stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | 3
Bornagain77
August 16, 2021 at 5:12 am
Atheists not only deny the existence of Jesus, the Son of God, but Atheists also, first and foremost, deny the existence of God the Father.
Obviously you cannot have a Son of God if you do not first have God the Father to start with. You, as an atheist, might concede that a man existed who falsely imagined that he was the Son of God, but as to there ever actually being a Son of God, who performed miracles of healing and rose from the dead, well that possibility is simply ruled out from the get go by the Atheist’s denial of the reality of God the Father.
But what is interesting in their denial that God the Father really exists is that, in the Atheist’s denial of the existence of God the Father, the atheist, in the end, also ends up denying that he himself actually exists as a real person.
Which is to say, if God the Father does not actually exist as a real person then the atheist himself does not actually exist as a real person.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, states that, “the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion.”
The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – Steven Pinker – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007
Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL
Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion.
http://www.academia.edu/279485.....ousness
And Alexander Rosenberg, Professor of Philosophy at Duke University, stated that, “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion,”
“There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.,,,
– A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10
And at the 23:33 minute mark of the following debate, Richard Dawkins, who needs no introduction, agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: “consciousness is an illusion”. A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”.
Richard Dawkins, Rowan Williams, Anthony Kenny: “Human Beings & Ultimate Origin” Debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....=22m57s
The denial that they really exist as real persons is an interesting denial from Atheists since, as Rene Descartes pointed out, the fact that we really exist as real persons is, by far, the most certain thing we can possibly know about reality.
In his ‘method of doubt’, Rene Descartes, (i.e. “I think therefore I am!”), found that he could doubt the existence of all things, but he found that he could not doubt the fact that he existed in order to do the doubting in the first place. As Descartes explained, “we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt….”
Method of Doubt
Excerpt: “Reason now leads me to think that I should hold back my assent from opinions which are not completely certain and indubitable just as carefully as I do from those which are patently false. So, for the purpose of rejecting all my opinions, it will be enough if I find in each of them at least some reason for doubt. (AT 7:18, CSM 2:12)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries....ethDoub
Cogito, ergo sum
Cogito, ergo sum[a] is a Latin philosophical proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as “I think, therefore I am”.[b] The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed.[1] It appeared in Latin in his later Principles of Philosophy. As Descartes explained, “we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt….” A fuller version, articulated by Antoine Léonard Thomas, aptly captures Descartes’s intent: dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (“I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am”).[c][d] The concept is also sometimes known as the cogito.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rgo_sum
And from the conclusion that he could only be certain of the fact that he really existed to do the doubting in the first place, Rene Descartes then went on to use that conclusion from his ‘method of doubt’ as a starting point to then argue for the existence of God.
René Descartes (1596—1650)
Excerpt:
5. God
a. The Causal Arguments
At the beginning of the Third Meditation only “I exist” and “I am a thinking thing” are beyond doubt and are, therefore, absolutely certain. From these intuitively grasped, absolutely certain truths, Descartes now goes on to deduce the existence of something other than himself, namely God.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/descart....t....4a
Yet Atheists insanely deny this most certain thing, (i.e. “I exist” and “I am a thinking thing”), that we can possibly know about reality and claim that we are merely neuronal illusions and that we, therefore, do not really exist as real people.
The reason why atheists are forced to, self refutingly, (in the deepest sense of being a self-refuting argument), claim that they do not really exist as real people, but that they are merely neuronal illusions, is because the entire concept of personhood is an abstract and immaterial concept that is simply irreducible to the ‘bottom up’ materialistic explanations of Darwinists.
Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? Dr. Dennis Bonnette – video 37:51 minute mark
Quote: “It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren’t in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn’t undergone what metaphysicians call a ‘substantial change’. So you aren’t Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still.
You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren’t any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That’s why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, “You know, I’m not really here”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....=37m51s
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories.
As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents.
https://www.realclearreligion.org/article....ct.html
The claim that our sense of self, that is to say, our subjective conscious experience, is just a neuronal illusion is simply insane. As David Bentley Hart states in the following article, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017
Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
– David Bentley Hart
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publica....sionist
By definition, illusions are NOT reality but are a merely distortions that pervert our true perceptions about reality.
So why in blue blazes should anyone care what these neuronal illusions, i.e. Darwinian Atheists, have to say about reality?,, Much less what these supposed neuronal illusions have to say about God the Father and/or about Jesus, i.e. God the Son? By their very own definition of their very own self as merely being neuronal illusions, they have simply disqualified themselves from ever having anything meaningful to say about reality.
So the Darwinian Atheist finds himself in quite the logical conundrum. In order for him to have anything meaningful to say about reality the atheist is forced to admit that he really exists as a real person, but for him to admit that he really exists as a real person is for him to admit that God must also necessary exist as a real person so as to be able ground the entire concept of ‘personhood’ in the first place.
Supplemental notes:
Putting together all the lines of evidence from quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality (Jerry Coyne). or is an intrinsic property of material reality, (panpsychism, Philip Goff)
2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality (Jerry Coyne). or is an intrinsic property of material reality, (panpsychism, Philip Goff), then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
And here are eight intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that show that consciousness must precede material reality: 1. Double Slit experiment, 2. Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, 3. Recent confirmation of the Wigner’s friend thought experiment, 4. Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, 5. Leggett’s Inequalities, 6. Quantum Zeno effect, 7. Quantum Information theory, 8. Recent closing of the ‘Freedom of Choice’ loophole.
Related quotes from the founders of Quantum mechanics
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
– Max Planck (1858–1947), one of the primary founders of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
– Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.?
“The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists.”
– Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.
Verse:
Exodus 3:14
And God said unto Moses, “I Am That I Am.” And He said, “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, ‘I Am hath sent me unto you.’”
John 8:58
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” |
4 am Minnesota time he was typing this.
Somebody really should get this dude some psychiatric help
Edited by stevestory on Aug. 18 2021,07:14
|
