UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 10 to Meditation 13
Re: Proofs of God's Existence (5)

by Thomas

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

Addendum to a Laundry list (5 of 7)

"Just so that you don't feel that there are no proofs, despite the fact that you continue to ignore the proofs I have sent previously, there are others:"

Ad tedium ad infinitum - assumptions are thus.

Intelligent design and arguments against this cretinism belong in addendum 7 of 7.

As for awareness indicating outside awareness and that; that awareness previously created us; prior to us being aware of creator awareness; this awareness of not being aware of prior external awareness conversely indicates an awareness that . . . I am aware of what?

I don’t like this can of worms . . . but the rest is proof of Zilch. . .

5. The existence of man's consciousness or mind. Atoms do not know they exist. They are not self aware. Man is aware that he exists. This awareness came about from Intelligent Design.

"The existence of man's consciousness or mind" (This is a huge can O’ worms!).

Honestly I don’t even want to touch this idea. It begs for a different question; not an assumed answer. Does man actually possess a quality of being; existent of the complex; and complexity called mind? Remember “Ghost in the machine?” Skippy-doing-dis-one. NEXT!

Hey and this one too! This one is too existential to answer as well.

"Atoms do not know they exist. They are not self aware. "

Is this even true? Quantum observance and theory might contain some contradiction to that statement - but skipping over these existential statements (and some figurative mind-worms); let’s proceed to the awareness as evidence argument for a God myth:

IF (Ex) of (M) is known to (Mc); then (sa)

The existence (Ex) of being a man is known to a man (Mc); a man is self aware (sa).

And, IF (Ex) of (A) is not known (Ac); then not (sa).

The existence (Ex) of being an Atom is not known to an atom (Ac); it is not self aware (sa).

Conclusion?

Then (sa) is from (G) God.

Having self awareness (sa) came about from Intelligent Design (G).

This does not even make sense - this is not reasoning! There is no correlation from existence (Ex) in a man’s mind (Mc) of self awareness (sa) - to the (assumed J) absence of self awareness (sa) in the Atom (Ac) to the introduction of an uncorrelated and different; previously un-introduced mythological concept (G) God-supreme-being; super-nature. This is not even a fallacy - it’s too idiotic - to even be considered a mistake.

Here (G; God myth) is merely a mythological catch all; for anything; real or unreal; that can or can’t be explained; or can or can’t be understood. It’s a dumb-me down reason for non-reasoning.

If evil; then (G).
If apple; then (G).
If rock; then (G).
If sun; then (G).
If unhappy about dying; then (G).
If virus; then (G).
If Tsunami; then (G).
If computer; then (G).
If gay; then (G).
If atom bomb; then (G). Etc. Etc. Etc. - It is pointless non-thinking.

Following the idiotic detail of the reasoning; as was stated previously: IF self awareness is an indication of evidence to support the hypothesis of a mythological (G)-type design. THEN the converse is true; absence of self awareness is evidence of an existence - not from intelligent design.

If: the existence of being a cat is not known to a cat; a cat is not self aware.
Then a cat was not created by intelligent design (G).

If: the existence of being a tree is not known to a tree; a tree is not self aware.
Then a tree was not created by intelligent design (G).

If: the existence of being an atom is not known to an atom; an atom is not self aware.
Then an atom was not created by intelligent design (G).

Self awareness is not evidence of intelligent design (this creator implies creator - wordplay fallacy); creationism, cretinism; whatever name this non-science is labeled - it is certainly not science; nor is it even thinking. Awareness and self awareness; are indications of complexity of thought; of evolved mind; the existential questions posed by (what is mind?) usually has a negative answer - not a positive answer. But these questions about (what is mind?) do nothing to support any local mythological God-label appellation.

While an argument for some type of super-natureal being; might yield an indication (a possibility) of something existing beyond understanding. Whatever that might be is purely conjecture. This conjecture; this multiplicity of meaningless-ness; this possibility of transcendent being; does not transfer; to a provincial myth.

NEXT