Most Scientists Believe In God

[PK1]

---
Hilarious! Well done too. Thanks.
Got me feeling guilty eating my veggies ... for a few seconds.
.

 

[PK1]

However, my def reflects "wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving".
In my definition, a biological CNS would be required.

.
you are a sad case study for what is being referred as a scientific discipline that is non existent than a punitive disregard for living beings, atheist.

and by the way, definitive consciousness exists similarly for all beings Flora and Fauna as visually representative - irregardless your contentious and irresponsible claim for a required CNS.
.

---
Obviously, we have different views on "consciousness". At least i define mine --- what's "irresponsible" about it?

Your previous post deflects away from my challenge:
If you claim existence of "spirituality", and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience, then the burden of evidence is on you.

Apparently, you are emotional about your claims. Anyone who believes in a specific god "idea" is not rational.
.

 

[PK1]

---
It's clear to me that you don't understand modern science. There is plenty of evidence for direct relations between mind & brain.
On the other hand, there is no evidence to substantiate your claim that consciousness can occur without a biological CNS.
Your belief in Abrahamic religious dogma has no scientific merit.
.

Isn't the scientific evidence to the contrary? Even if we do the injustice, and restrict the mind problem to biology, a branch of science that I totally hate, we find that for example most organ transplant recepients pick up many traits of the donors personalities. Even when those traits are far or opposite to the recepients personalities. There has never been a brain transplant yet, and hopefully never will be. The closest to it were live human-animal head transplants that ancient Egyptian drawings depict.

---
If you make a claim, esp one that is unbelievable by educated people, then it's up to you to provide the evidence.
What's your evidence for this ridiculous claim?
"most organ transplant recepients pick up many traits of the donors personalities."
.

The more belligerent scientists are usually in the habit of not reading the reports of their less belligerent colleagues. Those transformations are recorded in large numbers everywhere. Especially by family members. But for the power hungry subgroup of scientists, reality doesn't exist until one of their chosen colleagues decides to write about it.

---
Wow, what a conspiracy theory.
Power hungry? Knowledge hungry is more accurate, which leads to power.
.

No, not knowledge hungry, only power hungry. It should be irrelevant to these scientists whether there is a god or not, because their job is only to measure things and report if repeatable or not. The fact that scientists go belligerent on purely political ideas such as atheism shows, that what they want is not knowledge but simply the power to control other people. This also shows why reputation is more important to scientists than knowledge.

---
"It should be irrelevant to these scientists whether there is a god or not"

You got that right. All real scientists are agnostic.


"reputation is more important to scientists than knowledge."

I doubt that's the case for accomplished scientists, who become members of NAS based on their knowledge, & methods of inquiry contributing to it.
.

 

[BreezeWood]

However, my def reflects "wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving".
In my definition, a biological CNS would be required.

Your previous post deflects away from my challenge:

PK1: a biological CNS would be required ...

"wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving"


just for jokes, which of the attributes you claim for yourself is lacking in the above example besides your physioneurological CNS (delineating chemical) ... as has been your deflection for an absolute agnostic scientific community.

If you claim existence of "spirituality", and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience, then the burden of evidence is on you.

and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience ...



.

 

[anotherlife]

Isn't the scientific evidence to the contrary? Even if we do the injustice, and restrict the mind problem to biology, a branch of science that I totally hate, we find that for example most organ transplant recepients pick up many traits of the donors personalities. Even when those traits are far or opposite to the recepients personalities. There has never been a brain transplant yet, and hopefully never will be. The closest to it were live human-animal head transplants that ancient Egyptian drawings depict.

---
If you make a claim, esp one that is unbelievable by educated people, then it's up to you to provide the evidence.
What's your evidence for this ridiculous claim?
"most organ transplant recepients pick up many traits of the donors personalities."
.

The more belligerent scientists are usually in the habit of not reading the reports of their less belligerent colleagues. Those transformations are recorded in large numbers everywhere. Especially by family members. But for the power hungry subgroup of scientists, reality doesn't exist until one of their chosen colleagues decides to write about it.

---
Wow, what a conspiracy theory.
Power hungry? Knowledge hungry is more accurate, which leads to power.
.

No, not knowledge hungry, only power hungry. It should be irrelevant to these scientists whether there is a god or not, because their job is only to measure things and report if repeatable or not. The fact that scientists go belligerent on purely political ideas such as atheism shows, that what they want is not knowledge but simply the power to control other people. This also shows why reputation is more important to scientists than knowledge.

---
"It should be irrelevant to these scientists whether there is a god or not"

You got that right. All real scientists are agnostic.


"reputation is more important to scientists than knowledge."

I doubt that's the case for accomplished scientists, who become members of NAS based on their knowledge, & methods of inquiry contributing to it.
.

But you got it wrong. Just because God is irrelevant to their work, it doesn't mean that they would need to be agnostic. You are probably equal to your work, but most other people are more than just their works, even some scientists. Apart from this, God is relevant in every work, including every scientific work too, see Ephesians 2:10. But for the godless scientists, it is all about reputation, in acceptance, a form of politics, independent of science.

 

[PK1]

However, my def reflects "wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving".
In my definition, a biological CNS would be required.

Your previous post deflects away from my challenge:

PK1: a biological CNS would be required ...

"wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving"

just for jokes, which of the attributes you claim for yourself is lacking in the above example besides your physioneurological CNS (delineating chemical) ... as has been your deflection for an absolute agnostic scientific community.

If you claim existence of "spirituality", and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience, then the burden of evidence is on you.

and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience ...

.

---
Pretty Flora pics!
Do you claim that Flora & Fauna have similar "consciousness"? If so, what do you believe are the differences, if any?
.

 

[PK1]

---
If you make a claim, esp one that is unbelievable by educated people, then it's up to you to provide the evidence.
What's your evidence for this ridiculous claim?
"most organ transplant recepients pick up many traits of the donors personalities."
.

The more belligerent scientists are usually in the habit of not reading the reports of their less belligerent colleagues. Those transformations are recorded in large numbers everywhere. Especially by family members. But for the power hungry subgroup of scientists, reality doesn't exist until one of their chosen colleagues decides to write about it.

---
Wow, what a conspiracy theory.
Power hungry? Knowledge hungry is more accurate, which leads to power.
.

No, not knowledge hungry, only power hungry. It should be irrelevant to these scientists whether there is a god or not, because their job is only to measure things and report if repeatable or not. The fact that scientists go belligerent on purely political ideas such as atheism shows, that what they want is not knowledge but simply the power to control other people. This also shows why reputation is more important to scientists than knowledge.

---
"It should be irrelevant to these scientists whether there is a god or not"

You got that right. All real scientists are agnostic.


"reputation is more important to scientists than knowledge."

I doubt that's the case for accomplished scientists, who become members of NAS based on their knowledge, & methods of inquiry contributing to it.
.

But you got it wrong. Just because God is irrelevant to their work, it doesn't mean that they would need to be agnostic. You are probably equal to your work, but most other people are more than just their works, even some scientists. Apart from this, God is relevant in every work, including every scientific work too, see Ephesians 2:10. But for the godless scientists, it is all about reputation, in acceptance, a form of politics, independent of science.

---
"God is relevant in every work, including every scientific work too"

Nope; "God" is irrelevant in science, which only deals with the observable, not fantasy.
.

 

[anotherlife]

The more belligerent scientists are usually in the habit of not reading the reports of their less belligerent colleagues. Those transformations are recorded in large numbers everywhere. Especially by family members. But for the power hungry subgroup of scientists, reality doesn't exist until one of their chosen colleagues decides to write about it.

---
Wow, what a conspiracy theory.
Power hungry? Knowledge hungry is more accurate, which leads to power.
.

No, not knowledge hungry, only power hungry. It should be irrelevant to these scientists whether there is a god or not, because their job is only to measure things and report if repeatable or not. The fact that scientists go belligerent on purely political ideas such as atheism shows, that what they want is not knowledge but simply the power to control other people. This also shows why reputation is more important to scientists than knowledge.

---
"It should be irrelevant to these scientists whether there is a god or not"

You got that right. All real scientists are agnostic.


"reputation is more important to scientists than knowledge."

I doubt that's the case for accomplished scientists, who become members of NAS based on their knowledge, & methods of inquiry contributing to it.
.

But you got it wrong. Just because God is irrelevant to their work, it doesn't mean that they would need to be agnostic. You are probably equal to your work, but most other people are more than just their works, even some scientists. Apart from this, God is relevant in every work, including every scientific work too, see Ephesians 2:10. But for the godless scientists, it is all about reputation, in acceptance, a form of politics, independent of science.

---
"God is relevant in every work, including every scientific work too"

Nope; "God" is irrelevant in science, which only deals with the observable, not fantasy.
.

I would say this logic is incorrect, because you can't use what is observed to explain itself. Explanations of observations come from God, and then we can as well just take the small step and postulate that the observations themselves also come from God. In other words, Gospel of John 1:1, "First there was the word, then the word became flesh ...". Or, yet in another way, your observations wouldn't exist for you, if they hadn't been from God.

 

[Campbell]

View attachment 63202

What you just wrote is the most ignorant collection of meaningless words I've ever seen....'course I'm just 81.

Well, be optimistic. Perhaps one day you will grow up.

The folks who cling to belief in ancient gods are the ones who need to grow up:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."
~Dr. Albert Einstein~

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding"
~Thomas Jefferson~

 

[anotherlife]

View attachment 63202

What you just wrote is the most ignorant collection of meaningless words I've ever seen....'course I'm just 81.

Well, be optimistic. Perhaps one day you will grow up.

The folks who cling to belief in ancient gods are the ones who need to grow up:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."
~Dr. Albert Einstein~

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding"
~Thomas Jefferson~

Einstein was wrong many times, his colleagues proved that. Jefferson was smart too, but denying God does not take away God's many affects on you and your environment.

 

[ChrisL]

However, my def reflects "wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving".
In my definition, a biological CNS would be required.

Your previous post deflects away from my challenge:

PK1: a biological CNS would be required ...

"wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving"

just for jokes, which of the attributes you claim for yourself is lacking in the above example besides your physioneurological CNS (delineating chemical) ... as has been your deflection for an absolute agnostic scientific community.

If you claim existence of "spirituality", and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience, then the burden of evidence is on you.

and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience ...

.

---
Pretty Flora pics!
Do you claim that Flora & Fauna have similar "consciousness"? If so, what do you believe are the differences, if any?
.

I still cannot figure out the argument the poster is trying to make. This is not the first time he/she has brought in "flora and fauna" trying to prove (?) some silly point. I'm pretty sure that plants do not have a consciousness.

 

[anotherlife]

However, my def reflects "wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving".
In my definition, a biological CNS would be required.

Your previous post deflects away from my challenge:

PK1: a biological CNS would be required ...

"wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving"

just for jokes, which of the attributes you claim for yourself is lacking in the above example besides your physioneurological CNS (delineating chemical) ... as has been your deflection for an absolute agnostic scientific community.

If you claim existence of "spirituality", and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience, then the burden of evidence is on you.

and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience ...

.

---
Pretty Flora pics!
Do you claim that Flora & Fauna have similar "consciousness"? If so, what do you believe are the differences, if any?
.

I still cannot figure out the argument the poster is trying to make. This is not the first time he/she has brought in "flora and fauna" trying to prove (?) some silly point. I'm pretty sure that plants do not have a consciousness.

I think that is exactly breezewood's point. Consciousness is not necessarily human. And plants have their own consciousness, just as effective as humans, only different.

 

[PK1]

However, my def reflects "wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving".
In my definition, a biological CNS would be required.

Your previous post deflects away from my challenge:

PK1: a biological CNS would be required ...

"wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving"

just for jokes, which of the attributes you claim for yourself is lacking in the above example besides your physioneurological CNS (delineating chemical) ... as has been your deflection for an absolute agnostic scientific community.

If you claim existence of "spirituality", and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience, then the burden of evidence is on you.

and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience ...
.

---
Pretty Flora pics!
Do you claim that Flora & Fauna have similar "consciousness"? If so, what do you believe are the differences, if any?
.

I still cannot figure out the argument the poster is trying to make. This is not the first time he/she has brought in "flora and fauna" trying to prove (?) some silly point. I'm pretty sure that plants do not have a consciousness.

---
I am not sure myself. The poster appears unable to make a logical or rational argument. They provide pics of beautiful flora and think that's evidence of consciousness without providing their definition of that term.

I'm guessing he/she is using consciousness as a concept related to "spirit", which is fantasized as being unobservable (immaterial) and related to a "God" who created the flora & fauna on earth by "breathing life".

Once one adopts a simplistic belief in the unobservable to explain life's mysteries ("God of the gaps" reasoning), no other explanation or detail is needed for that primitive mind.
.

 

[PK1]

However, my def reflects "wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving".
In my definition, a biological CNS would be required.

Your previous post deflects away from my challenge:

PK1: a biological CNS would be required ...

"wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving"

just for jokes, which of the attributes you claim for yourself is lacking in the above example besides your physioneurological CNS (delineating chemical) ... as has been your deflection for an absolute agnostic scientific community.

If you claim existence of "spirituality", and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience, then the burden of evidence is on you.

and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience ...
.

---
Pretty Flora pics!
Do you claim that Flora & Fauna have similar "consciousness"? If so, what do you believe are the differences, if any?
.

I still cannot figure out the argument the poster is trying to make. This is not the first time he/she has brought in "flora and fauna" trying to prove (?) some silly point. I'm pretty sure that plants do not have a consciousness.

I think that is exactly breezewood's point. Consciousness is not necessarily human. And plants have their own consciousness, just as effective as humans, only different.

---
My god is better than your god.
How do you know that's not true?
.

 

[anotherlife]

However, my def reflects "wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving".
In my definition, a biological CNS would be required.

Your previous post deflects away from my challenge:

PK1: a biological CNS would be required ...

"wakefulness, perception of surroundings, memory processing, and thoughts associated with motivation & problem solving"

just for jokes, which of the attributes you claim for yourself is lacking in the above example besides your physioneurological CNS (delineating chemical) ... as has been your deflection for an absolute agnostic scientific community.

If you claim existence of "spirituality", and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience, then the burden of evidence is on you.

and it's not a material cognitive-emotive experience ...
.

---
Pretty Flora pics!
Do you claim that Flora & Fauna have similar "consciousness"? If so, what do you believe are the differences, if any?
.

I still cannot figure out the argument the poster is trying to make. This is not the first time he/she has brought in "flora and fauna" trying to prove (?) some silly point. I'm pretty sure that plants do not have a consciousness.

I think that is exactly breezewood's point. Consciousness is not necessarily human. And plants have their own consciousness, just as effective as humans, only different.

---
My god is better than your god.
How do you know that's not true?
.

Since it doesn't have to be objective ....

 

[PK1]

---
My god is better than your god.
How do you know that's not true?
.

Since it doesn't have to be objective ....

---
You appear unable to deal with logic.
.

 

[BreezeWood]

I'm pretty sure that plants do not have a consciousness.

is that because Flora hasn't a CNS central nervous system ... surly you are not that stupid.

it is indisputable they have a consciousness, and a conscious as all living beings as well as an appetite.

.

 

[OZman]