Top Ten (Failed) Proofs For God's Existence

Because your parents fucked, you exist....because their parents fucked they exist....on and on and on all the way back to the big bang. Because your parents fucked doesn't make you an elephant, or a tree, or a snake....it made you you. There is a reason for everything.

 

Yeah, ok. most folks would agree with that......

This, ^^^^, is an assumption on your part and is not the logical conclusion of the previous statement.

 

Well I made it as far as his opening statement in which he contradicts himself right out of the gate with a dependency on God to form his argument.

His faith argument is ridiculous, unless of course he wants to convince us that atheists are invincible and every thought in their head is an incontrovertible fact. Anyway I was a bit disappointed because I expected some level of real philosophy.

 

I think you may be confused with the use of the Dutko (Christian apologist) sound bite, otherwise I don't know what you're talking about.

 

feel free to print out his opening lines and I will highlight it for you.

 

"Atheists often have to defend themselves against theist's claim that Atheism is just another religion... "

:unsure:

 

no. because my parents fucked, THE BODY I LIVE IN exists. has not a god damd fucking thing in hell to do with ME existing. BODIES are NOT selves. period. that simple.
and as long as anyone thinks a god has to look like anything human, what they are worshiping is the human ego, and not a god, of any kind at all.

people can believe in anything they want to believe, but as long as they make doing so, an excuse for the filth of aggressiveness, they are still making an excuse.

and if by "magic", you mean things that are neither physical nor imaginary, then yes, i believe such things can exist, and no, they cannot be proven, either to exist, nor to not.

science = knowledge; knowledge <> limits of possible existence.
the existence of 'reasons' <> those reasons being known.

if you don't believe there is a soul, what is the point of your god?

 

Doesn't matter what you or I, or anyone believes.....reality will still exist after we are gone.

 

"Obviously it's a great embarrassment to the Theory of Evolution that it cannot account for human consciousness, because after all, human consciousness came up with the Theory of Evolution" -Mckenna

 

that part you have right.

and whether there is one god, no god or many, doesn't make anything any less up to ourselves either.
and that includes both our dependence on how nature actually works,
and the kind of experiential existence we create for each other.

 

the implication, that nothing can be valid unless it accounts for EVERYTHING, is just plain too silly, to make the unneeded effort to counter.

 

Oh wow, I finally got part of something right....gee thanks.

 

what it's implying is that until you CAN account for the source of the Theory of Evolution, which is Consciousness, then maybe you shouldn't approach this THEORY as if it were an actual fact like they teach you in school.

 

"facts" are a species of mythical beasts. observed repetition and abundance or lack of evidence are things that are real, that the term fact is usually meant to imply.
but its implication of any proof as being final or certain, is simply not the way science or the real universe works.

the lack of context of the quote made its intention unclear. i'm not good at keeping track of who people are and their perspectives.

 

But right here you are saying that you understand the implication. At least as far as I have grown up, Evolution is treated as a fact in school, and it shapes our modern worldview. Mckenna is saying that you need to be able to account for Consciousness first, which is an ever-present aspect of our reality.

If Evolution isn't treated as fact then why is it the only theory that's taught in public school?

 

no. it is treated as what there is evidence to support. bullshit lacking there of, is frequently in most schools, mentioned also.

when the word "fact" is used, despite its inaccurate implications, it is for the sake of allowing simple minds to grasp.

 

again, your lack of understanding concerning science is showing.
Ideally the students should be intelligent enough to distinguish between a scientific theory and a scientific law.

A theory is something that posses enough circumstantial evidence to make it feasible and logical, yet lacks incontrovertible evidence or the ability of reproduction.
A law (in science) is a phenomena that occurs so consistently and with such a high degree of probability that we can have some measure of confidence in it happening again.

Yet at it's very core, science and scientific theories are always tentative and open for revision.
Only the most ignorant scientist would declare anything as an absolute.


as far as fully understanding consciousness and it's relationship to the material reality is a question that most likley will never be fully answered or comprehend.
The fact of our consciousness precludes us ever fully understanding how it is connected.
It's the old Heisenberg uncertainty principle at work again, it's impossible to know both the position and velocity of a particle simultaneously, the very act of observation has an effect on the thing observed.

you are correct in that any theory that explains the universe must take into account everything contained within said universe, but the McKenna quote is kinda lame and doesn't really lend the support you think it does.

Science has been looking for a theory that accounts for everything for a very long time, The Grand Unified Theory, as I'm sure you know, so I'm failing to get your point here.

 

This and the search for that one cure-all pill sounds a little similar to the search for the Elixir of Life and the Philosopher's Stone. In fact, it sounds exactly the same. Two faces of the same thing.

I would imagine that Consciousness would have a part to do with this Grand Unified Theory. It would also Unify all opposing opposites, would it not?

Now look up the Alchemical term "Coincidentia Oppositorum" (Unity of Opposites).

 

The McKenna quote seems to rely on an ambiguity In what the term consciousness means. The evidence seems to point to a gradiated increase in brain size and probably increase of neurons as well within the evolutionary hominid family tree, which seems to correlate with more sophisticated examples of consciousness, the only exception in brain size being Neanderthals. But if consciousness remains a mystery or Ill-defined, we cannot really tell if the theory of evolution answers it.

 

On a side note, much of the terminology, knowledge of elements, and approach in the lab came from Alchemy, even if by accident, and yet, Alchemists didn't always use the Scientific Method. They ended up inventing it, but before then, they relied on pure experimentation through trial and error. This shows that the Scientific Method isn't the only way to approach things. The entire foundation of Science is based on experimentation, NOT the Scientific Method.