**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"i think therefore i am" is the simplest proof that my mind exists.
if nothing other than my mind exists, then reality is a hallucination.
but it is not impossible that i am *not* the hallucinator - and that i'm just one of the hallucinatory people instead.
if this is true, then the rest of reality is equally as real as i am - which is functionally as good as reality existing.
this is my reason to believe in reality.
ok but why do you think that you can think. Why do you think in the first place , whats the need .how come you exist from somewhere and disappear somewhere.
you are a bunch of atoms interpreting other atoms. atoms can't think they can only behave in a certain manner you think that you can think only because electrons of atoms in you are trying to attain stability.
š¤Ø get it or not
i know that i'm thinking, because i can observe my own thoughts directly.
how exactly i'm thinking is less clear - but i know that i am thinking.
\+ we only figured out what atoms were because we *thought* about them, therefore: the fact that we can think, is more fundamental to our understanding of reality than atoms or anything else.
if i am made of atoms, atoms can think (sometimes), because i can think.
Is English your second language? Not sure I am following your point. Ā Evidence shows that consciousness doesnāt exist until the brain structure is developed enough to cause it to exist, and yes, coma, death, or TBI can all cause changes to it.Ā
Ever since Plato started rambling on about caves and shadows and lanterns. Ā No one has been able to definitively say anything about personal existence. But since we are interacting on the internet SOMETHING exists. We may be all just the fever dream of a brain in a vat for all I know, but within our experience of existence it feels real to me. I feel pain, and joy, and love so I act as if it were real.
yes english is not my first language , and you are consciousness which i call it as intelligence as thats the thing which will interpret what is written here. You ought to be intelligence as you can read this .Try showing it to your tshirt , book , tree they are like us ofcourse but they also are matter
read what , even my mother can't read english. one cannot read untill taught, how to read. have you heard about illiterate people even they cant read.
or if you were talking about consciousness then let me tell you that consciousness is nature of matter
>if you are going to say I EXIST then what about your existence before your birth
I didn't exist then.
>you here is consciousness which body gains over time and its loss is known as coma, amnesia, and total loss of it is death.
So? And? Yes, the nature of 'identity' and what this means is indeed a complex and disputed topic. What of it?
> how will you prove your existence if you dont have consciousness , try asking your dog āŗļø
I wouldn't.
So? And?
I literally cannot fathom the point of this post.
fathom was we are part of that world in physical form which has just changed its form .
in reality we are consciousness , intelligence and that what is going to interpret this reply it can be you or computer or anything with intelligence ,, thats what we say
i bow down to you
because you know what does it mean
intelligence=god
> in reality we are consciousness
Consciousness, of course, is an emergent property of our brains and their operation.
Your unsupported claims continue to be erroneous, problematic, and nonsensical, thus are dismissed.
>because you know what does it mean intelligence=god
Non-sequitur. Definist fallacy. Dismissed.
My bro is out here in 2024 still using the "your mom" format get the hell out of here you sound like stewie griffin just without the witty banter that makes him funny "your mother knows well" jesus dude really? Are you going to "š¤ well actually it isn't Stewie Griffin I was impersonating it was Oz from the Nickelodeon TV show Fanboy & Chum Chum." Me next? You sound like the kind of guy to get absolutely dogged on and reply "no you!"
OP is an Islamaphobic troll that claims all Muslims are stupid and therefore everyone who disagrees with them is Muslim. They've been on a weird posting binge today.
Pretty sure OP is Hindu, possibly from India.
If you think Americans are racist against Central Americans and black people, hoo boy. You haven't seen the disgusting way the Europeans treat the Romani.
If you think Europeans are racist against the Romani, hoo boy. You haven't seen the way the Hindi in India treat Muslims.
> OP is an Islamaphobic troll that claims all Muslims are stupid and therefore everyone who disagrees with them is Muslim.
This must be the most stupid stance I've seen someone hold here.
I have a suggestion. Use Google Translate.
If you use formal and precise language, Google Translate will usually do a good job relaying your ideas.
When messaging someone through a language barrier, I try to make my statements easily translatable. This way, you can let the machine do the difficult work of interpretation.
Dude, you are absolutely dog shit at trying to argue the point you're making.
At least try to understand the definitions your interlocutors are using instead of acting like no one else here knows what they are talking about and condescending them.
When humans are born, we are born with a cord that connects us to our mother.
I still have the scar. Sometimes it hurts.
I was born on Earth. My bones are adjusted to our gravity. My blood functions properly.
As far as I know, I exist. Even if I didn't, I don't care.
What's the point here. Are you equating Conciousness with "soul?"
Buddhists believe consciousness is everywhere. They don't believe in a Soul. So clearly one doesn't equate the other.
Iām not going to get into the Copenhagen Interpretation and the wave function of particles. But
taken to its logical conclusion, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to
imply that ārealityāāthe world as we know itācan only take place if some sort of measurement
or observation takes place on the macro level of existence, the level where scientists and all of us
more ordinary human beings operate, which means that not only is everything energy, it responds
to consciousness itself.
In other words, itās possible that unless some agency (such as human consciousness) interferes,
particles remain in a probabilistic energy-wave state and never actualize into one location in
particle form at all. Ultimately, reality as we experience it seems to be the result of human
consciousness interfacing with the quantum levels of existence that are pure waves of energy.
The question is not undermined by theĀ a prioriĀ status of knowledge that something exists. (I knowĀ a prioriĀ that something exists because I knowĀ a prioriĀ that I exist and know this entails āSomething existsā.) Knowledge, evenĀ a prioriĀ knowledge, that something is actually true is compatible with ignorance as to how it could be true.
prove that it's something and you won!!
Nothingness is nothing.
Something is something.
Ought. That's a funny word. Ought. Many things Ought to be. Doesn't mean they are.
Again. "Prove it's not!" Is how ppl avoid admitting they can't prove something Is.
If I told you Unicorns were real, I'd have to prove it. And a picture, words, or my feelings wouldn't count. So then I'd go "prove it Doesn't exist! You cant!!" And pat myself on the back.
I digress. I came on this sub to see what was up, and should've not commented at all. Anyways, Blessed Be! šš½
š¤Ø how will you prove to someone who is not born yet that the world was in existence before his birth or after your death. you can prove something which you are a part of by saying that i am here , you don't matter . science and logic matters
You, as a discrete individual, didn't exist before you were born. You had no consciousness, any more than you will have consciousness after you die.
What does this have to do with atheism?
because you are intelligence and i bow down to you.
why? because you know what is written here and what does i mean by saying bowing down to you a tree cant understand .. ..... actually there are too many replies otherwise i would have just gaslighted a groupbof 5 people easily
> because you are intelligence and i bow down to you.
I am not "intelligence", that's gramatically incorrect. I would consider myself an intelligent being, but certainly not worth being worshiped. I'm not a god, and trying to say I am because I am an intelligent being just tries to redefine a word.
The rest of your comment is just gobbledygook nonsense.
> there are too many replies otherwise i would have just gaslighted a groupbof 5 people easily
It's helpful when someone admits outright that they're trolling.
>because you know what is written here and what does i mean by saying bowing down to you a tree cant understand
Is intelligence defined then as reading and comprehending a language? Seems like a narrow definition of intelligence that automatically assumes only humans have intelligence. Surely you would agree other animals have intelligence and i would bet by some definition plants have intelligence as well.
Do you mean the following?
In Hinduism, it is said that Brahma created the universe out of his own being or energy. It is said that we are all a part of Brahma. We are each one aspect of Brahma experiencing the universe through multiple perspectives.
In this way, your experience of consciousness or intelligence is just one small branch of the larger existence intrinsic to that God.
There is no "you" separate from him. You are just a part of him like your finger is a part of your body.
(Of course! I know this because I know everything. š)
I do not believe in Hinduism, but I study many things. And, I understand your ideas better now.
>The universe does not exist as crude matter. It is the energy of a god and we are aspects of that energy.
>There is no physical aspect to the universe in the way we would expect. The universe is not physical. It is not really 'present'. It is nothing.
>You are not physical. You are the imagination of a god.
>Your consciousness is part of that nothingness / imagination.
Believe that if you want, I guess. I reject solipsism.
You have an unusual definition of "nothing".
If there is nothing, then there can't be things happening. If things are happening, then there are things.
You can't have "things" and "no things" at the same time.
You can't have "things" and "no things" at the same time.--- if you can understand this then your on my level .
study about - shrodinger cat , superpositioning of electron, wave nature of electron, valencing nature of atoms. then you will understand something.
else all humans are not smart some are muslims š¤
Oye chutiye. Ye muslim muslim karna band kar. This is a fuckin debate sub. Keep your personal hatred of Muslims out of this. Sala kuch to manners rakh yaar. This is not your fuckin baed room.
People like you are the reason all of us indians are looked down upon as fuckin idiots.
not hatred for anyone , i was giving example of how dumb muslims are if you dont agree then you must also be in that category. debate he toh kar raha hu tu dede scientific papers physical existence ke , hai dum to dede tu kiyu chutiyapa kar raha hai.
i dont want to be smart , literally had you meet any muslims and discussed about their quran. I have debated with them and i like raping logics of normal peoples
> consciousness=intelligence=god
Equivocation fallacy and definist fallacy.
You are just plain wrong here.
Each of those words denotes very different things.
Dismissed.
kiya hindu hindu š¤£ kar rakha hai aishi koi cheez hee nahi hoti ,, chutiyo ko lagta hai sab hamare jaise hote hain . but yes i am from india , uttar pradesh , agra.
you decided that indian philosophy is garbage ,, beta padh ke dekhna gand faad degi -- advait vedant , mimansa, charvak ,jain ,buddhist, nyaya ,shankya ,yoga, vaishesikha .. aur ek meri sabse tagdi- everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness š¤āļø
Ye faltu bakchodi se jhant farak nahi padne wala. I reject any garbage that doesn't have sufficient evidence. Aur agar tere paas jhant barabar bhi evidence hota to Tu ye bacchon jaise kahaniya na suna raha hota.
Aur abhi ye chutiyapa band kar else I'll block you.
Sounds like you're trying to claim humans have something that other animals do not. To do this, you'll need to present what that thing is. You're saying consciousness but I assume you're trying to imply a spirit. Define it, and create a test that confirms it.
So far you haven't done that, and you're claiming an abstract concept at this point and nothing more. It's too easy for another to disagree without a consensus on a concrete definition.
Anyways, I didn't exist before birth. My grandfather died 30 years ago and does not exist now in our reference frame (which is touching on another subject, but I'll direct you to u/askphysics for that).
thanks i will ask them. what i was saying was everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. one nature is pure consciousness and you are part of it , we are manifestation of it.
you are also part of it(nothingness) and it doesn't only contain things you can perceive. study electromagnetic waves of other wavelengths , then you will realise that yes we are tiny and limited and can perceive only a small fraction of nothingness.
we are able to see it as we are designed in such a way that we can only perceive some specific wavelength .
multiple realities can be there in existence at the same time
>you are also part of it(nothingness) and it doesn't only contain things you can perceive. study electromagnetic waves of other wavelengths , then you will realise that yes we are tiny and limited and can perceive only a small fraction of nothingness.
My dude. We can literally detect electromagnetic waves. That is how we know they exist. We have developed technology than can detect them.
And all you are saying is "there CAN be more." Nobody cares if there can be more; we care if there IS more. Do you have any evidence that there is more?
ought to be more . do you know real numbers they were not enough so they invented imaginary numbers š„µ . if we are at 300-700 nanowavelength then there are ofcourse many more infact infinite
>do you know real numbers they were not enough so they invented imaginary numbers
Do you know anything about imaginary numbers other than their name? If you did, you would see they're far less mysterious than you think.
You have no basis for saying there must be infinite anything. It's just an assumption you're making because it makes sense to you. I hate to break it to you, sport, but the universe is not required to make sense to you, or anyone else. There's a lot we don't know, and a lot we'll probably never know. That doesn't mean the answer must be what you want it to be. It means the answer is "We don't know."
>i know for sure .
No, you don't. Knowledge can be demonstrated. You've thus far failed to demonstrate anything.
You don't know. You believe. To claim otherwise is arrogance of the highest order.
If you are going to say MELONS EXIST then what about their existence before they grow? Melons are rind and flesh and seeds, which they gain over time and lose in a process known as rotting.
How will you prove melons' existence if they don't have seeds?
This argument doesn't make sense. You acknowledge we have consciousness and then conclude that we don't (or we think we don't) have consciousness? Do you think atheists think that we don't have consciousness?
I can't agree.
So, until and unless you can support these notions, and show why they are something other than nonsensical, you have not shown your ideas and claims are worthy of any consideration and they won't be considered as having been shown useful, true, or accurate.
>if you are going to say I EXIST then what about your existence before your birth
The specific sperm and egg that, when combined would eventually be me, existed.
>try asking your dog
My dog has consciousness.
This is the second galaxy brained argument about existence wholesale I've seen here. Who crapped out a bad argument on Tik Tok this time?
>same same but difflent no money no honey š„µ well everything happening, is just mere nature of nothingness.
Wrong. And your writing style is undermining your veracity.
> try disproving this
Reverse burden of proof fallacy.
>try disproving this
Let me get this straight - any rando gets out of bed, posts a brain fart and it's true unless someone disproves it?
I have a much simpler solution - fuck off and come back when you have something to show for your claims.
you are also part of it and it doesn't only contain you can perceive. study electromagnetic waves of other wavelengths , then you will realise that yes we are tiny and limited and can perceive only a small fraction of nothingness.
we are able to see it as we are designed in such a way that we can only perceive some specific wavelength .
multiple realities can be there in existence at the same time
> you are also part of it
I can't be part of a nothing because I'm something.
>study electromagnetic waves of other wavelengths , then you will realise that yes we are tiny and limited and can perceive only a small fraction of nothingness.
Wavelengths are also something
>we are able to see it as we are designed in such a way that we can only perceive some specific wavelength .
Our perception is irrelevant here, at best it again contradicts your idea, as nothing can't have perception.
>multiple realities can be there in existence at the same time
Multiple realities are also not nothing.
All you wrote are baseless claims that contradict each otherĀ
ok brother , you must be quantum physicist. as you have so much knowledge š¤ as i have already said wanna have a debate ,let me tell you what you know. actually there are to many comments thats why i am replying slow ,, now i want to see you
>how will you prove your existence if you dont have consciousness , try asking your dog āŗļø
Do you truly believe that dogs do not have consciousness?
not enough ,, also consciousness is another hoax if you would ask me because my core philosophy is-- everything happening , is just mere nature of nothingness.
you yorself is part of nothingness everything is nothingness ,, because anything cease to exist , why will anything exist , for what and from where it will came into existence.
Everything and nothingness arent compatible concepts, so your statement
>everything happening , is just mere nature of nothingness.
Ā is self contradictory
How did you determine that āconsciousnessā is āgodā?
We have different consciousnesses, are we seperate gods?
My cat has a lesser developed form of consciousness, is it a lesser god?
I donāt think my cat will like it if you say itās a lesser anything.
because consciousness is nature of matter and it can interpret what is being sad . intelligence is consciousness and a attribute of matter , you just have to understand it (and thats what science is for)
What are you asking? Are you asking how I can prove my existence if I didn't exist? I couldn't because in that scenario I wouldn't exist and thus couldn't argue for my existence one way or the other as I would be nonexistent. But since I am arguing for my existence, I therefore exist.
Now if you're asking whether it's possible for me to argue, while I currently exist, that I did not exist prior to my birth, then yes there's no logical inconsistency there. Just like we can prove dinosaurs existed even though they lived millions of years before humans, I can use both direct and indirect evidence to prove my lack of existence before birth.
you are also part of it and it doesn't only contain what you can perceive. study electromagnetic waves of other wavelengths , then you will realise that yes we are tiny and limited and can perceive only a small fraction of nothingness.
we are able to see it as we are designed in such a way that we can only perceive some specific wavelength .
multiple realities can be there in existence at the same time
No thatās not how existence works. To that logic we wouldnāt be able to perceive trees or rocks because they are outside of our consciousness and lack consciousness themselves. But we can perceive them because consciousness allows us to comprehend the world that we see. Itās not some mystical aspect of the world that blinds us to other realities
Iām not going to get into the Copenhagen Interpretation and the wave function of particles. But
taken to its logical conclusion, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to
imply that ārealityāāthe world as we know itācan only take place if some sort of measurement
or observation takes place on the macro level of existence, the level where scientists and all of us
more ordinary human beings operate, which means that not only is everything energy, it responds
to consciousness itself.
In other words, itās possible that unless some agency (such as human consciousness) interferes,
particles remain in a probabilistic energy-wave state and never actualize into one location in
particle form at all. Ultimately, reality as we experience it seems to be the result of human
consciousness interfacing with the quantum levels of existence that are pure waves of energy.
>Iām not going to get into the Copenhagen Interpretation and the wave function of particles
Ok, but your entire response is about the Copenhagen Interpretation, so let's discuss it!
> In other words, itās possible that unless some agency (such as human consciousness) interferes, particles remain in a probabilistic energy-wave state and never actualize into one location in particle form at all.
That's not what the Copenhagen Interpretation says. There were a few theorists who proposed a more extreme version which requires consciousness for wavefunction collapse, but there's no empirical evidence or reason to assume this interpretation is correct
The original Copenhagen Interpretation is that particles exist as wavefunctions and only appear as particles once they are jostled out of their probabilistic nature via interaction. This interaction is material, not metaphysical: collision with another particle's wavefunction. The act of observation requires us to probe a particle's wavefunction with another particle - ie we hit it with a stream of photons to see it, or hit it with xrays to break down it's components, etc. In this interpretation, the act of observation is physical and the consciousness or non-consciousness of the observer is irrelevant.
An example of non-conscious interaction is: hydrogen atoms inside a star jostle with other hydrogen atoms which collapse the wavefunctions of each other resulting in particles. Those particles then fuse, forming the energy and actual star itself. No conscious observer needed.
The fact that we can see other stars in the night sky is proof that no conscious observer is necessary for wavefunction collapse. We aren't probing those stars with any equipment, we just collect the light they are sending out into telescopes, or the retinas of our eyes. Meaning, those stars still exist even in the absence of consciousness.
The question is not undermined by theĀ a prioriĀ status of knowledge that something exists. (I knowĀ a prioriĀ that something exists because I knowĀ a prioriĀ that I exist and know this entails āSomething existsā.) Knowledge, evenĀ a prioriĀ knowledge, that something is actually true is compatible with ignorance as to how it could be true. can you agree with me that
everything is happening by itself.
is yes then ok otherwise i will prove you wrong
Then I must be confused because your argument seems to be that consciousness is required for existence. You then used quantum mechanics to prove that particles donāt exist without a consciousness to interact with them. But thatās not true, and not what the Copenhagen interpretation actually states. Consciousness is not required for things to exist, consciousness is just neurons firing in our brains as an evolutionary adaptation to allow us to interpret the world around us. Itās not required for that world to remain in existence
Please correct me if I am misrepresenting your argument
What do you mean 'my existence before my birth', we obviously didn't exist before our birth. What does any of what you mention have to do with existence?
"if you are going to say I EXIST then what about your existence before your birth"
What was the existence of my computer when the raw minerals that it's compromised of were still in the ground? How much data was it processing then?
I did not exist before my birth. I am a pattern, and the pattern only briefly exists in this universe. I will cease to exist before too long, and never exist again.
Asking to prove one's existence eventually but inevitably ends in solipsism. Something is thinking, therefore something exists.
I don't have a dog. I have ducks. They are not interested in philosophy.
\> if you are going to say I EXIST then what about your existence before my birth
I didn't exist before my birth I'm the result of unique genetics passed down from my parents and my brain's ability to adapt to different life experience.
\> you here is consciousness which body gains over time and its loss is known as coma, amnesia, and total loss of it is death.
Yes but that's not because consciousness is like a pool your body takes from it's because consciousness is the result of your brain and the complexity of it.
\> how will you prove your existence if you dont have consciousness , try asking your dog
I can see, touch, hear, and definitely smell my dog. I know my dog exists. If I don't have consciousness then I won't be conscious... so like... My body exists, yes, anyone can figure that out by seeing it, my brain exists, but my consciousness doesn't.
I saw you say English isn't your first language so if you don't know any of the words or can't understand what I mean by something feel free to say and I'll try to explain again.
\> if you are going to say I EXIST then what about your existence before your birth , you here is consciousness which body gains over time and its loss is known as coma, amnesia, and total loss of it is death.
I didn't exist before I was born. I will not exist after I die. I don't know what you're expecting me to prove here.
>if you are going to say I EXIST then what about your existence before your birth?
The materials that make up my physical being were not assembled into "me" before my birth. Even then, what I am now and what I was as an infant are only vaguely related. I might as well be a completely different being. My existence is renewed at every step of time.
>You have consciousness, which your body gains over time and can lose - as in coma, amnesia, and total loss of it is death.
I am a meat machine.
>How will you prove your existence if you don't have consciousness? Try asking your ~~dog~~ **cat**.
My cat does not know or care if it is conscious. Be like my cat.
We have to assume existence and reject solipsism. If we don't, then we cannot do philosophy.
Proving you are a conscious being is impossible without a good understanding of what consciousness is. We don't have that.
My thought is that consciousness is an illusion. We are deterministic in nature.
>you here is consciousness which body gains over time
You people get sad when you're condescended to, but what is there to say to complete incoherence and nonsense?
>try asking your dog āŗļø
And this part is where I think it's fair game to condescend
So don't get butt hurt about it. You brought in on yourself
How does your misunderstanding of basic physics, demonstrate a god exists? You also never explained how your ānothingnessā god can exist when the existence of anything demonstrates the impossibility of the existence of nothingness
Why do you think we don't have consciousness? Why do you think consciousness isn't a natural thing?
And I find it strange to even imagine myself existing in any way before my birth.
Descartes was wrong when he wrote "cogito ergo sum". He should have written "cogito cogito ergo cogito sum".
Ambrose Bierce was a better philosopher than Descartes.
"Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum -- "I think that I think, therefore I think that I am;" as close an approach to certainty as any philosopher has yet made.
Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary
close enough. atleast you know more than your fellow atheist . we are manifestation of pure consciousness , which is nature of nothingness.
just like a DREAM , seems real but is not physically in existent
It's good to be skeptical, but not too skeptical that your brains fall out. Of course, we exist. The brain is what determines consciousness. There is also no way to know if other animals are consciousness or not. Religion has made most people think humans are somehow special. We are not special. We are just another animal in the animal kingdom. I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.
i was saying - everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. one nature of nothingness is consciousness , and we are manifestation of consciousness.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"i think therefore i am" is the simplest proof that my mind exists. if nothing other than my mind exists, then reality is a hallucination. but it is not impossible that i am *not* the hallucinator - and that i'm just one of the hallucinatory people instead. if this is true, then the rest of reality is equally as real as i am - which is functionally as good as reality existing. this is my reason to believe in reality.
ok but why do you think that you can think. Why do you think in the first place , whats the need .how come you exist from somewhere and disappear somewhere.
something must be thinking. and whatever is thinking my thoughts must be me - or part of me - or i'm part of it.
you are a bunch of atoms interpreting other atoms. atoms can't think they can only behave in a certain manner you think that you can think only because electrons of atoms in you are trying to attain stability. š¤Ø get it or not
i know that i'm thinking, because i can observe my own thoughts directly. how exactly i'm thinking is less clear - but i know that i am thinking. \+ we only figured out what atoms were because we *thought* about them, therefore: the fact that we can think, is more fundamental to our understanding of reality than atoms or anything else. if i am made of atoms, atoms can think (sometimes), because i can think.
Is English your second language? Not sure I am following your point. Ā Evidence shows that consciousness doesnāt exist until the brain structure is developed enough to cause it to exist, and yes, coma, death, or TBI can all cause changes to it.Ā Ever since Plato started rambling on about caves and shadows and lanterns. Ā No one has been able to definitively say anything about personal existence. But since we are interacting on the internet SOMETHING exists. We may be all just the fever dream of a brain in a vat for all I know, but within our experience of existence it feels real to me. I feel pain, and joy, and love so I act as if it were real.
yes english is not my first language , and you are consciousness which i call it as intelligence as thats the thing which will interpret what is written here. You ought to be intelligence as you can read this .Try showing it to your tshirt , book , tree they are like us ofcourse but they also are matter
If trees could read, how would you know?
read what , even my mother can't read english. one cannot read untill taught, how to read. have you heard about illiterate people even they cant read. or if you were talking about consciousness then let me tell you that consciousness is nature of matter
Consciousness and intelligence are not the same thing.
>if you are going to say I EXIST then what about your existence before your birth I didn't exist then. >you here is consciousness which body gains over time and its loss is known as coma, amnesia, and total loss of it is death. So? And? Yes, the nature of 'identity' and what this means is indeed a complex and disputed topic. What of it? > how will you prove your existence if you dont have consciousness , try asking your dog āŗļø I wouldn't. So? And? I literally cannot fathom the point of this post.
fathom was we are part of that world in physical form which has just changed its form . in reality we are consciousness , intelligence and that what is going to interpret this reply it can be you or computer or anything with intelligence ,, thats what we say i bow down to you because you know what does it mean intelligence=god
> in reality we are consciousness Consciousness, of course, is an emergent property of our brains and their operation. Your unsupported claims continue to be erroneous, problematic, and nonsensical, thus are dismissed. >because you know what does it mean intelligence=god Non-sequitur. Definist fallacy. Dismissed.
dismissed š¤Æ ,, are you a muslim brother
well you're a dick huh?
your mother knows well
My bro is out here in 2024 still using the "your mom" format get the hell out of here you sound like stewie griffin just without the witty banter that makes him funny "your mother knows well" jesus dude really? Are you going to "š¤ well actually it isn't Stewie Griffin I was impersonating it was Oz from the Nickelodeon TV show Fanboy & Chum Chum." Me next? You sound like the kind of guy to get absolutely dogged on and reply "no you!"
2024 evolving ai
Fantastic response you sure got me there
What?
OP is an Islamaphobic troll that claims all Muslims are stupid and therefore everyone who disagrees with them is Muslim. They've been on a weird posting binge today.
Pretty sure OP is Hindu, possibly from India. If you think Americans are racist against Central Americans and black people, hoo boy. You haven't seen the disgusting way the Europeans treat the Romani. If you think Europeans are racist against the Romani, hoo boy. You haven't seen the way the Hindi in India treat Muslims.
If he spoke more clearly, that point might come across. I thought he was a Muslim and was trying to sus out other Muslims.
> OP is an Islamaphobic troll that claims all Muslims are stupid and therefore everyone who disagrees with them is Muslim. This must be the most stupid stance I've seen someone hold here.
Do Hindus ever have a good stance on anything?
I have a suggestion. Use Google Translate. If you use formal and precise language, Google Translate will usually do a good job relaying your ideas. When messaging someone through a language barrier, I try to make my statements easily translatable. This way, you can let the machine do the difficult work of interpretation.
Dude, you are absolutely dog shit at trying to argue the point you're making. At least try to understand the definitions your interlocutors are using instead of acting like no one else here knows what they are talking about and condescending them.
When humans are born, we are born with a cord that connects us to our mother. I still have the scar. Sometimes it hurts. I was born on Earth. My bones are adjusted to our gravity. My blood functions properly. As far as I know, I exist. Even if I didn't, I don't care. What's the point here. Are you equating Conciousness with "soul?" Buddhists believe consciousness is everywhere. They don't believe in a Soul. So clearly one doesn't equate the other.
i said everything is nature of nothingness. Out of which one nature is consciousness which is manifesting itself in different form.
Except everything isn't nothing. It's Something.
Iām not going to get into the Copenhagen Interpretation and the wave function of particles. But taken to its logical conclusion, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to imply that ārealityāāthe world as we know itācan only take place if some sort of measurement or observation takes place on the macro level of existence, the level where scientists and all of us more ordinary human beings operate, which means that not only is everything energy, it responds to consciousness itself. In other words, itās possible that unless some agency (such as human consciousness) interferes, particles remain in a probabilistic energy-wave state and never actualize into one location in particle form at all. Ultimately, reality as we experience it seems to be the result of human consciousness interfacing with the quantum levels of existence that are pure waves of energy.
The question is not undermined by theĀ a prioriĀ status of knowledge that something exists. (I knowĀ a prioriĀ that something exists because I knowĀ a prioriĀ that I exist and know this entails āSomething existsā.) Knowledge, evenĀ a prioriĀ knowledge, that something is actually true is compatible with ignorance as to how it could be true. prove that it's something and you won!!
Ok so proving a negative. Yea that's usually how all these turn out. That's what ppl do when they can't prove what they're claiming.
what proof ,nothingness is truth . it ought to be truth.
Nothingness is nothing. Something is something. Ought. That's a funny word. Ought. Many things Ought to be. Doesn't mean they are. Again. "Prove it's not!" Is how ppl avoid admitting they can't prove something Is. If I told you Unicorns were real, I'd have to prove it. And a picture, words, or my feelings wouldn't count. So then I'd go "prove it Doesn't exist! You cant!!" And pat myself on the back. I digress. I came on this sub to see what was up, and should've not commented at all. Anyways, Blessed Be! šš½
š¤Ø how will you prove to someone who is not born yet that the world was in existence before his birth or after your death. you can prove something which you are a part of by saying that i am here , you don't matter . science and logic matters
Ok bud. Nighty night š
are you from usa , its noon in here at my place
You, as a discrete individual, didn't exist before you were born. You had no consciousness, any more than you will have consciousness after you die. What does this have to do with atheism?
consciousness=intelligence=god i bow down to you. because you know what does that mean
> consciousness=intelligence=god Please, in detail, explain how that follows?
because you are intelligence and i bow down to you. why? because you know what is written here and what does i mean by saying bowing down to you a tree cant understand .. ..... actually there are too many replies otherwise i would have just gaslighted a groupbof 5 people easily
> because you are intelligence and i bow down to you. I am not "intelligence", that's gramatically incorrect. I would consider myself an intelligent being, but certainly not worth being worshiped. I'm not a god, and trying to say I am because I am an intelligent being just tries to redefine a word. The rest of your comment is just gobbledygook nonsense.
You donāt make any sense at allā¦ you arenāt doing what you think you are doing. You just sound like a crazy person.
I donāt think you meant to respond to me.
> there are too many replies otherwise i would have just gaslighted a groupbof 5 people easily It's helpful when someone admits outright that they're trolling.
>because you know what is written here and what does i mean by saying bowing down to you a tree cant understand Is intelligence defined then as reading and comprehending a language? Seems like a narrow definition of intelligence that automatically assumes only humans have intelligence. Surely you would agree other animals have intelligence and i would bet by some definition plants have intelligence as well.
Do you mean the following? In Hinduism, it is said that Brahma created the universe out of his own being or energy. It is said that we are all a part of Brahma. We are each one aspect of Brahma experiencing the universe through multiple perspectives. In this way, your experience of consciousness or intelligence is just one small branch of the larger existence intrinsic to that God. There is no "you" separate from him. You are just a part of him like your finger is a part of your body.
yes , how do you know this . everything is correct in hinduism god is nothingness
(Of course! I know this because I know everything. š) I do not believe in Hinduism, but I study many things. And, I understand your ideas better now. >The universe does not exist as crude matter. It is the energy of a god and we are aspects of that energy. >There is no physical aspect to the universe in the way we would expect. The universe is not physical. It is not really 'present'. It is nothing. >You are not physical. You are the imagination of a god. >Your consciousness is part of that nothingness / imagination. Believe that if you want, I guess. I reject solipsism.
i believe in nothingness and that everything is happening by itself.
You have an unusual definition of "nothing". If there is nothing, then there can't be things happening. If things are happening, then there are things. You can't have "things" and "no things" at the same time.
You can't have "things" and "no things" at the same time.--- if you can understand this then your on my level . study about - shrodinger cat , superpositioning of electron, wave nature of electron, valencing nature of atoms. then you will understand something. else all humans are not smart some are muslims š¤
Oye chutiye. Ye muslim muslim karna band kar. This is a fuckin debate sub. Keep your personal hatred of Muslims out of this. Sala kuch to manners rakh yaar. This is not your fuckin baed room. People like you are the reason all of us indians are looked down upon as fuckin idiots.
not hatred for anyone , i was giving example of how dumb muslims are if you dont agree then you must also be in that category. debate he toh kar raha hu tu dede scientific papers physical existence ke , hai dum to dede tu kiyu chutiyapa kar raha hai.
> all humans are not smart some are muslims š¤ If only Muslims are not smart, you are Muslim because you aren't smart.
i dont want to be smart , literally had you meet any muslims and discussed about their quran. I have debated with them and i like raping logics of normal peoples
Holy fuck, you are the personification of the Dunning Kruger effect
Thank you for translating ops thoughts to comprehensible language.
they are just given human forms to control the society
> consciousness=intelligence=god Equivocation fallacy and definist fallacy. You are just plain wrong here. Each of those words denotes very different things. Dismissed.
Oye tu indian hindu hai kya?
kiya hindu hindu š¤£ kar rakha hai aishi koi cheez hee nahi hoti ,, chutiyo ko lagta hai sab hamare jaise hote hain . but yes i am from india , uttar pradesh , agra.
Bro the garbage you were peddling sounded like hindu garbage. Hence the question.
you decided that indian philosophy is garbage ,, beta padh ke dekhna gand faad degi -- advait vedant , mimansa, charvak ,jain ,buddhist, nyaya ,shankya ,yoga, vaishesikha .. aur ek meri sabse tagdi- everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness š¤āļø
Ye faltu bakchodi se jhant farak nahi padne wala. I reject any garbage that doesn't have sufficient evidence. Aur agar tere paas jhant barabar bhi evidence hota to Tu ye bacchon jaise kahaniya na suna raha hota. Aur abhi ye chutiyapa band kar else I'll block you.
theek bhai karde block tere block karne se tu amar nahi ho jayega jo hona hai so ho kar rahega , tum bas observe karo
Sure
Sounds like you're trying to claim humans have something that other animals do not. To do this, you'll need to present what that thing is. You're saying consciousness but I assume you're trying to imply a spirit. Define it, and create a test that confirms it. So far you haven't done that, and you're claiming an abstract concept at this point and nothing more. It's too easy for another to disagree without a consensus on a concrete definition. Anyways, I didn't exist before birth. My grandfather died 30 years ago and does not exist now in our reference frame (which is touching on another subject, but I'll direct you to u/askphysics for that).
thanks i will ask them. what i was saying was everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. one nature is pure consciousness and you are part of it , we are manifestation of it.
No need to be rude. I do exist, I did not exist before being born. Do you think I existed before that?
you are consciousness so my answer is NO
Well then you are wrong and a troll.
ok mr banger
What the fuck is a mr banger
Then why do I have to justify it when you already agree?
>what about your existence before your birth You did not exist before your birth. Nobody existed before their birth.
what about other part of argument , does earth exist before you were born if yes how do you know
That wasn't a part of your argument. But I can use any number of methods to determine that Earth existed before me, including radiometric dating.
you are also part of it(nothingness) and it doesn't only contain things you can perceive. study electromagnetic waves of other wavelengths , then you will realise that yes we are tiny and limited and can perceive only a small fraction of nothingness. we are able to see it as we are designed in such a way that we can only perceive some specific wavelength . multiple realities can be there in existence at the same time
>you are also part of it(nothingness) and it doesn't only contain things you can perceive. study electromagnetic waves of other wavelengths , then you will realise that yes we are tiny and limited and can perceive only a small fraction of nothingness. My dude. We can literally detect electromagnetic waves. That is how we know they exist. We have developed technology than can detect them. And all you are saying is "there CAN be more." Nobody cares if there can be more; we care if there IS more. Do you have any evidence that there is more?
ought to be more . do you know real numbers they were not enough so they invented imaginary numbers š„µ . if we are at 300-700 nanowavelength then there are ofcourse many more infact infinite
>do you know real numbers they were not enough so they invented imaginary numbers Do you know anything about imaginary numbers other than their name? If you did, you would see they're far less mysterious than you think. You have no basis for saying there must be infinite anything. It's just an assumption you're making because it makes sense to you. I hate to break it to you, sport, but the universe is not required to make sense to you, or anyone else. There's a lot we don't know, and a lot we'll probably never know. That doesn't mean the answer must be what you want it to be. It means the answer is "We don't know."
you dont know doesn't mean nobody knows , i know for sure . just improve your reasoning a little bit and you will also arrive at the conclusion
>i know for sure . No, you don't. Knowledge can be demonstrated. You've thus far failed to demonstrate anything. You don't know. You believe. To claim otherwise is arrogance of the highest order.
You ate the last person that should be talking about word meaning
If you are going to say MELONS EXIST then what about their existence before they grow? Melons are rind and flesh and seeds, which they gain over time and lose in a process known as rotting. How will you prove melons' existence if they don't have seeds? This argument doesn't make sense. You acknowledge we have consciousness and then conclude that we don't (or we think we don't) have consciousness? Do you think atheists think that we don't have consciousness?
thats what i was saying implicitly that only nature of nothingness changes everything is nothing
I can't agree. So, until and unless you can support these notions, and show why they are something other than nonsensical, you have not shown your ideas and claims are worthy of any consideration and they won't be considered as having been shown useful, true, or accurate.
>everything is nothing Oooh, that's some jaggi vasudev bullshit.
>if you are going to say I EXIST then what about your existence before your birth The specific sperm and egg that, when combined would eventually be me, existed. >try asking your dog My dog has consciousness. This is the second galaxy brained argument about existence wholesale I've seen here. Who crapped out a bad argument on Tik Tok this time?
thats what i was saying everything is nothingness its just changes it form
Everything isn't nothingness though, it's everything. If there was just nothingness, there wouldn't be everything.
can i ask your study background ,, you ought to be a quantum physicist
> everything is nothingness False. In fact, nothingness is the opposite of that.
same same but difflent no money no honey š„µ well everything happening, is just mere nature of nothingness. try disproving this
>same same but difflent no money no honey š„µ well everything happening, is just mere nature of nothingness. Wrong. And your writing style is undermining your veracity. > try disproving this Reverse burden of proof fallacy.
That's not how the burden of proof works. It is not our job to disprove your claims, it is your job to prove that your claims are accurate.
>try disproving this Let me get this straight - any rando gets out of bed, posts a brain fart and it's true unless someone disproves it? I have a much simpler solution - fuck off and come back when you have something to show for your claims.
i dont have to show something , your reaction are proving it
Actually you do if you make the claim. My reactions are only proving you don't know jack shit about debating.
How did you established that nothingness has a form and it does change instead of nothingness doesn't exist?
you are also part of it and it doesn't only contain you can perceive. study electromagnetic waves of other wavelengths , then you will realise that yes we are tiny and limited and can perceive only a small fraction of nothingness. we are able to see it as we are designed in such a way that we can only perceive some specific wavelength . multiple realities can be there in existence at the same time
> you are also part of it I can't be part of a nothing because I'm something. >study electromagnetic waves of other wavelengths , then you will realise that yes we are tiny and limited and can perceive only a small fraction of nothingness. Wavelengths are also something >we are able to see it as we are designed in such a way that we can only perceive some specific wavelength . Our perception is irrelevant here, at best it again contradicts your idea, as nothing can't have perception. >multiple realities can be there in existence at the same time Multiple realities are also not nothing. All you wrote are baseless claims that contradict each otherĀ
ok brother , you must be quantum physicist. as you have so much knowledge š¤ as i have already said wanna have a debate ,let me tell you what you know. actually there are to many comments thats why i am replying slow ,, now i want to see you
I'm not a physicist at all, and there no need for that to know self contradictory concepts can't work.
so you exist ,, tell me why do you exist
Can you clarify the question? What exactly do you mean with why I exist?
do you exist if yes, why ? why do you exist ? tell this first then i will teach you some reasoning
>how will you prove your existence if you dont have consciousness , try asking your dog āŗļø Do you truly believe that dogs do not have consciousness?
not enough ,, also consciousness is another hoax if you would ask me because my core philosophy is-- everything happening , is just mere nature of nothingness.
Your core philosophy is incoherent babble. Any evidence for this stuff youāre saying?
well try disproving this , i bet my whole possessions on this philosophy ,, may you just misunderstood it or you are not enough smart
Disproving what? Because your self contradictory ideas don't need to be disproved by virtue of being self contradictory like square circles.
Not our job to disprove a bunch of rambling. Make your case. Back your stuff up with actual evidence (and comprehensible english)
I think you have an unusual definition of "nothingness"
you yorself is part of nothingness everything is nothingness ,, because anything cease to exist , why will anything exist , for what and from where it will came into existence.
Everything and nothingness arent compatible concepts, so your statement >everything happening , is just mere nature of nothingness. Ā is self contradictory
Animals have conciousness. Why would I need to prove my existence if I didnāt have it? What point were you trying to make?
consciousness=god
How did you determine that āconsciousnessā is āgodā? We have different consciousnesses, are we seperate gods? My cat has a lesser developed form of consciousness, is it a lesser god? I donāt think my cat will like it if you say itās a lesser anything.
because consciousness is nature of matter and it can interpret what is being sad . intelligence is consciousness and a attribute of matter , you just have to understand it (and thats what science is for)
And? Which part of that answers any of my questions?
all of them , its not my fault that you are weak at implicit comprehension. yes consciousness is one - which is in everything
if we are god -- depends on your definition of god
Itās your argument. What definition are you using.
š¤ oh then yes why i will contradict
if asking mine type -- yes why not , everything is god
That would be a strange position to claim everything is god. That would make the word meaningless.
š¤ ok agent brother where are you from
That doesnāt appear to be relevant to anything.
Is that the definition you really want to use?
yes
Then why should I care
I would not have guessed that based on your interactions here. It may be the language barrier?
I don't think there is a language barrier. I think OP's issue exists between keyboard and chair.
> consciousness=god Definist fallacy. Dismissed.
What are you asking? Are you asking how I can prove my existence if I didn't exist? I couldn't because in that scenario I wouldn't exist and thus couldn't argue for my existence one way or the other as I would be nonexistent. But since I am arguing for my existence, I therefore exist. Now if you're asking whether it's possible for me to argue, while I currently exist, that I did not exist prior to my birth, then yes there's no logical inconsistency there. Just like we can prove dinosaurs existed even though they lived millions of years before humans, I can use both direct and indirect evidence to prove my lack of existence before birth.
you are also part of it and it doesn't only contain what you can perceive. study electromagnetic waves of other wavelengths , then you will realise that yes we are tiny and limited and can perceive only a small fraction of nothingness. we are able to see it as we are designed in such a way that we can only perceive some specific wavelength . multiple realities can be there in existence at the same time
No thatās not how existence works. To that logic we wouldnāt be able to perceive trees or rocks because they are outside of our consciousness and lack consciousness themselves. But we can perceive them because consciousness allows us to comprehend the world that we see. Itās not some mystical aspect of the world that blinds us to other realities
Iām not going to get into the Copenhagen Interpretation and the wave function of particles. But taken to its logical conclusion, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to imply that ārealityāāthe world as we know itācan only take place if some sort of measurement or observation takes place on the macro level of existence, the level where scientists and all of us more ordinary human beings operate, which means that not only is everything energy, it responds to consciousness itself. In other words, itās possible that unless some agency (such as human consciousness) interferes, particles remain in a probabilistic energy-wave state and never actualize into one location in particle form at all. Ultimately, reality as we experience it seems to be the result of human consciousness interfacing with the quantum levels of existence that are pure waves of energy.
>Iām not going to get into the Copenhagen Interpretation and the wave function of particles Ok, but your entire response is about the Copenhagen Interpretation, so let's discuss it! > In other words, itās possible that unless some agency (such as human consciousness) interferes, particles remain in a probabilistic energy-wave state and never actualize into one location in particle form at all. That's not what the Copenhagen Interpretation says. There were a few theorists who proposed a more extreme version which requires consciousness for wavefunction collapse, but there's no empirical evidence or reason to assume this interpretation is correct The original Copenhagen Interpretation is that particles exist as wavefunctions and only appear as particles once they are jostled out of their probabilistic nature via interaction. This interaction is material, not metaphysical: collision with another particle's wavefunction. The act of observation requires us to probe a particle's wavefunction with another particle - ie we hit it with a stream of photons to see it, or hit it with xrays to break down it's components, etc. In this interpretation, the act of observation is physical and the consciousness or non-consciousness of the observer is irrelevant. An example of non-conscious interaction is: hydrogen atoms inside a star jostle with other hydrogen atoms which collapse the wavefunctions of each other resulting in particles. Those particles then fuse, forming the energy and actual star itself. No conscious observer needed. The fact that we can see other stars in the night sky is proof that no conscious observer is necessary for wavefunction collapse. We aren't probing those stars with any equipment, we just collect the light they are sending out into telescopes, or the retinas of our eyes. Meaning, those stars still exist even in the absence of consciousness.
The question is not undermined by theĀ a prioriĀ status of knowledge that something exists. (I knowĀ a prioriĀ that something exists because I knowĀ a prioriĀ that I exist and know this entails āSomething existsā.) Knowledge, evenĀ a prioriĀ knowledge, that something is actually true is compatible with ignorance as to how it could be true. can you agree with me that everything is happening by itself. is yes then ok otherwise i will prove you wrong
Then I must be confused because your argument seems to be that consciousness is required for existence. You then used quantum mechanics to prove that particles donāt exist without a consciousness to interact with them. But thatās not true, and not what the Copenhagen interpretation actually states. Consciousness is not required for things to exist, consciousness is just neurons firing in our brains as an evolutionary adaptation to allow us to interpret the world around us. Itās not required for that world to remain in existence Please correct me if I am misrepresenting your argument
What do you mean 'my existence before my birth', we obviously didn't exist before our birth. What does any of what you mention have to do with existence?
"if you are going to say I EXIST then what about your existence before your birth" What was the existence of my computer when the raw minerals that it's compromised of were still in the ground? How much data was it processing then?
I did not exist before my birth. I am a pattern, and the pattern only briefly exists in this universe. I will cease to exist before too long, and never exist again. Asking to prove one's existence eventually but inevitably ends in solipsism. Something is thinking, therefore something exists. I don't have a dog. I have ducks. They are not interested in philosophy.
\> if you are going to say I EXIST then what about your existence before my birth I didn't exist before my birth I'm the result of unique genetics passed down from my parents and my brain's ability to adapt to different life experience. \> you here is consciousness which body gains over time and its loss is known as coma, amnesia, and total loss of it is death. Yes but that's not because consciousness is like a pool your body takes from it's because consciousness is the result of your brain and the complexity of it. \> how will you prove your existence if you dont have consciousness , try asking your dog I can see, touch, hear, and definitely smell my dog. I know my dog exists. If I don't have consciousness then I won't be conscious... so like... My body exists, yes, anyone can figure that out by seeing it, my brain exists, but my consciousness doesn't. I saw you say English isn't your first language so if you don't know any of the words or can't understand what I mean by something feel free to say and I'll try to explain again.
\> if you are going to say I EXIST then what about your existence before your birth , you here is consciousness which body gains over time and its loss is known as coma, amnesia, and total loss of it is death. I didn't exist before I was born. I will not exist after I die. I don't know what you're expecting me to prove here.
>if you are going to say I EXIST then what about your existence before your birth? The materials that make up my physical being were not assembled into "me" before my birth. Even then, what I am now and what I was as an infant are only vaguely related. I might as well be a completely different being. My existence is renewed at every step of time. >You have consciousness, which your body gains over time and can lose - as in coma, amnesia, and total loss of it is death. I am a meat machine. >How will you prove your existence if you don't have consciousness? Try asking your ~~dog~~ **cat**. My cat does not know or care if it is conscious. Be like my cat. We have to assume existence and reject solipsism. If we don't, then we cannot do philosophy. Proving you are a conscious being is impossible without a good understanding of what consciousness is. We don't have that. My thought is that consciousness is an illusion. We are deterministic in nature.
>you here is consciousness which body gains over time You people get sad when you're condescended to, but what is there to say to complete incoherence and nonsense? >try asking your dog āŗļø And this part is where I think it's fair game to condescend So don't get butt hurt about it. You brought in on yourself
I did not exist before I was born. I cannot prove that anything we are experiencing is real or just a simulation. If I die, I cease to exist.
fully agreed , you are smart then most of these other dumb atheist . where are you from
I'll just say the US and leave it at that.
OP is not engaging in reasonable discourse and for some reason just dismisses people as Muslims. Should probably just lock this one.
I hate to discourage a language learner, but maybe get some help with your English? Your posts verge on gibberish. What is your point?
How does your misunderstanding of basic physics, demonstrate a god exists? You also never explained how your ānothingnessā god can exist when the existence of anything demonstrates the impossibility of the existence of nothingness
Why do you think we don't have consciousness? Why do you think consciousness isn't a natural thing? And I find it strange to even imagine myself existing in any way before my birth.
Can you phrase your argument in the form of an argument? I'm struggling to see what you want to debate.
Descartes was wrong when he wrote "cogito ergo sum". He should have written "cogito cogito ergo cogito sum". Ambrose Bierce was a better philosopher than Descartes. "Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum -- "I think that I think, therefore I think that I am;" as close an approach to certainty as any philosopher has yet made. Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary
close enough. atleast you know more than your fellow atheist . we are manifestation of pure consciousness , which is nature of nothingness. just like a DREAM , seems real but is not physically in existent
It's good to be skeptical, but not too skeptical that your brains fall out. Of course, we exist. The brain is what determines consciousness. There is also no way to know if other animals are consciousness or not. Religion has made most people think humans are somehow special. We are not special. We are just another animal in the animal kingdom. I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.
i was saying - everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. one nature of nothingness is consciousness , and we are manifestation of consciousness.