Why science and atheists fall short in explaining consciousness.

Why science and atheists fall short in explaining consciousness. Dec 9, 2018 21:29:04 GMT rachelcarson1953 likes this

Quote

Post by Hairynosedwombat on Dec 9, 2018 21:29:04 GMT

Dec 9, 2018 14:49:28 GMT heeeeey said:

Dec 9, 2018 11:09:46 GMT Hairynosedwombat said:

Odds are more in favor of my being correct than your limited, dumb ass.

You keep making unsupportable assertions and pretend they have substance.

consciousness as a real phenomenon that can be described objectively and mathematically.
your problem seems to be that your incomplete reading of IIT somehow bears some relationship to proving there is a god. Nope!

nobody can 'prove' something that is beyond comprehension.
A tautology isn't any deep and meaningful statement. It is as meaningful as "there's the sun".

Yes, I maintain that if there were odds, they would be in my favor. To not believe there is anything beyond the limitations of the five senses is one thing, but to proclaim as an indisputable fact that awareness is a product of the brain is nothing but arrogant pomposity. As is arrogantly proclaiming that something can come out of nothing.

If you look through posts in this thread there is one poster who stands out for arrogant pomposity.

And where did anybody (except perhaps you) suggest something comes out of nothing? Science would say that the big bang (if that is the genesis of our universe), before and just after, and consciousness are indeterminate because there is no evidence to hypothesise what happened then.

And if you want to lay odds on who did what when, my own supreme being, of whom I have made my avatar) has an equal chance of creating consciousness (as well as a delicious sauce) as whatever you cunjure up.