TexasScoundrel,


No reply, so can I assume this debate has been laid to rest?

I know someone who joined a biotech. She had to learn what they did on the science sdie. I got to read a quick guide.

Seem a couple or more joined atoms (compound like h2o = water) do miraculous things. A couple compounds wedge into your DNA as bookends. The piece in-between Is a gene. Another atomic compound comes in and spits the DNA down the middle and seperating the needed gene from your DNA. The resulting genome (string of atoms) is taken from the nucleus into the white which is like a soup of compounds (joined atoms). There a compond acted like a zipper to me where the genenome is inserted he. The correspousing DNA sequence is reconstructed one atom at a time from the soup as the gene is advanced through the zipper compond. The resultant paired helix is then split by another compounto provide the needed gene while the oregional is returned to your DNA in the nucleus.

When atomic compounds are coordinating with each other in a dance of life, I see intellegence even on the atomic level.

At least it was eye opening to me.

I always viewed science as discovering how God created the heavens. Genesis says he created everything by dividing.

My finger can not claim it is me. If it is cut off, it dies, but I live. God creating the universe as his body would make us fingers, not Gods.

If God has a body, the universe seems most logical. If Einstein is right about time being a product of space, That would suggest if God has a life (time), he lives it thru his creation.

God = creation would be closer to Ghia theology (mother nature as God).

I thought Christians believed in 3 parts.

The Father, or fountain head.
The Son, or body
The Spirit, which set things in motion.

This reasoning might suggest if God quit breathing (spirit),
all would cease.

Is this a joke, or are you serious?



I really can't tell if you are serious, or if this is an elaborate troll, maybe by an atheist, making fun of christians.




That part I agree with!

massagetrade,

Gee, is that the most challenging post you could find to respond to?

TexasScoundrel,


I'm still waiting for your response to my post about consciousness.

If a single cell does not have consciousness, but a bunch of cells (our body) does, then at what point did the unconscious blob become conscious???

TexasScoundrel you stated:

"It takes a number of different cells, working together to understand and another group to come up with an answer."

I asked, How can a bunch of unconscious cells work together to "understand" if they are unconscious?

You stated: "but, with millions of them, working together, consciousness grows"

and I ask, how can consciousness "grow" if it does not exist in a single cell?

If you are still claiming that cells are not conscious or do not have any consciousness, my question to you then is this:

At WHAT POINT is consciousness born? This would be the point of the miracle.

the mind is a vary powerful tool it allows people to come up with new technologies and allows those with disapline to convince others to do anything from giving them money running their country or believe they can see their future or take their own life the power of persuation is probably one of the most efficent tools humans have and people without strong enough belief in themselves or in their own ability to understand how or why things happen as they do have always throughout history looked up looked up to some godhead figure for guildence and when one looks that hard for an answer or sign they will always find it in either themselves or in somthing around them because at that point they are using one of the minds most powerful tools on themselves

and as is understood you first start to percieve when multicelled organisms experiance life outside of themselves and are forced to interact with objects or organisms unlike themselves therfore being removed from the womb of ignorance and giving birth to a higher level of thinking and functioning

Are you trolling?

At some point in this thread I stopped reading your comments in detail. That much is nothing personal, I do it a lot on these forums, especially when I'm at work, and especially with people who have been around a long time on these boards and whose basic views are already well known.

No, its probably because you have no answers to the questions I ask. Its real easy ridicule posts like the one you responded to.

I have asked this same question to several scientific types who claim there is no spirit, and no consciousness that did not arise or evolve from the physical brain etc. and they can't answer the question it.

Dan Dennet is an intelligent guy, but his premise that cells have no consciousness is accepted without question from most atheists who don't even think twice about it.

Oh well. It just serves to convince me that he does not know what he's talking about.

The God we are trying to define however is in fact infinite and unknowable so how are you possibly going to adequately define
God? It is folly to attempt to define the infinite with minutiae.

The above definition does not throw away any understanding but
reveals the extent of God. It is not an anti-definition...but
instead is a self-consistent way of expressing the beauty and
grandeur of the concept of God. To define God as anything less
than everything and eternity is like trying to define the ocean
as a droplet of salty water. Such a definition misses almost the
entirety of the picture and limits oneself to an infinitesimal
and unacceptably inadequate understanding of the concept.

See, trolling again.

There is wisdom and intelligence in choosing not to debate with a person who demonstrates close mindedness, stubbornness, dishonest rhetorical techniques (like trolling), willful ignorance, emotional investment in a position, etc....

Your thought process is flawed, and you have the intelligence to find those flaws on your own. I've watched other people attempt to show you those flaws, and have seen how you have responded to that. You don't even need me, nor Texas, nor anyone else on here for this - you could critique your own thought process, your own beliefs. Do so honestly and you'd arrive at far more compelling arguments that you keep making on this topic - which are not interesting nor challenging to me. The fact that you argue tenaciously doesn't make your argument an intellectual challenge, it just makes it tedious and frustrating.

Are you honestly so narcissistic and/or ignorant as to think that non-response indicates people have no rebuttals?

I often see non-response as evidence of wisdom, and I think you are smart enough to realize that, but that you may pretend otherwise hoping to motivate people to play with you.



Exactly - hypothetically, it would be so easy for someone to do that - which is why I wonder if it were written by an atheist. Its like its set up for easy mockery.



They claim there is no spirit, or they claim there is no real evidence for spirit, no need for it as means of explanation?

Because I've spoken with many hundreds of scientists in my life, and have never heard one definitely assert such a non-provable claim.



The materialists I know won't bother discussing it precisely because they have thought about it more than twice - they've thought about it quite thoroughly, and spiritualists rarely bring anything new to the table to justify a re-visitation to the idea. But then, we know different people, so both of our experiences may be valid.



Which is your preferred conclusion, anyway.

The questions I ask are simple questions. If you are as smart as you think you are, you would be able to answer them.

If I were to assume you are right and accept your premise then the next and logical question is, When is consciousness born?

At what point can a bunch of unconscious cells give rise to consciousness?

You can try to insult me all you want, but no one has even attempted to answer this question.




But the problem probably lies in your understanding of what consciousness actually is.

Oh, don't do that!



I had no desire to insult you, simply to give a few of many alternative explanations for why people are not responding to your posts, as counterpoint to the false dilemma-style fallacy being advanced.



Yeah, probably!

Okay I am addressing the "answers" I have gotten from TexasScoundrel.

I base my questions on his claims and on his so-called 'answers.' Dan Dennett did not present answers to these questions. He simply based his speech on the premise that cells are unconscious, which he expects people to accept without challenge.


TexasS said:




(This is actually very funny. I am trying to visualize a bunch of unconscious anything banning together for a common purpose.)

But...

So by this reasoning, do you think that one day robots and computers will become conscious?


TexasS said:



By acknowledging that some beings can be "more conscious" than others, are you then agreeing (with me) that consciousness comes in degrees?

Do you know for a fact that consciousness is an effect of intelligence? If so, what is your definition of intelligence?


TexasS said:


So if you don’t understand my question does that mean you are not conscious?

How can a number of cells work together to understand anything if they are not (at least to some degree) intelligent or conscious?

Also, how can consciousness “grow” if it does not even exist in the smallest degree?

If you actually read Texasscoundrel's posts you will see that he actually agrees with me that cells are conscious.

1. He has acknowledged that some beings are "more conscious" than others, thus agreeing (with me) that consciousness exists in varying degrees.

2. He has implied that cells can "ban together" for the common cause of understanding something.

3. He has stated that when millions of cells work together that their consciousness "grows" thus admitting that they are indeed somewhat conscious to begin with.

And yet he thinks he is agreeing with Dan Dennett that cells are unconscious. How conscious is that?

Hi Jean, I thougut you would have commented on my bio post above.

Thanks for your post. Indeed, intelligence exists at the atomic levels and in all things. I agree.

I have decided to stop posting in this forum as it seems there are not many scientific minds left at mingle. LOL. When they have no real answers they just ignore the questions or make condescending remarks about how ignorant I am. oh well. I have other things to do.

Here I fixed your post for you by removing everything that was not clear and leaving only that which is rational.

My post has not been refuted, you cannot know a thing you cannot define, you cannot define a thing that is everything.

Its just slight of hand, it is not a pursuit of knowledge. The word existence makes more sense as everything, then god. Existence is the open set of all things extant, this is a conceptual tool, a state switch. You might as well say god is ontology.

If god is a state switch, then it is not a thing, and cannot have a perspective, desire, wants, and cannot create anything. It is a conceptual artifact.

One cannot anymore point to existence then describe the taste of redness. We can point to things that exist, but not existence itself.

THAT is the reason this is meaningless.

It is sad that there are so many people who lack the sense to see that they are the ones who are on the lower end of the IQ scale, but at least these people are kind enough to wear a sign on them...usually a cross or something...lol