Hi

[trdsf]

So, you have no evidence, and you're either too dishonest or too cowardly to admit it.

If you have to resort to the "prove [sic] is elsewhere", then you have no proof.  You either have it or you don't, and you don't get to make up your own rules for what constitutes proof.

Feel free to believe what you like, but if you're going to assert an answer for an unsolved question, there are rules of evidence and logic that you have to adhere to, whether you like it or not, and if you can't do that, then the most you can say is that you believe it.  In no honest way can you claim it's objectively true.  But, seeing the way you've conducted yourself here, it's pretty obvious you don't have much more a grasp on honest debate than you do on the rules of evidence.

We're going to boil this down to a level simple enough for even you to grasp.

All I want is a one word answer, a 'yes' or a 'no'.

Can you provide a refereed paper from a legitimate journal in the relevant discipline that supports your position?

One word answer, yes or no.  Anything else will be ignored.

[Baruch]

Not my fight.  I just like a good fight between matched opponents.

I don't need refereed papers, I have my broadsword.

[Mike Cl]

Words are bad?  Ban all words.  Less the weak get triggered.  You can say tomato, and I can say tomAto ... but the fruit stays the same.  Don't like natural or supernatural as words ... tough.  Ban words, or change or invert their meaning thru the Party.

Dualist ... there is white and black
Maniac ... there is only white or there is only black

There you go, dribbling off into the woods shouting nonsense ................If one is trying to communicate then it does not matter how you pronounce tomato, only if it is close enough that each can get that idea of what fruit we are trying to talk about.  All communication is flawed for we all see the world through unique eyes.  Yet communicate we can and do.  It takes effort and to be done well, a certain level of honesty.  I can fully understand why you don't like the word 'supernatural' for you think there really is much that is supernatural.  You seem to love it for some reason---oops, sorry-----not some reason, but some belief.  And you just can't shake 'belief' to answer your questions. 

[Baruch]

There you go, dribbling off into the woods shouting nonsense ................If one is trying to communicate then it does not matter how you pronounce tomato, only if it is close enough that each can get that idea of what fruit we are trying to talk about.  All communication is flawed for we all see the world through unique eyes.  Yet communicate we can and do.  It takes effort and to be done well, a certain level of honesty.  I can fully understand why you don't like the word 'supernatural' for you think there really is much that is supernatural.  You seem to love it for some reason---oops, sorry-----not some reason, but some belief.  And you just can't shake 'belief' to answer your questions.

Thinking with your head (typical I know) not thinking wit your heart.  We are incommensurate.  We don't have equivalent experience upon which to base common vocabulary.  Except when we do (Dr Carrier).  But I think that Arik and I do have some equivalent experience upon which to base common vocabulary.  You experienced church, not G-d.  I have church experience too.  We just celebrated our rabbi's birthday at tonight's worship service.

[Arik]

So, you have no evidence, and you're either too dishonest or too cowardly to admit it.

If you have to resort to the "prove [sic] is elsewhere", then you have no proof.  You either have it or you don't, and you don't get to make up your own rules for what constitutes proof.

Feel free to believe what you like, but if you're going to assert an answer for an unsolved question, there are rules of evidence and logic that you have to adhere to, whether you like it or not, and if you can't do that, then the most you can say is that you believe it.  In no honest way can you claim it's objectively true.  But, seeing the way you've conducted yourself here, it's pretty obvious you don't have much more a grasp on honest debate than you do on the rules of evidence.

We're going to boil this down to a level simple enough for even you to grasp.

All I want is a one word answer, a 'yes' or a 'no'.

Can you provide a refereed paper from a legitimate journal in the relevant discipline that supports your position?

One word answer, yes or no.  Anything else will be ignored.

You got a big problem Mister.

You came at the conclusion that ...............a refereed paper from a legitimate journal...........is evidence.
What a load o'crap Mister.

Your conclusion goes against nature.
In this universe everything move and change.
Nothing stay the same for long time.
What was correct yesterday is no longer valid today and what is valid today will be cast in the rubbish bin of history in the near future to be replaced again later on with new evidence.

But dreamers like you don't get it.
They cling to the present thinking that what they got is the real McCoy of knowledge.
That is the problem when you live in this finite universe where everything last only for short time.

To me the real evidence only lie in the infinite arena but that is something that a materialists is unable to grasp yet.
In the meantime I base my evidence on thousand of people who witness a dead person to be revived later on and tell to the people present there what he-she saw and what people were thinking while he-she was out his-her body, SOMETHING THAT WAS CONFIRMED AS TRUTH BY THE NURSES AND DOCTORS PRESENT there.

I did asked how this is possible but you pretend that I never asked you this and at the same time still blabber........EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE.......

[Arik]

Are there only natural parts that make up the consciousness? You seem to claim it lives on after the body dies, but if a body if fully obliterated, then the only way a consciousness can live on if it is supernatural.

Either the consciousness dies when the body is gone, or it's supernatural. There's no real other way; the body itself is an entirely natural thing, made of atoms and measurable energies and all of them stop when you die.

Note that being "supernatural" simply means it's not made of natural components. I'm not using the word in any mystical or spiritual sense here.

Please let me try to dispel your confusion.

Suppose you got a car that you have been driven for long time.
One day your car become a wreck which obviously will end up in the wrecking yard.
From that time on you leave that wreck.
Have you become a different person just because you do not have anymore a relationship with that old car?

Of course not Plu.
Why should you have changed?
You still are Plu like before.

When the consciousness leave a dead body such a consciousness is still the same although being now free from the body it can perceive better what is going on but to say that the consciousness become supernatural doesn't make any sense.

[Plu]

Have you become a different person just because you do not have anymore a relationship with that old car?

Clearly you will become a different person. Wreck or no wreck. Change is constant. The idea of a persistent self is a human illusion; a useful one, but still an illusion.

You still are Plu like before.

You overestimate how much I am still the same Plu I was 4 years ago, when I left the forums. Let alone the same Plu I was 10 years ago. I would barely recognize the Plu I was 20 years ago, and I'm him.

When the consciousness leave a dead body such a consciousness is still the same although being now free from the body it can perceive better what is going on but to say that the consciousness become supernatural doesn't make any sense.

Right. Saying it became supernatural doesn't make any sense. It must've always been supernatural, given that it defies detection at all times. That's what the word "supernatural" means. Outside the realm of science.

[Arik]

Clearly you will become a different person. Wreck or no wreck. Change is constant. The idea of a persistent self is a human illusion; a useful one, but still an illusion.

You overestimate how much I am still the same Plu I was 4 years ago, when I left the forums. Let alone the same Plu I was 10 years ago. I would barely recognize the Plu I was 20 years ago, and I'm him.

Everything move and change so obviously there is a change for the better or the worse during our life.
This however is not what I tried to tell you.
The point was whether or not the consciousness become supernatural NOT IN THE COURSE OF OUR LIFE BUT ONLY WHEN WE LEAVE OUR BODY.

Can you see the difference among the two situation Plu?

Right. Saying it became supernatural doesn't make any sense. It must've always been supernatural, given that it defies detection at all times. That's what the word "supernatural" means. Outside the realm of science.

The realm of science?

Not really Plu.
It is all about awareness.
An animal has got little awareness in his consciousness if we compare that to an human consciousness but also an human has got little awareness if we believe that God exist and God has got his awareness so there is no such a thing as natural or supernatural.
It is all natural but an entity with less awareness in his consciousness think that what he-she can not perceive is supernatural when in reality is more than natural.

[Plu]

I really think you need to read up on the words "natural" and "supernatural" in the dictionary before there is any point to continuing this discussion.

[trdsf]

Wow, you don't even understand the words "one word answer".  Guess you don't give a fuck about actually making your point, if you even have one.

You're either a dishonest and cowardly debater, or a thundering moron.  Either way, welcome to my twitfilter.  You're not even fun to poke anymore.

[Baruch]

I really think you need to read up on the words "natural" and "supernatural" in the dictionary before there is any point to continuing this discussion.

Dictionary ... as controlled by the Newspeak division of IngSoc?  Some examples ...

Democrat = demon spawn

Republican = the other demon spawn

How do you like my poetic license?  I don't get that license from the MSM DMV.

Use any definition you like, provided that you make it clear which one you are using, and I am cool with it.  I don't see language as neutral, it is a weapon.

Democrat = saints of democratic socialism?

Republican = neo-Nazis?

So ...

natural = what atheists claim is the one true ontology

supernatural = what theists claim is the one true ontology

As a freethinking theist, I reject both definitions.  Any definition is a rhetorical tool to hide what you really think.

I also reject the notion that religious orientation is politics free ... that is an Anglophone fantasy.  No other culture is that stupid.

[Cavebear]

Wow, you don't even understand the words "one word answer".  Guess you don't give a fuck about actually making your point, if you even have one.

You're either a dishonest and cowardly debater, or a thundering moron.  Either way, welcome to my twitfilter.  You're not even fun to poke anymore.

Are we actually witnessing a debate about logic from 2 theists (Plu and Arik)?  Amazing...

[Baruch]

Are we actually witnessing a debate about logic from 2 theists (Plu and Arik)?  Amazing...

Is PLU a theist?  Arik is not a materialist.  Does that make Arik a theist?  He hasn't spoken of Vishnu/Shiva etc.

[Plu]

Are we actually witnessing a debate about logic from 2 theists (Plu and Arik)?  Amazing...

Doubtful, given that I am not a theist and Arik is not 2 people.

[Baruch]

Cavebear is given to snap judgements ... he is part snapdragon.