• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Existence vs Awareness

...because consciousness only acknowledges that which already is.
This is a premise, AKA proposition but for the purposes of this argument it is a premise. Not a particularly well stated one but a premise nonetheless.

(P) Consciousness can only acknowledge that which already is.

In which case we must ask (by means of consciousness of course), why the Universe is so readily understandable?
"We must ask", is a conclusion that ostensibly follows from the premise (P). It doesn't. However the whole argument causes me to ask, "why must we ask"?

Obviously the science behind the makeup of the Universe is already there, it's just a matter of us acknowledging it.
Meaningless. Whether we acknowledge the science behind the makeup of the universe or not is inconsequential to anything but our own curiosity and purpose. That we acknowledge the science behind the makeup of the Universe proves nothing.

You are constructing invalid argument.
 
Suggests to me that, at the very least, "evolve" has connotations of biological evolution.
I don't doubt this in the least. However, before the advent of Darwinism, I doubt folks would have any idea what you're talking about. Albeit I'm sure most would agree, that things have a tendency to evolve, in the sense that they get progressively better, or worse ... or rather, devolve. ;)
 
Last edited:
This is a premise, AKA proposition but for the purposes of this argument it is a premise. Not a particularly well stated one but a premise nonetheless.

(P) Consciousness can only acknowledge that which already is.
Well, excuse me for being an observant human being for crying out loud.

"We must ask", is a conclusion that ostensibly follows from the premise (P). It doesn't. However the whole argument causes me to ask, "why must we ask"?
Yes, but we do ask. I would (gosh) venture to say that it was a prerequisite to consciousness.

Meaningless. Whether we acknowledge the science behind the makeup of the universe or not is inconsequential to anything but our own curiosity and purpose. That we acknowledge the science behind the makeup of the Universe proves nothing.
At the very least it acknowledges that a sense of order is maintained throughout.

You are constructing invalid argument.
If you say so.
 
You are making a god of the gaps argument. And BTW, there was a time when all of those things I listed were considered unknowable and therefore the providence of god.
Yes, and through the providence of God we have come to know them. This is my contention.

Your argument is illogical.
Oh my God, call the cops!

Questions aren't answers.
Questions solicit answers. Why, do my questions bother you that much?

Ignorance is not an answer.
Really? Then why do you folks claim not to know? And why the cries of heresy and lunacy to the first person who comes along to claim otherwise? Are you sure that you don't know? Yes, this is a true sign of ignorance.

That you don't know something does not give you license to insert fantasy to try and explain it.
I am conscious, the Universe made me this way. I would not know anything outside of this fact.

In the past people simply said "god did it". Thankfully science didn't rely on god for explanation.
It all comes from the same place ... or, hasn't science been able to figure that out yet?

Rational humans, AKA scientists, using logic didn't rely on ignorance as you are doing now.
Rational shmashional, how did it get this way?

Instead they assumed there were answers and went looking for them. Every year our gap of knowledge and the place for your god to hide shrinks.
My God is everywhere. He doesn't need to shrink. He also goes by the title of The Truth, by the way. ;)

Yet ignorance still demands that there must be something to our ignorance. No Iacchus. Ignorance is simply ignorance nothing else. Believing that there is some meaning to that ignorance is simply ignorant.
So, at what point within the "time frame" of the Universe did things become logical and rational?
 
Last edited:
And what would that be? Please, moisten the dry sponge of my mind with your font of knowledge.
And would you venture to say that knowledge is not wisdom? I'm sure you've heard of the expression, "All brains and no common sense."
 
Well, perhaps it would be best if I just "leave you in the dark?"

What benefit would that be to anyone? I'll have no reason to doubt my opinion of your post, you'll have neither a confirmation nor denial by me regarding your opinion, and everyone else will have seen you evaded answering a direct question.

edit for grammar
 
What benefit would that be to anyone? I'll have no reason to doubt my opinion of your post, you'll have neither a confirmation nor denial by me regarding your opinion, and everyone else will have seen you evaded answering a direct question.
Except that your doubt has already preceded this statement.
 
And, by insinuating do you mean the "falsification" of something? What exactly are you insinuating?

No, I don't mean "falsification". I mean (per m-w.com)
Main Entry: in·sin·u·ate
Pronunciation: in-'sin-y&-"wAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Latin insinuatus, past participle of insinuare, from in- + sinuare to bend, curve, from sinus curve
transitive senses
1 a : to introduce (as an idea) gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way <insinuate doubts into a trusting mind> b : to impart or communicate with artful or oblique reference
2 : to introduce (as oneself) by stealthy, smooth, or artful means
intransitive senses

Now. What were you implying/insinuating/"hinting at" when you said you know my "orientation"?
 
Well, excuse me for being an observant human being for crying out loud.
I have no problem with your observations. I have a problem with your logically invalid conclusions.

Yes, but we do ask.
And we pick our noses. So?

I would (gosh) venture to say that it was a prerequisite to consciousness.
Assuming that were true what difference does it make?

At the very least it acknowledges that a sense of order is maintained throughout.
I don't understand the statement. What is "it"?

If you say so.
Only because it is so.
 
No, I don't mean "falsification". I mean (per m-w.com)
Are you sure?

Now. What were you implying/insinuating/"hinting at" when you said you know my "orientation"?
Well, perhaps you can explain to me what you meant by calling me "a troll" then? ...

I'll give Iacchus credit, for my limited time on the forums, this has been one of his better word-game trolling attempts.
You started it you see, and I'm just merely pointing it out.
 
Yes, and through the providence of God we have come to know them. This is my contention.
But we don't need god to explain them anymore. You are arguing from incredulity. If we answer all of the questions we won't need your god anymore. Every year we need god less and less.

Oh my God, call the cops!
An emotional and rhetorical response. There is nothing to respond to.

Questions solicit answers. Why, do my questions bother you that much?
Your questions don't bother me. It's your illogical conclusions.

Really? Then why do you folks claim not to know? And why the cries of heresy and lunacy to the first person who comes along to claim otherwise? Are you sure that you don't know? Yes, this is a true sign of ignorance.
I don't have a clue what you are on about. New ideas, even correct ones, are challenged but if the ideas are logically sound then those ideas become accepted and are no longer controversial. All I ask is that you stick to logic and reason to support your ideas. I don't think that is too much to ask.

I am conscious, the Universe made me this way. I would not know anything outside of this fact.
Without quibbling over the meaning of "made", so what?

It all comes from the same place ... or, hasn't science been able to figure that out yet?

Rational shmashional, how did it get this way?
Acting like a petulant child won't give you an answer. Sometimes, as a grown up, we must simply accept that we don't know and try to find the answers. That's what Galileo, Copernicus, Magellan and other did. They didn't act like you and flail their arms around in emotion demanding that lack of understanding somehow meant something. Instead they first assumed that they could find the answers. They then went out in search of those answers not letting those who simply said "god did it" discourage them.

My God is everywhere. He doesn't need to shrink. He also goes by the title of The Truth, by the way. ;)
Your wink smilie has simply become a rhetorical device. It doesn't mean anything. Neither does this statement. You are free to believe in Zeus, Xenu, Allah, or whatever but giving a fantasy attributes and making declarations about that fantasy is just mental masturbation. If it makes you feel good then by all means do it but if you want me to join your circle jerk you will have to have something more than argument from ignorance.

So, at what point within the "time frame" of the Universe did things become logical and rational?
You don't have a clue what logic is. There was no point at which the illogical became logical. An illogical thing only exists as an abstract concept.
 
Once again, this is something that has been explained to him at least a dozen times here. Circularity (begging the question, assuming his conclusions) is his argument of choice. He is trolling.
Assuming that there is a God? Yes, rightfully so. If, in fact one did not know. So, either I'm being "circular" and don't know what I'm talking about ... or, dare we even go there? ;)

By the way, how does one present something to someone else's ignorance without providing the opportunity for them to assume that it might be so? ... Unless of course that person wishes to remain "willfully ignorant."
 
Last edited:
Are you sure?

Well, perhaps you can explain to me what you meant by calling me "a troll" then? ...

You started it you see, and I'm just merely pointing it out.


Yes, I am quite sure I don't mean "falsification". I called you "a troll" because, IMHO, you are a troll on these forums. Specifically, one that uses word games to still up the waters. Reference this if you need more clarification:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/loopy.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm
 
Yes, I am quite sure I don't mean "falsification". I called you "a troll" because, IMHO, you are a troll on these forums. Specifically, one that uses word games to still up the waters.
On a skeptic's site? Yes, God forbid you might actually learn something.
 

Back
Top Bottom