Franko Memorial thread!

[Upchurch]

How is reading about the evolution of life going to help?
That doesnt explain how non-consciousness creates consciousness.

THAT is why I suggest you read up on it: you really don't know why it would help explain how non-consciousness creates consciousness.

 

[Upchurch]

Matter pre-exists consciousness

This is shown in a number of ways, primarily by the fact that we have geological and astronomical records showing the existance of matter before the existance of life (let alone consciousness) in the universe and on this planet. Further, there is no evidence of life (let alone consciousness) existing anywhere besides this planet. Even if there is, it is only speculation until some is in evidence.

Yeah, if you assume that matter creates consciousness.

Objective geological and astronomical records showing the existance of matter before the existance of life (and consciousness) is dependent on the assumption that matter creates consciousness? Those objective records don't exist if you don't assume that matter creates consciousness? How do you defend that position?

Matter can exist without consciousness

There are several specific, concrete examples of matter without consciousness: Rock, air, plastic, water, etc.

Again, youre assuming that matter creating consciousness is True. You have not shown how this belief is logical.

Does that mean, under the assumption that consciousness creates matter, that rocks, air, plastic, water, etc. are conscious??? Are you even reading my explinations or are you just reacting to the headings?

Think:
1. Rocks exists.
2. Rocks are made of matter.
3. Rocks are not conscious.
Therefore, some matter exists that is not conscious.

How is that based on the assumption that matter creates consciousness? Perhaps hammegk was correct, we are dealing with different definitions of the word "consciousness".

Consciousness cannot exist without matter

There are no proven examples of consciousness existing without matter. (Remember, you have yet to prove that TLOP is consciouss. Circular "begging the question" logical fallacies are not proof.) Further, consciousness that does exist is dependent on the condition of the matter that creates it, i.e. brain matter. Change the condition of the brain matter, the condition of the consciousness also changes.

A bit like sound and sound waves isnt it?
We interpret energy and we perceive this as matter.
Matter is there by necessity from where I stand.

er... yes. Exactly. Matter is there by necessity. Consciousness cannot exist without, or independantly of, matter because matter is a necessity of consciousness.

...even though you appear to be agreeing me, I suspect that you just read the heading again and didn't read what followed. I really do wish you would either put some effort in to defending your position or just concede.

Correlations is not proof of matter creating consciousness.
Computer coding is proof of the non-existence of the programer...
Top reasoning Church

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure what you are trying to get across from this statement.

It sounds like you saying that I'm trying to use the universe that God created to prove that God doesn't exist, which would be silly. But that first assumes that the universe was created by a god. This has not been established. In fact, isn't that the very root of this conversation?

 

[Upchurch]

Youre like Churchy.....claiming to hold Truth!

I'm not claiming to know Truth. I'm claiming that what you are expounding as Truth is logically contradictory and demonstratively incorrect. Further, I suggested (and still do suggest) that you actually learn something about the world (e.g. at the library) before begin to speculate about its nature.

I don't have all the answers.

 

[wraith]

Ok. If we just for a minute hypothetically assume that it is correct to look upon TLOP as some sort of "personified force" as you choose to do (which it - for the record - of course is not) - this is where we end up:

Your statement is that "the consciousness with a higher degree of awareness (more complex) tend to control the consciousness with a weaker degree of awareness (less complex)".

"Tend to control" of course implies that it is not always so. Therefore I conclude that, by your own admission, "TLOP > YOU > CAR" does not prove that TLOP is conscious.

No amount of snails and apes is going to change that as long as you cannot prove that "the consciousness with a higher degree of awareness (more complex) always controls the consciousness with a weaker degree of awareness (less complex)".

Back to the drawing board perhaps?

Like I said, control is one way of looking at the degree of awareness. Like a dog to a human.

When you start talking about a human and a virus, then it becomes "hard" so to speak. Sure humans are finding it hard to control the outbreak of SARS. Does that mean that SARS is controlling us? It depends on how you use the word. I very much doubt that the virus itself has the capacity to be aware of what it's doing but it does change the lives of others.

Nevertheless, SARS, the dog and humans are all controlled by TLOP in everyway. (Leaving out consciousness, do you believe this to be True?)

So look at a single celled organism to a human, and TLOP has everything it needs to make this Universe Tick

It seems logical to me that I am no more conscious than TLOP.

Im asking how a non-consciousness force came about to create conscious entities. Why and How?

 

[wraith]

THAT is why I suggest you read up on it: you really don't know why it would help explain how non-consciousness creates consciousness.

If you have any links that explains how matter creates consciousness, can you please list them?

 

[wraith]

Objective geological and astronomical records showing the existance of matter before the existance of life (and consciousness) is dependent on the assumption that matter creates consciousness? Those objective records don't exist if you don't assume that matter creates consciousness? How do you defend that position?

You have shown correlations...
They are not evidence for matter creating consciousness!

Does that mean, under the assumption that consciousness creates matter, that rocks, air, plastic, water, etc. are conscious??? Are you even reading my explinations or are you just reacting to the headings?

OMG!
No thats not what I meant (and I think that you know that)...

Think:
1. Rocks exists.
2. Rocks are made of matter.
3. Rocks are not conscious.
Therefore, some matter exists that is not conscious.

How is that based on the assumption that matter creates consciousness? Perhaps hammegk was correct, we are dealing with different definitions of the word "consciousness".

You have correlations. That's all that youre listing down as evidence for your belief.

What definition of consciousness are you using?

wraith: A bit like sound and sound waves isnt it?
We interpret energy and we perceive this as matter.
Matter is there by necessity from where I stand.

Church:er... yes. Exactly. Matter is there by necessity. Consciousness cannot exist without, or independantly of, matter because matter is a necessity of consciousness.

So how is that showing that matter creates consciousness?

To say it another way, Im not saying that I dont need sound waves to hear sound.

...even though you appear to be agreeing me, I suspect that you just read the heading again and didn't read what followed. I really do wish you would either put some effort in to defending your position or just concede.

I am reading the whole post and I am defending my position and I am sure as Hell not conceding lol

wraith: Correlations is not proof of matter creating consciousness.
Computer coding is proof of the non-existence of the programer...
Top reasoning Church

Church: Care to elaborate? I'm not sure what you are trying to get across from this statement.

It sounds like you saying that I'm trying to use the universe that God created to prove that God doesn't exist, which would be silly. But that first assumes that the universe was created by a god. This has not been established. In fact, isn't that the very root of this conversation?[/B]

It's the same thing that Im asking CWL.

TLOP has everything it needs to make this Universe Tick

It seems logical to me that I am no more conscious than TLOP.

Im asking how a non-consciousness force came about to create conscious entities. Why and How?

From your line of reasoning, it's as if your saying that a character in a computer game can become conscious. Or a rock, or brick, or a tomato.....

 

[wraith]

I'm not claiming to know Truth. I'm claiming that what you are expounding as Truth is logically contradictory and demonstratively incorrect. Further, I suggested (and still do suggest) that you actually learn something about the world (e.g. at the library) before begin to speculate about its nature.

I don't have all the answers.

hah
but youre darn sure that youll cease to exist....

 

[Tricky]

Ah, Wraith, you have been reduce to crying "correlations aren't evidence". This is the last refuge of someone who has been thoroughly and decisively thrashed. You cry for evidence, yet you won't accept evidence. You appeal to logic, yet you do not understand the rudiments of logic.

Just face it Wraith. It "feels" right to you, and that is all. You have no evidence. You have no logic. You have no credibility. Have you considered taking up Scrabble?

 

[The Fool]

hah
but youre darn sure that youll cease to exist....

this is the bottom line isn't it sockpuppet.

This whole LD thingy is about your inability to accept that one day you are going to drop off the perch. I sometimes find it amusing how some people spend most of thier life trying to convince themselves that life does not end.... What a waste.

Accept it Sockpuppet. Everyone who ever lives will die. Get over it before you waste too much of your life trying to wish death away.

Anyway, I just want to end this post by thanking you for not going back to posting as the Franko character, the Wraith character is much more likeable....

 

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Objective geological and astronomical records showing the existance of matter before the existance of life (and consciousness) is dependent on the assumption that matter creates consciousness? Those objective records don't exist if you don't assume that matter creates consciousness? How do you defend that position?

Originally posted by wraith

You have shown correlations...
They are not evidence for matter creating consciousness!

You are waffling, wraith. First you said that geological and astronomical records was only true if you assumed that matter creates consciousness. Now you are saying that it is just a correlation that there are no records of life beyond a certain point but the records, themselves, go back past that point.

My first question is, which is it? Second, how is that merely a correlation?

Also, you are correct, it is not, by itself, evidence for matter creating consciousness. I said that it is evidence of matter pre-existing consciousness, which is merely one third of my argument that matter creates consciousness. I also will note that you have not refuted it nor have you shown that consciousness ever pre-existed matter.

Originally posted by Upchurch

Matter can exist without consciousness

There are several specific, concrete examples of matter without consciousness: Rock, air, plastic, water, etc.

Originally posted by wraith

Again, youre assuming that matter creating consciousness is True. You have not shown how this belief is logical.

Originally posted by Upchurch

Does that mean, under the assumption that consciousness creates matter, that rocks, air, plastic, water, etc. are conscious??? Are you even reading my explinations or are you just reacting to the headings?

Originally posted by wraith

OMG!
No thats not what I meant (and I think that you know that)...

Well, then, I think you should explain yourself better. I stated that matter could exist without consciuosness and gave examples. Your reply was that this was based on the asumption that matter creates consciousness. Since you believe that consciousness creates matter, I must assume that you believe that my examples (which you claim are based on the antithesis of your belief) were false. Thus, my questioning whether you actually believe that rocks, air, plastic, water, etc are conscious.

Let me pose a straight out question: Do you believe that matter can exist without having consciousness?

Your last comment suggests that you don't, but previous answers suggests that you do, which is contradictory. Please clarify.

Originally posted by Upchurch

Think:
1. Rocks exists.
2. Rocks are made of matter.
3. Rocks are not conscious.
Therefore, some matter exists that is not conscious.

How is that based on the assumption that matter creates consciousness?

Originally posted by wraith

You have correlations. That's all that youre listing down as evidence for your belief.

Again, you are using a curious usage of the word "correlation". Regardless, you did not answer the question. You stated that "Matter can exist without consciousness" is based on the assumption that "matter creates consciousness" and further that the above logic string does as well. But you did not explain how the above string is based on that assumption? Please explain how it is.

So how is that showing that matter creates consciousness?

To say it another way, Im not saying that I dont need sound waves to hear sound.

[remove mode="double negatives"]
To say it another way, Im saying that I need sound waves to hear sound.
[/remove]

Amazing. Yes, wraith, you are correct. Sound waves require matter to propogate through or there are no sound waves. Likewise, consciousness requires matter or there is no consciousness. i.e. Consciousness cannot exist without matter as per my earlier point. Which is one of my three points towards the conclusion that matter creates consciousness.

Originally posted by wraith

Correlations is not proof of matter creating consciousness.
Computer coding is proof of the non-existence of the programer...
Top reasoning Church

Originally posted by Upchurch

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure what you are trying to get across from this statement.

It sounds like you saying that I'm trying to use the universe that God created to prove that God doesn't exist, which would be silly. But that first assumes that the universe was created by a god. This has not been established. In fact, isn't that the very root of this conversation?

Originally posted by wraith

It's the same thing that Im asking CWL.

Actually, it has nothing to do with you are asking CWL. That's a question of consciousness = control. We were talking about "matter creates consciousness" vs. "consciousness creates matter". And specifically above, you were questioning my use of "computer coding is proof of the non-existance of the programer", which I still don't understand outside of my guess above.

TLOP has everything it needs to make this Universe Tick

sure.

It seems logical to me that I am no more conscious than TLOP.

You're assuming that TLOP is conscious, which you haven't even shown is possible.

Im asking how a non-consciousness force came about to create conscious entities. Why and How?

The "why?" I'm not sure anyone knows at this point. it could be because this is the only way the universe can work. I certainly don't know the answer.

As for "how?", I again refer you to the studies of cosmology, ambio-genesis, and evolution.

From your line of reasoning, it's as if your saying that a character in a computer game can become conscious. Or a rock, or brick, or a tomato.....

As systems become more and more complex, who knows? Certainly there are programmers working on better and better AI systems, even some for games. Rocks and bricks are a stretch, but given a couple of million years, who knows what even a tomato might evolve in to? I'm not saying it is likely, but it is possible.

Originally posted by Upchurch

I don't have all the answers.

hah
but youre darn sure that youll cease to exist....

I think that is true only because there isn't any thing to suggest that people continue to exist after death, except in the memories of those who come later. I'm only as sure of it as I am sure of anything.

 

[wraith]

Ah, Wraith, you have been reduce to crying "correlations aren't evidence". This is the last refuge of someone who has been thoroughly and decisively thrashed. You cry for evidence, yet you won't accept evidence. You appeal to logic, yet you do not understand the rudiments of logic.

Just face it Wraith. It "feels" right to you, and that is all. You have no evidence. You have no logic. You have no credibility. Have you considered taking up Scrabble?

Correlations as evidence for you belief you say?
A bit like a character in a computer game saying that correlations is evidence for "matter" creating his/her consciousness?

OH, I found your comments quite touching....old man

 

[wraith]

this is the bottom line isn't it sockpuppet.

This whole LD thingy is about your inability to accept that one day you are going to drop off the perch. I sometimes find it amusing how some people spend most of thier life trying to convince themselves that life does not end.... What a waste.

Well if you have the evidence (despite Tricky's attempt haha) then show it. If you had the reasoning to back up such a belief then I would rather believe in that Truth. If matter creating consciousness was actually True, then living my life in accordance to that belief is better than living a Lie (in this case, consciousness creating matter, is false).

Accept it Sockpuppet. Everyone who ever lives will die. Get over it before you waste too much of your life trying to wish death away.

It depends on what side of the fence you sit I guess....

Anyway, I just want to end this post by thanking you for not going back to posting as the Franko character, the Wraith character is much more likeable....[/B]

Dont get too comfortable

 

[wraith]

Originally posted by wraith
You are waffling, wraith. First you said that geological and astronomical records was only true if you assumed that matter creates consciousness. Now you are saying that it is just a correlation that there are no records of life beyond a certain point but the records, themselves, go back past that point.

My first question is, which is it? Second, how is that merely a correlation?

No, I said that those reords were proof of matter creating consciousness if you assumed that TLOP was non-consciousness itself...

Hell, anyone can pay off their mortgage if they sell their house

Also, you are correct, it is not, by itself, evidence for matter creating consciousness. I said that it is evidence of matter pre-existing consciousness, which is merely one third of my argument that matter creates consciousness.

Yes, if you assumed that TLOP is non-conscious.
If this is not an assumption, then clearly show the reasoning of this belief.

I also will note that you have not refuted it nor have you shown that consciousness ever pre-existed matter.

ahhh in other words, you want me to explain how I can hear sound without sound waves? Thats not what Im saying.

I am not refuting correlations...

Well, then, I think you should explain yourself better. I stated that matter could exist without consciuosness and gave examples. Your reply was that this was based on the asumption that matter creates consciousness. Since you believe that consciousness creates matter, I must assume that you believe that my examples (which you claim are based on the antithesis of your belief) were false. Thus, my questioning whether you actually believe that rocks, air, plastic, water, etc are conscious.

Why would I believe that rocks etc are conscious? If anything, thats what youre potentially saying.

Let me pose a straight out question: Do you believe that matter can exist without having consciousness?

No.

Again, you are using a curious usage of the word "correlation". Regardless, you did not answer the question. You stated that "Matter can exist without consciousness" is based on the assumption that "matter creates consciousness" and further that the above logic string does as well. But you did not explain how the above string is based on that assumption? Please explain how it is.

Sorry, I dont get you

wraith: To say it another way, Im saying that I need sound waves to hear sound.

Church: Amazing. Yes, wraith, you are correct. Sound waves require matter to propogate through or there are no sound waves. Likewise, consciousness requires matter or there is no consciousness. i.e. Consciousness cannot exist without matter as per my earlier point. Which is one of my three points towards the conclusion that matter creates consciousness.

I didnt say sound waves and matter.
Im talking about sound waves and sound itself...

Church: Care to elaborate? I'm not sure what you are trying to get across from this statement.

It sounds like you saying that I'm trying to use the universe that God created to prove that God doesn't exist, which would be silly. But that first assumes that the universe was created by a god. This has not been established. In fact, isn't that the very root of this conversation?

wraith: It's the same thing that Im asking CWL.

Church: Actually, it has nothing to do with you are asking CWL. That's a question of consciousness = control. We were talking about "matter creates consciousness" vs. "consciousness creates matter". And specifically above, you were questioning my use of "computer coding is proof of the non-existance of the programer", which I still don't understand outside of my guess above.
sure. You're assuming that TLOP is conscious, which you haven't even shown is possible. The "why?" I'm not sure anyone knows at this point. it could be because this is the only way the universe can work. I certainly don't know the answer.

Well Im not assuming that TLOP is conscious. "How so?" do you ask?

Im controlled entirely by TLOP. I have these things called self-awareness and emotions. It seems logical to think that I am no more conscious than my creator ie. conscious TLOP created conscious entities. Whereas, youre saying that non-conscious TLOP created conscious entities.

As for "how?", I again refer you to the studies of cosmology, ambio-genesis, and evolution.As systems become more and more complex, who knows?

I did a search and I couldnt find any links. Do you have any?

Certainly there are programmers working on better and better AI systems, even some for games.

For sure.

Rocks and bricks are a stretch, but given a couple of million years, who knows what even a tomato might evolve in to? I'm not saying it is likely, but it is possible.

Interesting belief...
Eh, you showed up didnt you? haha

I think that is true only because there isn't any thing to suggest that people continue to exist after death, except in the memories of those who come later. I'm only as sure of it as I am sure of anything.

Yet you have no problems telling others about the "Great News"?
....interesting

 

[Upchurch]

Ladies and gentlemen,

I give you the "logic" of a Logical Diest (LD*):

Why would I believe that rocks etc are conscious? If anything, thats what youre potentially saying.

Let me pose a straight out question: Do you believe that matter can exist without having consciousness?

No.

Here we see that Mr. wraith believes that rocks, etc. are not conscious but that matter cannot exist without having consciousness. One wonders if, by this, he means:

• Rocks, etc. are not conscious AND Rocks, etc. are conscious.
• Rocks, etc. are not matter.
• Rocks, etc. do not exist.

(Don't bother replying, wraith. It will only be nonsensical gibberish.)

Further, our LD subject has made an amazing discovery:

As for "how?", I again refer you to the studies of cosmology, ambio-genesis, and evolution.As systems become more and more complex, who knows?

I did a search and I couldnt find any links. Do you have any?

Mr. wraith has found the only search engine in the world that could not find anything on the entire internet about the studies of cosmology or evolution. I think, perhaps, we can forgive him on the third item since I mis-spelled "abiogenesis", even though a quick spell-check would have corrected the error. More likely, I suppose, is that Mr. wraith couldn't figure out how to use a simple tool like a search engine, yet would not admit it. So, in that case, it could be the literal truth that he "couldnt find any links." It must be as hard as finding that magical** apostrophe key.




* "LD" in this instance stands for "Logical Deist" rather than "Learning Disabled" even though the difference is negligible.
** Magical for a LD, as best coined by Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

 

[wraith]

Ladies and gentlemen,

I give you the "logic" of a Logical Diest (LD*):

Here we see that Mr. wraith believes that rocks, etc. are not conscious but that matter cannot exist without having consciousness. One wonders if, by this, he means:

• Rocks, etc. are not conscious AND Rocks, etc. are conscious.
• Rocks, etc. are not matter.
• Rocks, etc. do not exist.

(Don't bother replying, wraith. It will only be nonsensical gibberish.)

Yeah something like that Church
How did you come those points anyway?

Further, our LD subject has made an amazing discovery:

Mr. wraith has found the only search engine in the world that could not find anything on the entire internet about the studies of cosmology or evolution. I think, perhaps, we can forgive him on the third item since I mis-spelled "abiogenesis", even though a quick spell-check would have corrected the error. More likely, I suppose, is that Mr. wraith couldn't figure out how to use a simple tool like a search engine, yet would not admit it. So, in that case, it could be the literal truth that he "couldnt find any links." It must be as hard as finding that magical** apostrophe key.

...man...someone has lost the plot

I did some reading about that subject and from what I gather, it breaks down the whole "no life to life" scenario into smaller steps for life to form.

Since I dont refute correlations, I dont see how this is evidence against what Ive been saying. Besides, it doesnt answer actually how matter CREATES consciousness.

Nevertheless, im still going to read more into it.

 

[Upchurch]

Yeah something like that Church
How did you come those points anyway?

Aw, man. I'm really starting to question why I bother with you.

The answer, Aith, is logic. You gave two replies (I can site your exact quotes if you wish):

• rocks, etc. are not conscious
• matter cannot exist without having consciousness

If I assume that you also believe that rocks, etc. are matter, then you arrive at the first point: Rocks, etc. are not conscious (via the first point above) AND Rocks, etc. are conscious (via the second point above). I realize that this is a logical paradox, but LD's never seem to let that bother them before.

If I don't assume that you also believe that rocks, etc. are matter, then you satisfy both points in a logically consistant way. That is, rocks, etc. are not matter because they are not conscious and matter cannot exist without consciousness.

The last point I arrived at by a loophole in the first part. If I assume that you believe that rocks, etc. are matter and matter cannot exist without having consciousness, because rocks, etc. are not conscious, rocks etc. cannot exist.

That's how I arrived at those points using nothing more than your own statements and logic. You know, the one thing I've noticed about the LD is that they assume that logic must always lead to truth, which isn't true. Logic can only lead to truth if it is based on true assumptions. Like the programming saying goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." You've put garbage in, I gave you garbage right back out.

I did some reading about that subject and from what I gather, it breaks down the whole "no life to life" scenario into smaller steps for life to form.

Since I dont refute correlations, I dont see how this is evidence against what Ive been saying. Besides, it doesnt answer actually how matter CREATES consciousness.

Nevertheless, im still going to read more into it.

Atta boy, Aith! Keep it up and maybe you'll find the answers you're looking for on your own rather than depending on someone else to tell you what those answers are.

 

[wraith]

Aw, man. I'm really starting to question why I bother with you.

The answer, Aith, is logic. You gave two replies (I can site your exact quotes if you wish):

• rocks, etc. are not conscious
• matter cannot exist without having consciousness

If I assume that you also believe that rocks, etc. are matter, then you arrive at the first point: Rocks, etc. are not conscious (via the first point above) AND Rocks, etc. are conscious (via the second point above). I realize that this is a logical paradox, but LD's never seem to let that bother them before.

If I don't assume that you also believe that rocks, etc. are matter, then you satisfy both points in a logically consistant way. That is, rocks, etc. are not matter because they are not conscious and matter cannot exist without consciousness.

The last point I arrived at by a loophole in the first part. If I assume that you believe that rocks, etc. are matter and matter cannot exist without having consciousness, because rocks, etc. are not conscious, rocks etc. cannot exist.

That's how I arrived at those points using nothing more than your own statements and logic. You know, the one thing I've noticed about the LD is that they assume that logic must always lead to truth, which isn't true. Logic can only lead to truth if it is based on true assumptions. Like the programming saying goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." You've put garbage in, I gave you garbage right back out.

Ahh ok I see what youre saying now.
Well......youve totally missed the point lol
"Matter can not exist without consciousness" is not the same as "matter is conscious"

Atta boy, Aith! Keep it up and maybe you'll find the answers you're looking for on your own rather than depending on someone else to tell you what those answers are.

hah
Ive actually learnt quite a bit.... and without logic, those "answers", that you speak of, mean jack diddlely 5h!t.... but I can always depend on my friednly neighbourhood atheist to guide me to the Truth

 

[Tricky]

Ahh ok I see what youre saying now.
Well......youve totally missed the point lol
"Matter can not exist without consciousness" is not the same as "matter is conscious"

So this conscious overseer (for which you have still given no evidence) created unconscious matter some twelve billion years ago (by current estimates), all so it could it could have some human consciousness for at most six million years? Really, Wraith, you have fallen into the all-to-common anthropocentric trap of overestimating your own importance. Here's a short review.

Unconscious matter: twelve billions years
Conscious matter: A few million years

Now consider how much of the mass of the universe is occupied by conscious matter. being generous, it is far less than one part-per billion (maybe that little on Earth alone).

Another review.
Ratio of unconscious to conscious matter: 1,000,000,000:1 (being very generous).

If you were to try to guess what a hypothetical creator was thinking, wouldn't you say, based on numbers alone, that consciousness was not terribly important to it?

hah
Ive actually learnt quite a bit.... and without logic, those "answers", that you speak of, mean jack diddlely 5h!t.... but I can always depend on my friednly neighbourhood atheist to guide me to the Truth

What you haven't learned is any concept of logic. You cannot identify a simple invalid syllogism, so you will understand if we all must collectively and in unison, roll our eyes when you begin expounding on logic. Perhaps you'd better stick to things you know, like fighter planes and role playing games.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Perhaps you'd better stick to things you know, like fighter planes and role playing games.

Better make that role playing games. I have noticed that Wraith used to claim that he is an F22 pilot and he has "Jet Pilot" in his profile, however, he also told us that he turned 20 this January. Now the F22 is the brand new experimental fighter in the US arsenal, I'm not even sure it is operational yet, so I doubt they let kids of 20 play with it.

To be a fighter pilot ("Jet Pilot" is what schoolboys say), you first need a college degree with good grades, then you need an officer's commission, then they might let you into flying school, and once you've got your wings, if you are really really good, they'll let you start on the hot stuff.

Hal Bidlack may be able to provide exact data here, but my estimate is that if you attend a military college, and you are an A student, and work really hard, you might get to start on fighter planes when you are around 24.

Wraith could be lying about his age, but considering his poor math abilities, lack of understanding of formal logic, etc. (not to mention the time he spends on the internet), I very much doubt his career options in that direction.

Hans

 

[wraith]

So this conscious overseer (for which you have still given no evidence) created unconscious matter some twelve billion years ago (by current estimates), all so it could it could have some human consciousness for at most six million years? Really, Wraith, you have fallen into the all-to-common anthropocentric trap of overestimating your own importance.

ahhh...something like that

Here's a short review.

Unconscious matter: twelve billions years
Conscious matter: A few million years

Now consider how much of the mass of the universe is occupied by conscious matter. being generous, it is far less than one part-per billion (maybe that little on Earth alone).

Another review.
Ratio of unconscious to conscious matter: 1,000,000,000:1 (being very generous).

If you were to try to guess what a hypothetical creator was thinking, wouldn't you say, based on numbers alone, that consciousness was not terribly important to it?

Whats more important - your house or your wife?

What you haven't learned is any concept of logic. You cannot identify a simple invalid syllogism, so you will understand if we all must collectively and in unison, roll our eyes when you begin expounding on logic. Perhaps you'd better stick to things you know, like fighter planes and role playing games.

Actually, you were the one that didnt reply to my post in respect to the syllogism.

RPG games dont tickle my fancy that much..I get stuck in the first 10 mins lol
Battlefield 1942 is quite good though...played IL-2 at all?

The F-22......now thats the Dream muhaha