(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Okay, i don't believe in god, but i mean, although this does make you think.

Consciousness without creation is impossible; creation without consciouness is impossible.

Essentially, if you can prove this statement wrong you have won the athiests' argument. But first, let's examine each of these interdependant statements individually.

Consciousness without creation is impossible


What this means is that if consciousness exists, it MUST create. For example, every being which possesses consciousness will dream. If computers ever gain consciousness, even they will dream. What's more, dreams occur constantly--even if most of them are not remembered by the subject. A dream can best be described as a universe which exists within the consciousness itself--extant from universe within which that consciousness exists. In other words, it is a world within a world.

Ideas or thoughts are another example of the continueous creation of consciousness. (As an experiment, attempt to 'quiet' your mind, extinguishing all thoughts. What happens?)

Creation without consciousness is impossible


This means that there is nothing which exists which is not the result of a conscious mind; which therefore means that there MUST be a God.

This is why athiests and evolutionists seem to go hand-in-hand, for apparently evolution is an example of creation without consciousness. It is simply what naturally results when you have a system which possesses: variation, selection and heredity. When applied to the evolution of ideas, this is known as memetics (which means that ideas, just like plants and animals, can become extinct or endangered).

Therefore, ideas, thoughts--and by extension, dreams--are not 'created' but rather are the result of evolution. Consciousness itself is merely the by-product of evolution.


It's at this point that we should define what consciousness actually is: the process of becoming self-aware. Thus, memetics implies that becoming self-aware, and growing in self-awareness, is a natural consequence of the evolutionary process (variation + selection + heredity).

According to those who have extensively studied the conscience and psychology, consciousness implies 4 characteristics: subjectivity, change, continuity, and selectivity.

If a key element of consciousness is the ability to be selective, and selection is an essential part of the evolutionary process, this implies--rather infadically--that consciousness has an influence over evolution.

But evolution has an influence, and is in fact responsible for, consciousness, as exemplified by another key characteristic of consciousness: change. The ability to change is synonymous with evolution.

However, once consciousness is brought into the equation, it has an inevitable impact on evolution as a result of its ability to be selective (i.e. make decisions). The decisions which that conscious entity, or entities, makes will have an inevitable impact on the system/world around it, which will effect the evolution of that system/world.

The consciousness is now taking an active part in its own evolution!

In sum, consciousness is the inevitable result of evolution, and evolution is inevitably effected by consciousness. This is not a casuality dilemma (chicken or the egg), since it is obvious which came first: evolution*. However, as consciousness expands, it has a greater and greater impact on evolution. This is clearly and indisputably evident in human beings. It is inevitable then, that a 'tipping point' will occur, in which consciousness' impact on evolution is greater than evolution's impact on consciousness.

In other words, God is inevitable.

*It should however be noted that a God consciousness would have a much different view of time than our current level of conciousness allows. Time is relative, after all, and the ultimate cause of all this--the so-called Big Bang--itself has an unknown cause. Our linear view of time is only a result of our 'small' perspective, in the same way the earth feels flat.


Okay, so it's either 'god' was described by the ancients to be aliens.

Wow wow wow wow! Chill your beans a second. The burden of truth lies with the person making the claim. If I claimed to have a 9 inch penis, unless I could prove it (which I can...) you wouldn't believe me. It's not for an atheist to disprove these wild claims, but for a theist to prove them.

Watch this:


And :
>A common cockroach cannot understand who built the house, the floor, or the ceiling on which it dwells.

>A common Atheist cannot understand who built the forests, the sky, or the ground on which they live.

The reason is because the roach's mind isn't capable of figuring out it's in a house that was built by a man. It's not that smart, it has limited functions like eating, pooping, ****ing, and sleeping. It only knows what it sees in front of it and no further.

The Atheist's mind is the same way. They only see what their eyes tell them is there, nothing more. They don't have the intelligence necessary to understand who built the planet they are on. They eat, poop, ****, and sleep, and think that’s all what life has to offer.

So are religious folk are more intelligent than the common Atheist? Their minds work the same as the Atheist, they too can't understand who built the earth, the cosmos, etc. But they know there's something out there past their understanding, they have an awareness of something greater. An athiest fails to see the big picture and just like the cockroach it’s content to scurry about.

The similarity between a roach and an Atheist lack the intelligence needed to have an awareness of anything greater.

Please dont quote me or argue with me because i just shared this from sources. i didnt write any of this.

Originally posted by riches

Okay, i don't believe in god, but i mean, although this does make you think.

Consciousness without creation is impossible; creation without consciouness is impossible.

Essentially, if you can prove this statement wrong you have won the athiests' argument. But first, let's examine each of these interdependant statements individually.

Consciousness without creation is impossible


What this means is that if consciousness exists, it MUST create. For example, every being which possesses consciousness will dream. If computers ever gain consciousness, even they will dream. What's more, dreams occur constantly--even if most of them are not remembered by the subject. A dream can best be described as a universe which exists within the consciousness itself--extant from universe within which that consciousness exists. In other words, it is a world within a world.

Ideas or thoughts are another example of the continueous creation of consciousness. (As an experiment, attempt to 'quiet' your mind, extinguishing all thoughts. What happens?)

Creation without consciousness is impossible


This means that there is nothing which exists which is not the result of a conscious mind; which therefore means that there MUST be a God.

This is why athiests and evolutionists seem to go hand-in-hand, for apparently evolution is an example of creation without consciousness. It is simply what naturally results when you have a system which possesses: variation, selection and heredity. When applied to the evolution of ideas, this is known as memetics (which means that ideas, just like plants and animals, can become extinct or endangered).

Therefore, ideas, thoughts--and by extension, dreams--are not 'created' but rather are the result of evolution. Consciousness itself is merely the by-product of evolution.


It's at this point that we should define what consciousness actually is: the process of becoming self-aware. Thus, memetics implies that becoming self-aware, and growing in self-awareness, is a natural consequence of the evolutionary process (variation + selection + heredity).

According to those who have extensively studied the conscience and psychology, consciousness implies 4 characteristics: subjectivity, change, continuity, and selectivity.

If a key element of consciousness is the ability to be selective, and selection is an essential part of the evolutionary process, this implies--rather infadically--that consciousness has an influence over evolution.

But evolution has an influence, and is in fact responsible for, consciousness, as exemplified by another key characteristic of consciousness: change. The ability to change is synonymous with evolution.

However, once consciousness is brought into the equation, it has an inevitable impact on evolution as a result of its ability to be selective (i.e. make decisions). The decisions which that conscious entity, or entities, makes will have an inevitable impact on the system/world around it, which will effect the evolution of that system/world.

The consciousness is now taking an active part in its own evolution!

In sum, consciousness is the inevitable result of evolution, and evolution is inevitably effected by consciousness. This is not a casuality dilemma (chicken or the egg), since it is obvious which came first: evolution*. However, as consciousness expands, it has a greater and greater impact on evolution. This is clearly and indisputably evident in human beings. It is inevitable then, that a 'tipping point' will occur, in which consciousness' impact on evolution is greater than evolution's impact on consciousness.

In other words, God is inevitable.

*It should however be noted that a God consciousness would have a much different view of time than our current level of conciousness allows. Time is relative, after all, and the ultimate cause of all this--the so-called Big Bang--itself has an unknown cause. Our linear view of time is only a result of our 'small' perspective, in the same way the earth feels flat.


Okay, so it's either 'god' was described by the ancients to be aliens.

Firstly there is a thread for this. Secondly, I will analyze it like I would in that thread.


Where do you derive this fact from? Nothing says creation has anything to do with consciousness. Science has realized it is our nervous system that creates consciousness which relies nothing on creation.


That isn't true, determining your definition of dream. Dreams our mainly our subconscious filing away what was important to remember. We don't dream for fun.


Yes, because dreams our like our filing cabinet.


No it isn't. This would create a multiverse in which we were god. It only applies in our mind and no where else. Nothing that happens in a dream is real, the thought is real, but the dream is not.


Let me help you. You are going off this idea which all creation is consciousness. This is false.

An example, is the sun producing heat consciousness? No it is a continuous chemical reaction, it has no consciousness.
Is the tide consciousness? No it is gravity taking effect.


I can prove you wrong with 10th grade chemistry even.

2H + O = h20, there was no conscious in the creation of that compound. It has entirely different properties than the last.


Does a rock have consciousness? How about my bed?

Consciousness only belongs to living beings with a nervous system.


No, its because there is unbelievably amounts of evidence for evolution: fossil records, genetic similarities, archaeological discoveries. Not to mention otherwise you would commit to Deism, which there is no reason to believe in.


You can't be more wrong. Evolution is based off mutations that occur that lead to a better surviving species. It has no consciousness as these mutations are not planned.


I swear your high. Thoughts have nothing to do with evolution. Evolution deals with biology, thoughts are psychology, two completely different fields.


I would like to know where you got your definition.
According to dictionary.com:
- the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people
- full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life


Where the hell did evolution come from?! Once again evolution is biological, thoughts are psychological.


Conscience isn't a field. Psychology and sociology are. They also go hand to hand.


I want to grow three arms... wait I can't because I can not edit my biological influence, why? Because consciousness does not control the whole nervous system. In fact, most of our body systems are passive.


Stop muddying the word evolution. Either say evolution biologically or just simple change. You keep mixing them.


/facepalm You don't have consciousness when you are a fetus. Do you know what evolution is? It is based off of mutations created over a species over time. If your logic was true no species would ever die out. Why isn't it? Because only a certain number of organisms can contemplate logic like human beings.


Stop muddying the word evolution!!! You are mixing mud with water. Evolution biologically and socially are entirely different. Evolution socially is just change, biologically it is simple mutations having an effect on a species.


First off let me point a flaw that destroys your entire system. Life must exist before consciousness, that is a fact. Thoughts don't exist before a nervous system or in your case a divine thinking center is made. That means that being must have always existed, or was made without consciousness.


/facepalm /facepalm No it isn't. Evolution biologically is made without consciousness. Socially sure.


... Life came first so yes evolution.


... I don't know how to respond. Evolution and consciousness are not tied together, they aren't even in the same sport category.


Name me five examples.


Holy Sh**!!!!!!!!! I must have miss an essay somewhere. How the HELL do you get this from your statement?!! Even if your hogwash was right, which it entirely isn't, it says no where God exists. You said life came before consciousness. This could mean anything. It could mean the Big Bang happened first.


Firstly, if you were right on your style of thinking, it would have made time. Then you have the problem of when did it decide this? Therefore you must assume before time everything must have remained constant. Therefore time has always existed alongside this God. He must live in time to have an impact as otherwise he would be unchanging.


Yes, because we don't know what happened before it.


You must login or register to view this content.
The earth "feels flat" because of the way gravity works, not any perspective.


WTF!!!! You completely skipped 9 other points before coming to this.

You have proved nothing. Were wrong on multiple details. Then proceed to say God was an alien. If you want to learn or compare beliefs logically come in here You must login or register to view this content.

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------


Dude. Just read the rest. I have no idea where he is coming from

I'm glad someone went through that it was just too much of a fail to even waste my time replying on.

Originally posted by saif1311

Watch this:

And :
>A common cockroach cannot understand who built the house, the floor, or the ceiling on which it dwells.

>A common Atheist cannot understand who built the forests, the sky, or the ground on which they live.

The reason is because the roach's mind isn't capable of figuring out it's in a house that was built by a man. It's not that smart, it has limited functions like eating, pooping, ****ing, and sleeping. It only knows what it sees in front of it and no further.

The Atheist's mind is the same way. They only see what their eyes tell them is there, nothing more. They don't have the intelligence necessary to understand who built the planet they are on. They eat, poop, ****, and sleep, and think that’s all what life has to offer.

So are religious folk are more intelligent than the common Atheist? Their minds work the same as the Atheist, they too can't understand who built the earth, the cosmos, etc. But they know there's something out there past their understanding, they have an awareness of something greater. An athiest fails to see the big picture and just like the cockroach it’s content to scurry about.

The similarity between a roach and an Atheist lack the intelligence needed to have an awareness of anything greater.

Please dont quote me or argue with me because i just shared this from sources. i didnt write any of this.

Funny how you leave the God Vs. Fact debate them come out of hiding just to join in with the theist.

Just finished the video. This man is an idiot. He compares knowledge of knowing I have a great^5 grandmother to knowing God exists. I know biologically I can only be formed by sexual intercourse. I then can assume she existed.

Science has never said we have to touch or feel something for it to exist. If that was true evolution wouldn't exist, China wouldn't exist for me, etc... More importantly our senses can be tricked. That is why we rely on testing and multiple confirmations.

Yes we don't need physical evidence to always come to conclusions. But to assume there is an omnipotent being that has always existed and has consciousness definitely needs some d*** evidence.

Not everything has a cause. How do we know this? Because otherwise nothing would exist. Nothing would occur because there would be nothing to react to.

He just proved God wrong. He said the universe could not always of existed because it needs a cause. I can use that to say God is simply a cause.

That is most load of baloney ever. He says God has always existed. Why then couldn't the Universe always of existed?


Actually we do know. We have theories for both how the earth was formed and the Universe for that fact. Secondly, if you took biology you would realize the cockroach doesn't think in the same way we do, it has instincts to keep it alive. It doesn't contemplate its existence in its free time.


There are 2 reasons:
1. It doesn't have a true way of process thoughts like ours
2. It can't investigate any further

As humans we can send a man to the moon. We can create energy off of nuclear fission. Point being we have investigated. Interesting enough, before we did our research we believed in God.


No. I enjoy life, and its ignorant to say because I'm an atheist I shouldn't. Honestly, this is a load of bull.


Do you believe I should go to hell for not believing what you believe because I don't feel there is enough evidence for it?

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 PM ----------


He tried posting in the God Vs. Fact debate, lost and then disappeared.

It all comes down to your definition of god....most people associate "god" with god from the bible.....

And it all comes down to proof.....most theories on god are based on "faith" and "beliefs" No one has ever been able to capture, record, or prove that "god" exists.

So essentially if "god" created everything, then we are living under a "galaxy-wide" dictatorship.....

Everybody has theyre own beliefs and if it was upto me id only put serial killers and rapists in hell lol
and yea u have a point on senses tricked you could do some LSD and be in china tho xD

I am atheist and might one day you will be one.

Why does your God want me in hell so badly then?

---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ----------


English please