It's time to wake up!

a reply to: daskakik

Pseudoscience is making claims which generally may sounds scientific but are a mish mash of scientific terms which have no coherency in them. Maybe Deepak Chopra comes to mind?
But I haven't done that.

I don't need to prove anything when it is in plain sight and even less when you agreed that it was only members of the scientific community which shared your opinion and that science has not accepted the theory as law.

Cause and effect is a fact which does not need the opinion of the scientific community. It's true we don't know if the universe is deterministic or whether there is a degree of indeterminism but either way, even if nothing causes something to happen then nothing becomes that new cause. Every action must have a reaction, vice-versa.

But there are even theists within the community so I will stay away from that term from now on. Scientific community that is.

originally posted by: Andy1144
But I haven't done that.

Guess you don't recall what was being discussed in that part of the thread.

Cause and effect is a fact which does not need the opinion of the scientific community.

Of course not, especially if you accept psedoscience.

But there are even theists within the community so I will stay away from that term from now on. Scientific community that is.

Why not stay away from claims that are not scientifically proven, instead?

a reply to: daskakik

I've already told you that neuroscience knows the self doesn't exist. And that there is no evidence and it doesn't make any sense for it to exist, just like there is no evidence and sense for jesus on a light saber to exist.

And I told you that one can understand facts without them needing to be verified by the community. And I gave examples of logical statements which were true for everyone. Like, god not existing. That is no pseudoscience is it? And it didn't need scientific validity to be understood.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I've already told you that neuroscience knows the self doesn't exist.

That is your opinion based on parts of what neurosience has discovered.

And I told you that one can understand facts without them needing to be verified by the community. And I gave examples of logical statements which were true for everyone. Like, god not existing. That is no pseudoscience is it?

Actually, it is pseudoscience.

a reply to: daskakik

That is your opinion based on parts of what neurosience has discovered.

That's the same as saying god doesn't exist based on science has discovered so far. But how can you discover something that doesn't exist?

Actually, it is pseudoscience.

You're actually right. But your an atheist, you should know god doesn't exist even without scientific evidence.

But one more thing, and no excuses. What do you think I possibly mean by "there is no free will". Your counter evidence is based on the sense that you know what I mean by this.

originally posted by: Andy1144
That's the same as saying god doesn't exist based on science has discovered so far. But how can you discover something that doesn't exist?

You can't, that doesn't mean that it is correct to say that it is scientifically proven.

You're actually right. But your an atheist, you should know god doesn't exist even without scientific evidence.

But I'm not going around calling it scientific knowledge.

But one more thing, and no excuses. What do you think I possibly mean by "there is no free will". Your counter evidence is based on the sense that you know what I mean by this.

I have not offered any counter evidence.

I know exactly what you mean. Why is it so hard for you to accept that someone can understand what you are saying and still disagree with your conclusions?

a reply to: daskakik

It is only scientific evidence to limited groups within the community. It isn't mainstream knowledge yet.
But there are people who say science has disproved the existence of god. Maybe that isn't 100% accurate. But God is an incoherent idea for it to actually exist and so is free will. That's my main point. Free will is not real, god isn't either for the same reasons.

The sense of self is an illusion and neuroscience has discovered that the self is really just a thought formed about what appears to be and not what is. For example, we appear to be separate from the screen we see, but it is actually identical to us. Not separate. That sense of a me, seeing over there is an illusion. Certain people within the scientific community have said this, but that doesn't matter. It is consistent with the evidence and the sense of self is an illusion.

originally posted by: Andy1144
It is only scientific evidence to limited groups within the community. It isn't mainstream knowledge yet.

In other words, it is being worked on and it could still end up being wrong.

But there are people who say science has disproved the existence of god. Maybe that isn't 100% accurate. But God is an incoherent idea for it to actually exist and so is free will.

Yes, people have opinions and everyone thinks there opinions are based on solid info.

a reply to: daskakik

In other words, it is being worked on and it could still end up being wrong.

No, it is known for sure.

Yes, people have opinions and everyone thinks there opinions are based on solid info.

Yes, but we must discuss each others facts. You haven't cared to do that. That was my aim with this discussion but if you aren't willing then there is no point in going on.

originally posted by: Andy1144
No, it is known for sure.

That is what you extrapolated.

Yes, but we must discuss each others facts. You haven't cared to do that. That was my aim with this discussion but if you aren't willing then there is no point in going on.

My "facts" are not needed to show that your facts are not based on anything else but your opinion of some inconclusive test reults and your biased universal truths.

a reply to: daskakik

That is what you extrapolated.

Yes, but my point is let's not stop here, let's compare and prove our counter arguments, which you haven't done.

My "facts" are not needed to show that your facts are not based on anything else but your opinion of some inconclusive test reults and your biased universal truths.

Your opinion is needed to talk about these things. But you stopped there, you didn't continue to prove why I am wrong.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Yes, but my point is let's not stop here, let's compare and prove our counter arguments, which you haven't done.

Counter arguments to what?

Your opinion is needed to talk about these things. But you stopped there, you didn't continue to prove why I am wrong.

You might think that, others might say that I did just that and I'm sure there are those who would say thet you did it yourself.

a reply to: daskakik

Well can we try taking a different stance for once and discuss the validity of each others points? Something which admittedly said, wasn't your aim. Otherwise, we'll continue being stuck on one point.

I say that free will is an illusion. There cannot possibly be any ultimate control over decisions because I couldn't control any of the influences and circumstances which led up to my decision. Agree or disagree?

originally posted by: Andy1144
Well can we try taking a different stance for once and discuss the validity of each others points? Something which admittedly said, wasn't your aim.

Actually we have been discussing the validity of my points. It's just that my points were not about the validity of your points. Well, a little.

Since you can't prove anything what is there left to discuss?

a reply to: daskakik

Since you can't prove anything what is there left to discuss?

Again, that's not the point I wan't to discuss. I would like to have a discussion in which we can agree, disagree and share thoughts as to why my claims are BS or not.

For example, using logic we can come to a safe conclusion that god is a mythological character. Agree? (I didn't get into the reasons but those should be obvious)

originally posted by: Andy1144
Again, that's not the point I wan't to discuss. I would like to have a discussion in which we can agree, disagree and share thoughts as to why my claims are BS or not.

What do you think we have been doing?

If sciance doesn't back you up and your logic can be challanged then that nullifies your claims.

For example, using logic we can come to a safe conclusion that god is a mythological character. Agree? (I didn't get into the reasons but those should be obvious)

No, you can't. The logic is flawed.

You are twisting logic to get where you want.

a reply to: daskakik

What do you think we have been doing?

You're point all along was not to discuss the validity of my claims and comparing them with your own, your point was just that you can't convince other people it unless they consider it true for themselves.

If sciance doesn't back you up and your logic can be challanged then that nullifies your claims.

Science doesn't back up the existence of an infinite amount of things the human mind can imagine. Jesus riding a wagon to heaven is one of them. I have no scientific evidence yet I still know it didn't happen.

I don't have any scientific evidence that I can be consciously aware of being unconscious, but this fact is true. I cannot be aware of being unaware, it is just inconceivably impossible and there is no way to make logical sense of it being possible.
Yes or no?
I didn't use science to back this claim but it is true nonetheless, so science isn't a requirement necessarily.

No, you can't. The logic is flawed.

Then why do you believe he doesn't exist without having any evidence to back it up? There needs to be a logical reason you don't believe in god. What is your reason?

originally posted by: Andy1144
You're point all along was not to discuss the validity of my claims and comparing them with your own, your point was just that you can't convince other people it unless they consider it true for themselves.

It also came up along the way.

I didn't use science to back this claim but it is true nonetheless, so science isn't a requirement necessarily.

You claimed it a few posts ago.

Then why do you believe he doesn't exist without having any evidence to back it up? There needs to be a logical reason you don't believe in god. What is your reason?

I have evidence that I can't share with you so I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I can convince you with it.

It's a simple concept but it seems to be one that you can't seem to wrap your head around.

a reply to: daskakik

I have evidence that I can't share with you so I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I can convince you with it.

What do you mean by sharing? Can't you just give your reasons why you don't believe he exists? Maybe if I find your reasons compelling then I might agree with you, or not. Can't you share the info?

All I am asking you, is why are you sure god doesn't exist if there is no evidence he doesn't. You must have some logical reason for believing he doesn't exist, what is it?