Its not binary, you can both understand the sentence is that incoherent and not understand the incoherent bit at the same time. You are understanding the part that communicates something incoherent and recognizing that what is being communicated is incoherent. Its not either/or.

You would understand it is incoherent. Indeed, wouldn't understanding something be a prerequisite for knowing it is incoherent?

Well put

The thing of the inner sensations of "what it's like" is the thing to be explained. Evolution giving rise to "what it's like" doesn't explain why there is a "giving rise to what it's like", only the advantages to an organism for having it. — schopenhauer1

There are lots of things evolution created that we cannot answer in the same way as you describe above. I don’t see why consciousness is a special case.
Just because we cannot identify that “why” doesnt mean evolution isnt the answer. The way we find out is through science. Thats our go to for answers, reliable as it is.
Isnt the question why wouldnt evolution be the answer? It has been reliable and good enough for every other trait the human body has, why not that one?

More accurately, your imagination.

Obviously, but you are forgetting those lower dimensions. In 2D you dont even need the Planck scale hypersphere. Dark energy is the result of a 4D transmission of thermodynamical time from 3D AND 2D. Thus far your model hasn't accounted for that. With that addition you now get a recursive hyperbolic curvature which not only compensates for emergent 3D space and thermodynamical time playing hanky panky but also brings the Hickson-Ray variable to address the extra dimensions into perpendicularitude with each of the dimensions emerging after 3D space which by my count is 7D.
So indeed the question is, why 5D? And of course the answer is it isnt 5D, its 13D.

“Objection your honour, the prosecution is not responsible for the defences review of the charges.”

It was a back and forth of like, 2 posts. I cant help you if you can’t track an exchange that short.

It is not a non-sequitor, as it follows and relates to what you said about no longer allowing theists to bring their theism into institutions--even while at the same time suggesting that atheists should push their atheism into institutions. — whollyrolling

I didnt say that, you aren’t really listening. Most of what you said wasn't about me but some atheist bad actor you have in your head. Keep looking. I was trying to initiate an actual discussion but youre just here to trade snide talking points with snide atheists. Happy hunting.

Completely untrue. — whollyrolling

Yes it is, but I’m a sucker for numbered points so lets see what your refutation is…
1 “not all theists share their belief with others.“
I didnt claim all theists do. In fact if you actually read my post you will see I specifically account for the possibility of theists who aren’t interested in pushing their beliefs on others. I offered that you yourself might be one of these folks.
So no refutation here…lets keep going.
2 “theism can be a rational conclusion.“
I’m not sure about that, perhaps something to be discussed but certainly not a refutation. “Completely untrue” you said. So far, you have not supported this assertion.
3 “ theism is not necessarily associated with a specific religion, or religion in general.”
Sure, theism is belief in god. No necessary structure to theism. Agreed. Never said otherwise. When do you get to the part where what I said is untrue?
4 “ if theism is associated with a religion, or with religion in general, then a person is exercising their individual rights by making such an association and by practising it.”
What are you responding to? Are you sure its something I wrote? I never said anything about association or practice. Who you associate with and what you practice are not my business. The point I was making was it becomes my business once a theist inserts their beliefs outside those domains, specifically in the laws governing how we live.
5 “ theists are no more capable of tearing theism out of themselves than atheists are capable of tearing atheism out of themselves, and anyone who expects either of these outcomes doesn't respect anyone's individual rights--not their own, a theist's, or an atheist's--and could just as easily lose their own rights as remove them from someone else. ”

Depends on what you mean by tearing it out. Ive known both theists and atheists who have flipped their views. Again though, you are talking as though i made some contrary claim. I don’t think I did.
6 “ everyone has autonomy, an atheist can choose, an atheist is not some special category of human incapable of choice.”

Just another non-sequitor. Nothing you said supports your claim that what I said was “completely untrue”.
I think a civil person would apologize for such a clearly false disparagement.

That's because they have something to share. Atheists, on the other hand, don't. — Hillary

Your admission of guilt is noted, I rest my case.

The real atheists should not call themselves atheists or even engage in god debates. The real atheist just shuts up and lives life. — Hillary

If only that were true, but sadly theists have never been content to keep their willful delusions to themselves. As long as theists insist on bringing theism with them to courtrooms, institutions and in the actions of elected leaders then an atheist has no choice but to engage.
I’ll make you a deal though, if you are not that type of theist. You get all the theists to respect the separation of church and state and ensure no theistic inspired action affects people not of that particular theistic belief and Ill make sure no atheist ever talks about or engages about god ever again. :wink:

Is it possible you misinterpreted my words and drew an erroneous conclusion? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes of course its possible.

It becomes philosophical cuz you put the points in numerical order?
And yes, im making a judgement. Being judgemental. So?
I didnt judge you for being judgmental, you might say i was judging you for being self a righteous twat. In fact, i did.

Your judgement of Jackson. Jumped to conclusions about his character. He doesnt know how to be a person? He has an agenda?
All because his question didnt suit your own position, your own agenda.
Every post you’ve made so far reveals your self righteousness. The twat part comes from your dismissive attitude towards a mere question. Positions so easily threatened are seldom solid ones.
So ya, self righteous twat seems appropriate based on the evidence.

Well, its obvious you know how it feels to be a self righteous twat. So theres that.

Theism does not relate to atheism. Atheism relates to theism. Theism is not an attack on atheism. Theists defend theism from the attacks of atheists. Where's the hypocrisy then. — Gregory A

The hypocrisy I was referring to was a theist being offended by an atheist while at the same time constantly saying the same sorts of things about atheists, and of course more broadly speaking the religious have done far more offensive things to atheists than anything someone like Dawkins has ever done to theists. Its hypocrisy.
Because of this perceived “attack” in theism its impossible to have a real conversation across the isle when one or both parties come in with a chip on their shoulders.

Yes, egg. Im curious if your reasoning is the same as mine though. Care to share?

I suspect trolling is as common amongst theists as it is amongst atheists. That is, its hard to imagine they actually believe everything they are saying. My guess is they are angry because they feel insulted by atheists, which in itself is a staggering hypocrisy.

:lol:
That was as solid a rebuttal as anyone could ask for. Too bad it will be dismissed out of hand.
Made me laugh though.
The level of projection at work in this thread is psychologically remarkable. One guy remarked how important this thread must be to atheists cuz its 18 pages (at the time)…from the person whose making 90% of the posts with two other of gods special children. The disingenuous and dishonest discourse doesnt seem like the way jesus would have done it.

Creatures with the power of creation. — EugeneW

I see. What kind of creation do you mean? Like spontaneous creation out of nothing or would a human being creating a song or painting or a baby in their wombs count?
Do you believe in multiple gods then?

Because they want to. .

What is your definition of a god?

Zeus does exist — EugeneW

Ok, so do you believe in all gods or are you going to rely more on something like “Zeus exists as feature of greek mythology”?

Sure, what method did you use to show Zeus doesnt exist? Ill just use that one.

So what you actually mean given your caveat at the end of the OP is that declaring war is unjust, not that war is unjust. Right?

They aren’t out of context, those questions illustrate the possibilities you asked for.

Well the suffering might indeed be part of a greater good, a necessary evil. Thats at least possible, isnt it?
What about the evils that stem from free will being balanced out with greater goods? Do we know the balance? How sure can we really be that those free will evils arent well worth the price?
You could be omnipotent and remain neutral like nature is oft imagined to be, taking no ones side.
What about an omnipotent being who is so far beyond us it is analogous to a human to an insect. Have ever killed a bug? Were you wholly evil when you did?

Not as evil, I think, as the Abrahamic God must be for giving us a form of "free will" too weak for us to freely – easily – choose in every instance not to make others and ourselves suffer needlessly (i.e. "making us sick but commanding us to be well"). Thus, the argument from poor design. — 180 Proof

Ok, so its the lesser of two evils? There are degrees of evil? How does it work, does all the good things count at all in our moral judgement of this god?

Yeah, of course. I do. — 180 Proof

Well this is a matter of internal consistency. We agree on the non-sensical nature of god but if there was a god, omnipowerful but not omnibenovolent, there are possibilities other than god being wholly evil.

Well wouldnt God be evil if he denied free will to human beings as well?
Do we just chalk this up to the inherently nonsensical nature of omni-god or is there space for a more fair assessment than god being evil or evil?

Of course, a deity that is not omnibenevolent is akin to negligent sadist, or devil, and therefore not worthy of worship. — 180 Proof

I don’t see that…sadist? Because god is letting some bad things happen? So if you are omnipotent then you are either omnibenevolent or a sadist/devil?

And what then is the target of economic sanctions? — EugeneW

The economic structures of a country. While its true that can effect civilians, I wouldn't say civilians are the target.

Just because they have that in common doesn't equate them. Not differentiating between civilian and military personnel is a defining characteristics of neither economic sanctions nor terrorism.
Further, terrorism does distinguish between military and civilian targets. They specifically prioritize civilian targets over military ones.
For these reasons I cannot agree that economic sanctions are terrorism.

arner a :100: ? You come across as a genuine sociopath, 180. I'm done with you. Shit all over this thread if you want, you'll be getting no more attention from me — ToothyMaw

What they mean is mental illness, mostly schizophrenia, but often manifests itself with religious symbology and themes. I dont think they meant religiosity is a mental illness, nor saying religious people are mentally ill.
I mention it because “sociopath” seems a pretty drastic take on the comment.

Kicking and screaming, mostly against their will is the only way humans get moved forward. :wink:

I agree, if you dont understand fallacies you dont really understand how to not contradict yourself except in the most obvious ways. Especially in todays era of misinformation and lies, critical thinking and basic sense making skills are hugely important in navigating our modern world. Our education systems are archaic. New ideas like yours are whats needed. :ok:

I think thats a great idea. Alternates to standard education are getting more and more common. I think our current standards don’t give kids enough credit. They can handle more than just repetition and narrow subject matter.
Aside from ethics, what else do you think makes the cut from philosophy as invaluable education? I think there are definitely many parts of philosophy which are either useless or so esoteric they won’t land with most kids/people.

I appreciate your gracious response. Ill try not to let it go to my head. :wink:

I don't think so. You just need not to be a bad person. — Cuthbert

Rght, and you learn to not be a bad person by learning ethics. You aren’t disagreeing with me here.

100,000% it is specifically the fact that children are impressionable that induces the need for ethics. — Garrett Travers

I don’t think I can agree. Certainly children being impressionable means its a good time to teach ethics, but its a good time to teach them anything. Little sponges they are. I wouldn't called that inducement though. What induces need for ethics being taught to kids is simply the tragic absence of ethics in the adult world.
If by inducing the need for ethics you mean you are worried about kids being taught wrong things then I think ultimately we go back to square one again…you need to teach the good things as early as possible. This touches on my earlier mention of teaching critical thinking and logic even before ethics…what better way to ensure ethical behaviour than teaching the skills to tell the difference on your own?

I would remember that children and young people are amazingly observant, impressionable and very alive to hypocrisy. The best education is to model good behaviour. If — Cuthbert

Right, but in order to be a model of good behaviour one needs to be educated in ethics. Perhaps you disagree but I find such models of good behaviour to be quite rare, bringing us back to square one with a necessity to teach ethics in school…and as early as possible imo.