Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Jesus never existed. Get over it.

[Seth]

Jesus never existed. Get over it.

Your critically-robust objective proofs of this claim are...???

Never mind, it's all just ex-recto with you anyway.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why should I bother providing proofs to you, you have abstained from doing so whenever it suited you.

[Seth]

Why should I bother providing proofs to you, you have abstained from doing so whenever it suited you.

Hypocrisy made manifest. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, I agree that you've proved your hypocrisy endless times. What still amuses me is that you don't care how lame it makes you look here.

[Pappa]

The pair of you behave like children.

[klr]

The pair of you behave like children.

I'm assuming that this is a disparaging observation*, and not an order.

*Which I endorse.

[Pappa]

The pair of you behave like children.

I'm assuming that this is a disparaging observation*, and not an order.

*Which I endorse.

I didn't notice that.

[Bella Fortuna]

The pair of you behave like children.

I'm assuming that this is a disparaging observation*, and not an order.

*Which I endorse.

And agreed.

[klr]

The pair of you behave like children.

I'm assuming that this is a disparaging observation*, and not an order.

*Which I endorse.

I didn't notice that.

As a programmer, you should had spotted the ambiguity in your original statement.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...The word "supernatural" is often used as code by scientists (and others) who actually mean "I don't understand how it works." That's been the case for many thousands of years...

No. Supernatural means something claimed to not be a part of the objective rational observable universe, something claimed to be beyond understanding not because science hasn't got there yet, nor because human brains are to limited to understand it, but because it somehow lies outside the rules, outside observation, outside study, outside empirical prediction/calculation, indeed outside the universe (except interacting with the universe when convenient, though always in a conveniently unobservable way). Something asserted to exist, but for which no criteria will ever be put forward for how to falsify it's existence.

Or in common sense talk - Bullshit.

That's what "supernatural" means.

...What's your evidence that some of those parts of "you" that you do not completely understand (like, oh, conciousness)...

Consciousness is understood better-and-better all the time. Where the understanding is still incomplete there's nevertheless no reason to think the answers are to be found outside of further study of the workings of the brain. And even if we were to find ourselves stumped, filling in the hole with "goddidit" or anything like that does not on any level constitute "finding an answer".

...After all, a computer program, which is substantially less complex, endures the turning off of the computer...

Uh, a computer does not begin to rapidly and irreversibly degrade the second you switch it off. That key difference is so stunningly obvious that it should have occurred to even you after half a second's thought, this leads me to one of two conclusions,

1. You didn't give it half a second's thought. Or..,

2. It did occur to you, but you don't mean any of what you say, you're just being a prick for the sake of it.

Although option "1" is a very real possibility, my personal inclination is strongly towards option "2".

...What evidence do you have that "you" are not writ large on the memory media of the universe?..

What evidence do you have for such a 'memory media' in the universe? Beyond the fact that physics describes the time dimension in the same way as a spacial dimension, meaning I'd always "exist" in the past (hardly immortality worth the name). And why would I be ecocentric enough to suppose (sans evidence) the universe would happen to exist in such a form that it takes "backups" of me?

...You mean there is no reason or justification THAT YOU CAN THINK OF...

I mean that no one has put forward a reason why any 'aspects' of me beyond the material need exist in order to explain anything about what "I" am. Except for people who are starting out from a default assumption that there must be "something more" or that we must survive our deaths. Starting without those assumptions, there is no reason to come-up with them.

Put simply - saying there's "something more" explains nothing. Assuming there isn't leaves no obvious gaps needing filling.

...That points only to a poverty of imagination on your part, because I can think of several ways in which "you" might endure the destruction of your body...

Oh-for-fucks-sake. It's got nothing to do with whether there are 'ways' that it could happen, it's to do with whether there's the slightest reason to so much as suspect that any of those 'ways' reflect in any way the true nature of how things actually are.

There isn't.

...Do I have evidence that such mechanisms exist? No, not at the moment...

No shit.

...but nothing I can think of would necessarily violate any known physical laws of the universe and therefore would not be "supernatural,"...

Likely-as-not, there's nothing about the idea that a Velociraptor from the Cretaceous could spontaneously materialise in my bedroom that would violate any physical laws of the universe.

However I shan't be wearing any Velociraptor-proof clothing to bed tonight - call me crazy, but I think I'll take the risk.

[JimC]

Horwood Beer-Master wrote:

owever I shan't be wearing any Velociraptor-proof clothing to bed tonight - call me crazy, but I think I'll take the risk.

Please post on the forum straight away in the morning, or I shall fret about what those razor-sharp claws may have done...

[DaveD]

Horwood Beer-Master wrote:

owever I shan't be wearing any Velociraptor-proof clothing to bed tonight - call me crazy, but I think I'll take the risk.

Please post on the forum straight away in the morning, or I shall fret about what those razor-sharp claws may have done...

Don't worry, I'm sure that HBM can drink any velociraptor under the table.

[Seth]

...The word "supernatural" is often used as code by scientists (and others) who actually mean "I don't understand how it works." That's been the case for many thousands of years...

No. Supernatural means something claimed to not be a part of the objective rational observable universe, something claimed to be beyond understanding not because science hasn't got there yet, nor because human brains are to limited to understand it, but because it somehow lies outside the rules, outside observation, outside study, outside empirical prediction/calculation, indeed outside the universe (except interacting with the universe when convenient, though always in a conveniently unobservable way). Something asserted to exist, but for which no criteria will ever be put forward for how to falsify it's existence.

That's what science would like you to believe. Unfortunately, for most of history, that which was not understood was frequently rejected as "supernatural" by science.

And it's circular logic to say that something may be asserted to exist, "but for which no criteria will ever be put forward for how to falsify it's existence" because many things have been put forward for which there was no criteria to falsify it with...when it was put forward. We're experiencing that right now with the various 'brane and bubble universe cosmological theories. There is absolutely no way to falsify these theories today, but they are accepted as valid scientific theories, are they not?

Why are they? They actually amount to nothing more or less than rank speculation that are beyond our capacity to test...right now.

God may be of the same nature. Existing, but not in a place or manner that we are currently incapable of detecting, quantifying, or explaining. This does not, as you falsely suggest, mean that we will NEVER be able to detect, quantify or explain God, merely that we are not sufficiently advanced to do so now.

That means that making the claim that God is "supernatural" by a scientist (or an atheist pseudo-scientist misusing actual science to make points for Atheism) is merely an admission of the ignorance and incapacity of human science.

Or in common sense talk - Bullshit.

That's what "supernatural" means.

Indeed, bullshit. So quit citing bullshit. God does not have to be supernatural in order to exist. God need only be undetectable and untestable by our paltry, primitive human intellects and science. Therefore, you cannot deny the existence of God based on a false claim that God is supernatural, not even such a claim made by a theist, because that's just another iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy.

...What's your evidence that some of those parts of "you" that you do not completely understand (like, oh, conciousness)...

Consciousness is understood better-and-better all the time. Where the understanding is still incomplete there's nevertheless no reason to think the answers are to be found outside of further study of the workings of the brain. And even if we were to find ourselves stumped, filling in the hole with "goddidit" or anything like that does not on any level constitute "finding an answer".

...After all, a computer program, which is substantially less complex, endures the turning off of the computer...

Uh, a computer does not begin to rapidly and irreversibly degrade the second you switch it off.

It would if it was organic in nature. And a human computer can be kept alive for a long time without any of the higher functions being in evidence, sort of like an electronic computer without any software installed. The point remains that we do not know what happens to our "consciousness" when our brains die. We don't even know what "consciousness" itself IS. We can't explain how it happens or why it stops happening to it, much less whether or not it endures outside of the brain. Our consciousness could be part of the "consciousness cloud" out there comprised of all intelligence everywhere operating in a dimension or medium undetectable by us at the present, and our brains could be nothing more or less than organic workstations.

That key difference is so stunningly obvious that it should have occurred to even you after half a second's thought, this leads me to one of two conclusions,

1. You didn't give it half a second's thought. Or..,

2. It did occur to you, but you don't mean any of what you say, you're just being a prick for the sake of it.

Although option "1" is a very real possibility, my personal inclination is strongly towards option "2".

Actually, as we can see, you've constructed yet another false dilemma, because there is at least one answer that you failed to take into account: the human brain as a "wifi workstation" that merely accesses a specific "personality program" running in a much larger "cloud computing" networking environment.

...What evidence do you have that "you" are not writ large on the memory media of the universe?..

What evidence do you have for such a 'memory media' in the universe?

None. What evidence do you have that such a media does NOT exist?

Beyond the fact that physics describes the time dimension in the same way as a spacial dimension, meaning I'd always "exist" in the past (hardly immortality worth the name).

There's any number of science fiction novels predicated on similar conjectures. Why are they wrong and you're right? You may well exist at all times, but your organic wifi workstation may only work in the present and may not be able to access either the past or the future. Nothing in the least bit supernatural about such a proposition.

And why would I be ecocentric enough to suppose (sans evidence) the universe would happen to exist in such a form that it takes "backups" of me?

Why wouldn't you?

...You mean there is no reason or justification THAT YOU CAN THINK OF...

I mean that no one has put forward a reason why any 'aspects' of me beyond the material need exist in order to explain anything about what "I" am.

And I suppose that you think that just because nobody has "put forward a reason" this means that there is no reason.

Except for people who are starting out from a default assumption that there must be "something more" or that we must survive our deaths. Starting without those assumptions, there is no reason to come-up with them.

Actually, there is a good reason: imagination. Your model states that one cannot have imagination and one cannot speculate about the nature of our existence because there is no "need" beyond the purely "material" for you to exist. But that's just your own conceit, not proof that there is not something beyond the material "need" that DOES exist. Just because you can't conceive of it doesn't mean it doesn't exists.

Put simply - saying there's "something more" explains nothing. Assuming there isn't leaves no obvious gaps needing filling.

How does the proposition that there is a "universal consciousness" that exists as data in some unknown medium from which our organic brains select a specific pattern and program used to generate our individual consciousness and experience "explain nothing," pray tell?

...That points only to a poverty of imagination on your part, because I can think of several ways in which "you" might endure the destruction of your body...

Oh-for-fucks-sake. It's got nothing to do with whether there are 'ways' that it could happen, it's to do with whether there's the slightest reason to so much as suspect that any of those 'ways' reflect in any way the true nature of how things actually are.

There isn't.

Really? What's your critically-robust evidence that there is nothing beyond our instant consciousness? What is our instant consciousness anyway? Please describe in detail exactly what "consciousness" is, how it comes into existence, how it is sustained, what it is comprised of, and how it operates.

When you've done that and provided the critically-robust evidence supporting your hypothesis, then we can discuss "the true nature of how things actually are."

I have a name for your argument: it's called "the Poverty of Imagination Argument."

...Do I have evidence that such mechanisms exist? No, not at the moment...

No shit.

...but nothing I can think of would necessarily violate any known physical laws of the universe and therefore would not be "supernatural,"...

Likely-as-not, there's nothing about the idea that a Velociraptor from the Cretaceous could spontaneously materialise in my bedroom that would violate any physical laws of the universe.

However I shan't be wearing any Velociraptor-proof clothing to bed tonight - call me crazy, but I think I'll take the risk.

As I said, poverty of imagination. You don't even know what "consciousness" is, how it works, or where it comes from, and yet you claim there is nothing beyond your puny human perceptions.

Which conceit and blindness is easily debunked by the fact that you can't perceive gluons or quarks, or ultra violet or infrared light for that matter. The universe is FULL of things that you can't perceive or even explain, and yet they exist nonetheless.

Consciousness is one of those things.

So you cannot reliably say that consciousness resides only in the active organic brain, because even the best scientists in the world can't reliably say that, since they don't actually understand what it is or how it happens in the first place. So, you have no rational basis on which to deny my claim, you're just rejecting it out of hand because it conflicts with your preconceived atheist notions.

[Robert_S]

Indeed, bullshit. So quit citing bullshit. God does not have to be supernatural in order to exist. God need only be undetectable and untestable by our paltry, primitive human intellects and science. Therefore, you cannot deny the existence of God based on a false claim that God is supernatural, not even such a claim made by a theist, because that's just another iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy.

Not supernatural, yet undetectable... Then it's just a silly waste of time to say anything about it.

Where your eyes don't go a filthy scarecrow waves its broomstick arms
And does a parody of each unconscious thing you do
When you turn around to look it's gone behind you
On its face it's wearing your confused expression
Where your eyes don't go

Where your eyes don't go a part of you is hovering
It's a nightmare that you'll never be discovering
You're free to come and go or talk like Kurtis Blow
But there's a pair of eyes in back of your head

...