Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The premise that you can describe, in terms of physics, the whole function of a human being… including knowledge and consciousness... is unreasonable. Knowledge and consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms.
Thanks. If you don’t believe in a creator god, how do you explain the origin of the universe? Do you believe the entire universe (time, space and matter) originated from nothing, by chance?
(BTW, when I use the term ‘worldview’ I’m referring to one’s view of reality, which includes one’s perspective on life’s big questions about origins, meaning, morality, truth, life after death, etc.)
The premise that you can describe, in terms of physics, the whole function of a human being… including knowledge and consciousness... is unreasonable. Knowledge and consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms.
I disagree with that. A computer can store information "knowledge". So you base you claim on you don't think so and I base mine on "yeah, but its in a cell phone".
What might we use to make such a determination about ghosts despite what testimony many people have given about their encounters with ghosts? Same sort of thing.
That was my point, LearnMe. As long as your experiences and perspective are tied only to the validated physical Reality (the 5% or so of our Reality), you will develop and function extremely well as a physical being but your spiritual development will suffer. Whatever exists in 95% of our Reality remains outside your reach. Those who do experience the non-physical aspects of our Reality tend to operate on more information than you do and their spiritual development can be enhanced.
I disagree with that. A computer can store information "knowledge". So you base you claim on you don't think so and I base mine on "yeah, but its in a cell phone".
Who's is more reliable?
In your comment, above, you ignore that I was referring to “the whole function of a human being” (not computers) and you don’t even address the topic of consciousness. How convenient.
You often point out when TRANS runs from difficult questions, but you do the same thing. You run away from the fundamental question of origins because it challenges your ‘standard model’. How convenient.
In your comment, above, you ignore that I was referring to “the whole function of a human being” (not computers) and you don’t even address the topic of consciousness. How convenient.
You often point out when TRANS runs from difficult questions, but you do the same thing. You run away from the fundamental question of origins because it challenges your ‘standard model’. How convenient.
Name one non-theistic worldview that you think is more credible than Christianity and I’ll show you why it’s not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Materialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
The premise that you can describe, in terms of physics, the whole function of a human being… including knowledge and consciousness... is unreasonable. Knowledge and consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms.
I hardly think your response meets the standard of showing that materialism is less credible than Christianity. You are off-handedly dismissing materialism as being inadequate with no evidence, and at the same time you are not providing any evidence that Christianity does address any of these issues.
I disagree with that. A computer can store information "knowledge". So you base you claim on you don't think so and I base mine on "yeah, but its in a cell phone".
Who's is more reliable?
Conflating knowledge and information with raw data just confuses the issue and obscures the point IWMN is trying to make, Arach. Knowledge and information ONLY exist in consciousness. The raw data can be arranged and stored in physical machines or manifestations but the actual knowledge and information, per se, require consciousness.
In your comment, above, you ignore that I was referring to “the whole function of a human being” (not computers) and you don’t even address the topic of consciousness. How convenient.
You often point out when TRANS runs from difficult questions, but you do the same thing. You run away from the fundamental question of origins because it challenges your ‘standard model’. How convenient.
Now, I know you got the memo. Arach and I now share a bed -sit. I never ran from 'difficult questions' ('we don't know' is the honest answer - not an evasion. 'Goddunnit' is not an answer but a faith -claim) and Arach doesn't run from difficult questions, either; he answers up like a good -un, though what he says isn't always clear.
So don't you go smearing my mate Arach.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-16-2020 at 04:09 PM..
Indeed. There are more conversion vids out there (mainly from the two evangelical creeds, battling for world domination) than you can shake a stick at. Buddhism has better things to do than spend money on advertising.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
