Drinking a cup of tea can add plausible evidence God exists

[leo]

I notice the OP likes to create these threads and then abandon them. Perhaps he finds himself unable to defend his theses?

I offer gentle mockery and a big, fat "LO-O-O-O-O-O-O-OSER!" in his general direction.  

I predict he will be gone several weeks before writting more bullshit threads. Somehow he is hoping we will forget his bullshit.

[Colanth]

This is a bad as a Goldilocks argument for God: This tea is too hot, no God. This tea is too cold, no God. This tea is just right, God exists.

Where any temperature is "just right".

1. If tea exists, God exists.
2. Tea exists.
3. Therefore God exists.

[PghPanther]

Another theist argument from ignorance............the feeling of pain is demonstrated throughout the animal kingdom clear down to invertebrates and is not exclusive to a high order cerebral cortex cognitive brain but can be seated in the lower brain stem as well.

This is a human ego centric ignorant "common sense" attempt to try to understand a natural phenomenon in which the individual questioning it does not know enough to even ask the right question but is clouded by the idea we are "created in God's image" crap of being special.

Furthermore, if there is a soul component to a human..... Where is it when the brain is damaged?

A person can lose the memory, morality, and experience delusions and hallucinations all from brain injury or disease.  In a coma, a person can remain alive but feel no pain at all.............so how is that related to the existence of a soul?

There is no evidence of human conscious or thoughts...........without a functioning brain....

....when the brain ceases to function for good, as in death; so does everything else..............as a result there is no evidence for a soul.

Humans have to learn to get beyond the limitations of their "common sense" fallacies and desire to have a causality agent (baggage from our natural selection of the fear of the unknown being a predator) as excuses for anything they are ignorant about.

Do you realize what the bottom line is here?

For centuries now........science has been demonstrating that there is a natural explanation for everything we don't understand.  When given enough time we have solved so many natural phenomena of the past as we continue to do so today and will in the future.

The person of faith sees that if this continues............if science finds life existing somewhere else in our solar system/universe......if science reveals the complete process of abiogenesis,  or if science can create life in the lab from inanimate matter............and if science finds the factors behind what caused the big bang...........then there will be no more need to attribute the supernatural to these phenomenon....

They are actually in a war against their very survival............and within their ignorance they are getting more desperate every day.

[Davka]

For centuries now........science has been demonstrating that there is a natural explanation for everything we don't understand.  When given enough time we have solved so many natural phenomena of the past as we continue to do so today and will in the future.

No it hasn't! No we won't! They're just making stuff up! Science proves God but the Scientists won't admit it!



/fundamentalist

[WitchSabrina]

http://renasherwood.hubpages.com/hub/Go ... ses_of_Tea

[Simon Moon]

Oh, bloody hell!

What a silly, silly OP. I want my 2 minutes back.

When I read your fallacy laden posts, I get an involuntary response of mild disgust. Hey! Did I just prove that god exists?

1. If MR's fallacious posts cause involuntary disgust, god exists.
2. MR's fallacious posts make me disgusted.
Conclusion. Therefore god exists.

Yep, makes sense to me.

[mendacium remedium]

Alright guys,

We just need to acknowledged we can not grapple or 'hack' human consciousness. In terms of science, there is so much more we have to learn, and the human brain has puzzled us.

My argument does not come from the 'god of the gaps' argument. I merely assert that we live in the physical. Sight, pain, all of these 'sensations' should not exist in a stimulus-response world.

The most complex robot could never 'see' or 'feel'. Yes, it could 'respond' , 'detect' , 'plan', but never 'feel'.

You can tell me what causes pain, how it came about, what it's used for, what it does, but no-one can put a hand on that 'raw' feeling, which is a collosal gap that does make me lean towards the idea of there being an added component - not a soul, but certainly something else we have not discovered, and that we will never discover, because you can not tangibly 'touch' your mind.

[Plu]

We just need to acknowledged we can not grapple or 'hack' human consciousness.

Why? That won't prove anything, it'll just show that there's stuff we don't know yet.

In terms of science, there is so much more we have to learn, and the human brain has puzzled us.

We've made huge progress the last few years, though. We can already make you feel stuff by hooking an electrode into your brain, to show you just how much of the process of feeling is physical.

My argument does not come from the 'god of the gaps' argument.

Yes it does. Just watch.

I merely assert that we live in the physical. Sight, pain, all of these 'sensations' should not exist in a stimulus-response world.

If they "should" not exist, that just means your model of looking at the world is wrong. They "do" exist.

The most complex robot could never 'see' or 'feel'. Yes, it could 'respond' , 'detect' , 'plan', but never 'feel'.

You don't know that, you just think that because it would prove your point. Fact is, we've never built a robot that could feel, but we've not built all possible robots either. So we can't be sure yet.

You can tell me what causes pain, how it came about, what it's used for, what it does, but no-one can put a hand on that 'raw' feeling,

Right.

which is a collosal gap

Watch this word. Watch what it does to your argument.

that does make me lean towards the idea of there being an added component - not a soul, but certainly something else we have not discovered, and that we will never discover, because you can not tangibly 'touch' your mind.

BOOM. From the gap rises the god. Guess how we call this fallacy? It's interesting that you didn't catch your own fallacy when you literally say "there is this gap in science, which makes me think there's a god".

[WitchSabrina]

You can tell me what causes pain, .

We have nerves, nerve endings.  :shock:  :shock:  :shock:  Google it.



jesus MR............   this is getting kinda silly don't you think?

[mendacium remedium]

You can tell me what causes pain, .

We have nerves, nerve endings.  :shock:  :shock:  :shock:  Google it.



jesus MR............   this is getting kinda silly don't you think?

I know how pain is caused.
I know how it came about to exist.
I know the mechanisms.

But what is the 'raw' emotion?

Nerve endings are not the 'raw' agony.

[mendacium remedium]

The gap i talk about is the difference between a 'raw agony' and neuro-transmitters going across synapses and being detected.

[Plu]

Yeah. Which is a gap in science. And you're using it to justify your belief in god. Which is a "god of the gaps" fallacy. "We don't understand this, therefore god."

It's literally the same thing as one thousand years ago someone going "Oh, bright light comes from the sky and then trees catch fire. It must be god."

It's amazing that you don't understand this.

[Jason78]

You can tell me what causes pain, how it came about, what it's used for, what it does, but no-one can put a hand on that 'raw' feeling, which is a collosal gap that does make me lean towards the idea of there being an added component - not a soul, but certainly something else we have not discovered, and that we will never discover, because you can not tangibly 'touch' your mind.

I'm not sure what it is that you're actually trying to identify here.  That raw feeling that you're trying to describe is the pattern of neurons in your brain firing in response to a stimuli.  

And I can quite easily touch your mind.  I'll need you to put your head in a big magnet to do it though.

[Poison Tree]

The gap i talk about is the difference between a 'raw agony' and neuro-transmitters going across synapses and being detected.

I've asked you before, but you did not respond (or likely read) it: What does adding "raw" mean--uncooked, unprocessed? Does it have some solid definition or is it just a slippery word to prevent people from grabbing hold of your question too tightly?

[Simon Moon]

I know how pain is caused.
I know how it came about to exist.
I know the mechanisms.

But what is the 'raw' emotion?

Nerve endings are not the 'raw' agony.

The agony is how the brain interprets the signals coming from the nerves. Pain is nothing more than a survival mechanism.

There is no need to evoke anything magical to explain this process.