus]

The essential argument regarding dreaming - brain scans aside - is that a person enters a comatose state which appears bereft of consciousness - the reason its called persistent is that they have not woekn out of it - so when a person is seen to recover from a vegetative state (just like a person is seen to recover from deep dreamless sleep) with a perfect in tact sense of "I", its obvious that the "I" was only in a dormant state, otherwise if it had well and truly disappeared there would be no question of it coming back.

Firstly this does NOT answer the question.

You originally posited:
"...as long as one is alive they still have a sense of "I" "

You are now qualifying that statement to those people who subsequently wake up and retain a sense of "I".

Well, we can all go round saying "X is true" and then qualify that statement with "but only in the instances when X is true".

Secondly, everybody dreams. You may not remember them, but everyone dreams.

Thirdly, Persistent Vegetative State is not the same as a coma. I suggest you look up the terms before responding.

As I said before - you are offering NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.
You need to provide evidence that being alive always equates to having a sense of "I", regardless of the condition of life.


As for merely waking up from unconsciousness and having a sense of "I" again - I can happily turn off my PC at night. And when I wake up and switch it on again it has exactly the same memory (albeit ROM) as it had when I switched it on - and operates in the same way. If that memory and that operation can be picked up so easily after being "dead" for a long time - I hardly find the same thing occurring in humans, where brain activity is continual (i.e. not even fully switched off) evidence that this sense of "I" is anything other than an emergent property of the complexity of the brain.

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Firstly this does NOT answer the question.

You originally posited:
"...as long as one is alive they still have a sense of "I" "

You are now qualifying that statement to those people who subsequently wake up and retain a sense of "I".

If a person is alive and is seen to drift in and out of sleep or coma and recover with a sense of "I" (in the way that dead person is never seen to) then it seems straight forward

Thirdly, Persistent Vegetative State is not the same as a coma. I suggest you look up the terms before responding.

Already did
Its controversial whether the state is permanant or not - mainly because it officially gets labelled after being "persistent" for 30 days, from which people are sometimes seen to emerge from - and besides that it also includes emmotional responses in the absence of stimuli (such as screaming and tears) - I thought the dreaming analogy was quite relevant actually

As I said before - you are offering NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.
You need to provide evidence that being alive always equates to having a sense of "I", regardless of the condition of life.

you are yet to provide evidence of someone being alive who doesn't have a sense of "I"

As for merely waking up from unconsciousness and having a sense of "I" again - I can happily turn off my PC at night. And when I wake up and switch it on again it has exactly the same memory (albeit ROM) as it had when I switched it on - and operates in the same way. If that memory and that operation can be picked up so easily after being "dead" for a long time - I hardly find the same thing occurring in humans, where brain activity is continual (i.e. not even fully switched off) evidence that this sense of "I" is anything other than an emergent property of the complexity of the brain

Erm .... hate to break it to you, but we are not computers

[Sarkus]

If a person is alive and is seen to drift in and out of sleep or coma and recover with a sense of "I" (in the way that dead person is never seen to) then it seems straight forward

But you have done nothing more than provide as evidence of this fact the very results you are trying to prove. Begging the question.
As I said - you are saying "X is true... in the cases where X is true"

you are yet to provide evidence of someone being alive who doesn't have a sense of "I"

I've as yet made no claims.

Erm .... hate to break it to you, but we are not computers

In what way are we not merely an advanced form of computer - albeit a self-sustaining one that can not switch itself on and off without permanent degradation of the hardware. This is what you advocate and yet provide no evidence for other than that which can be more simply and rationally explained as an emergent property or our own complexity.

[Enterprise-D]

ED
so in other words it is your idea not mine

I'm simply alluding that avid churchgoing matches and conforms to your list to perceive god; merely hiding behind "i didn't say it, you did" won't disguise the parallels of your list and attending church. I am also prompting you to try and prove me wrong. Stop sidestepping. We all know that either way... (ctd)

well since you think that its all about merely avid church attendence and sitting on one's brains its understandable where you got the idea about ignorance from

See above.

On the contary I am not operating on that premise - you are

(foll)...you cannot prove your stance since your desired perception does not exist therefore cannot be detected in the frame of reality. Therefore, you cannot sanely ascribe that premise of no-proof to me.

PS, your previous quoted comment: crap.

I'm not rejecting it - I am just establishing the paradigm that you are relying on - regardless of whether you know it or not

More crap.



All of this is your convoluted attempt at a strawman setup. A very inspired maze Lightee, I will now guess that your career is somehow linked to the Roman Catholic Church. You might even be a bishop in the Vatican.

Or maybe politics?

[lightgigantic]

ED

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
ED
so in other words it is your idea not mine ”



I'm simply alluding that avid churchgoing matches and conforms to your list to perceive god; merely hiding behind "i didn't say it, you did" won't disguise the parallels of your list and attending church. I am also prompting you to try and prove me wrong. Stop sidestepping. We all know that either way... (ctd)

The problem is that I don't see the connection between attending a place or worship and what I gave - its just like saying it is sufficient to learn higher education by attending university - obviously a serious discussion of learning requires a discussion of curriculum and not institution

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If a person is alive and is seen to drift in and out of sleep or coma and recover with a sense of "I" (in the way that dead person is never seen to) then it seems straight forward ”

But you have done nothing more than provide as evidence of this fact the very results you are trying to prove. Begging the question.
As I said - you are saying "X is true... in the cases where X is true"


“ you are yet to provide evidence of someone being alive who doesn't have a sense of "I" ”

I've as yet made no claims.

Your two point responses contradict each other

“ Erm .... hate to break it to you, but we are not computers ”

In what way are we not merely an advanced form of computer - albeit a self-sustaining one that can not switch itself on and off without permanent degradation of the hardware. This is what you advocate and yet provide no evidence for other than that which can be more simply and rationally explained as an emergent property or our own complexity.

there's your answer

[Godless]

Ok lets take this nice and slow

Apparently that!! hasn't even worked for you LG

Whre the hell is one's sense of "I" when they are comotosed?

Where the hell is the sense of "I" for a fully gone Alzheimer's patient?

There are gone, there's no sense of I that can survive severe brain damage.

Where was Schiavo's sense of self LG?
click

[lightgigantic]

Godless

Whre the hell is one's sense of "I" when they are comotosed?

where is it when one recovers from a coma?

Where the hell is the sense of "I" for a fully gone Alzheimer's patient?


There are gone, there's no sense of I that can survive severe brain damage.

Where was Schiavo's sense of self LG?
click

You are barking up the same wrong tree as superluminal, to which I responded to him ...

You (and the article you refer to) are talking about loss of the self as it pertains to the body.

I am talking about the loss of self as it pertains to one's perception of one's consicous self - for instance if a person is thinking, feeling and willing they have not lost the sense of self, since it is "I" think, "I" feel etcetc

[Sarkus]

I am talking about the loss of self as it pertains to one's perception of one's consicous self - for instance if a person is thinking, feeling and willing they have not lost the sense of self, since it is "I" think, "I" feel etcetc[/I]

You are saying nothing other than "There is a sense of 'I' for those that have a sense of 'I'."
I am sorry that you can not see that this is what you are doing.

And you are saying NOTHING about that sense of 'I' that can not be explained as an emergent property of the complexity of our brain.