Consciousness and action

[agnosticatheist]

Apparently, consciousness is not necessary to explain an organism undertaking various actions. The neuronal correlates in the brain are sufficient to explain how an organism undertakes various actions.

So, it would seem that our (human's) consciousness is merely along for the ride.

Where does this fit into religion?

If our decisions are made in the brain and not by a paranormal soul, how can we be held accountable in an afterlife for our decisions? The physical brain made those decisions, not the soul.

[arian]

Then show me an observed Big-bang, or even a Big-Swoosh, in nothing?

A false dichotomy, of course, but the evidence for the BBT is well-documented.

Thanks enviousintheeverafter, but first I would like to apologize for my sarcastic tone to both you and H.sapiens. Otseng is right (again) that getting things off our chest may feel good but doesn't help the debate, or convincing anyone, so again: "I am sorry, and please if you can find it in your heart to forgive me, or at least try to overlook those past 'unloading attacks', I would greatly appreciate it. I agree it doesn't belong in debates.

OK, .. I will pray about it and concentrate on the topic at hand, .. here it goes;

you said: "The evidence for the BBT is well-documented" and I couldn't agree with you more. Here is how Wikipedia starts off on it, .. the theory (which I call "the story" since no scientist has ever observed such a thing in real time and in real life.)

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.
The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state

Fact?

A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means).

Has anyone witnessed a universe, any universe, from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution expand from a very high density and high temperature state?

This; "reading the footprints in the sand" does not even come close to the Big-bang step 1. quantum speck in nothing getting hotter and denser for we don't know how long without space or time having existed yet?
step 2. red hot gasses expanding then creating other particles and cooling
step 3. creating stars and planets,
step 4. one of those rock-planets cooling and creating soup, .. etc.

Look, I know what 'footprints are, but if an Evolutionist took me on the beach and shown me; from the water some squiggly tadpole footprints, up the sand hill lizard footprints, into the jungles ape footprints all the way to a banana tree, then on the other side of the banana tree human footprints all the way into the cities, I would question the validity of those footprints even if he put fossils and dried bones next to each one, .. I mean wouldn't you?

Please, I don't mean this to sound sarcastic, but it offends even my 2 years of formal education intellect and reasoning.

Thanks again, and please start that "What is the Universe Expanding Into?" Post, and please let me know!?

On the other hand, the design argument has been refuted (starting with Hume)- the supposed evidence of purposeful design can't stand up to scrutiny, the fact is we don't really know what would look like purposeful design on the scale of a universe, and insofar as we have any idea what such features would be, our universe does not exhibit them.

What? If you don't have any idea what purposeful design features would be, but you know that our universe does not exhibit them? That's like saying: "We don't really know how the universe came into existence, or from what, or when, but we are sure it wasn't a Creator God!" and the main reason for that would be that 'you just don't see any Intelligent Design when scientifically observing the universe and everything in it. But you do copy those designs like in replicating insects, birds, human like robots etc. .. right?

How about considering this:

I found through scientific observation that the God of the Bible is the Creator of all things created. He is not of the created, and I can prove this. Since God is the uncreated Being, or as Tillich put it: "God is the ground of being," so He is not within what we call 'existence'.

Here like this: When we think/dream/contemplate, the things we dream bounces from our mind/spirit to our eyes, then bounces back and our brain interprets it just as it would things we actually seen with open eyes.
We (our mind/spirit) is not part of that dream, our mind/spirit created it.

Our mind/spirit is infinite, which means we can create any size and any complexity of dreams that we desire (universes, people, animals etc., etc..) What we men cannot do (yet), is create actual realities. What I mean is like a tree, or a seed, or dirt/planet, so what we do is use what God created and designed.

To better understand this, God has increased a bit of mans wisdom in these Last Days to hopefully open a few peoples eyes and understand who we are and where did we come from by allowing us to create 'Virtual Realities' in computers, using binary codes, simple 1's and 0's.

God our Creator is 'The Infinite, Eternal creative Mind "I Am Who I Am"' who through the complexity of His 'Word' (the simple example of this as I said is the binary code we use in computers). And through His Word He created all things that were created by the laws found in His Word. Just as we define trees, people, guns, land in the virtual world, God does our 'reality', not our mind, that part is Gods, but the reality outside of our mind, like our bodies and the rest of the universe.

Or tell me what's 'outside of our universe?', or what it is expanding into? It is expanding right? Remember you cannot have a Big-bang without it expanding! Not this: "No Johnny, .. Bad Johnny, never, ever ask 'what is the universe expanding into' you hear! Never, because Prof Krauss, and Rev. Dawkins will get very mad at you and call you stupid!!"

No, not because Krauss or Dawkins will get mad at you, but because the question is ill-posed;

So for a scientist to ask "what is the universe expanding into" is "ill-posed"? So if my son at 6 years old asked me this same question, I should have told him with a little chuckle: "lol, .. oh son, it's obvious you're still young and dumb, because that is an ill-imposed question. But can't blame you for that because it's a common misconception even great Scientists fall into. You have a lot to learn son, and this is just one of those things, that you just cannot say "what is the universe expanding into, OK? I mean really son, what makes you think that if something is expanding, that it should expand into something lol?"

And then I should continue as you say:

the universe is not expanding into anything.

In which case my six year old would more than likely ask: "So the universe is NOT expanding?"

This is a common misconception, so you can hardly be blamed for your error. This may help.

Yes, as long as the universe as we know it exists, this will be a 'common misconception", until one of you BB-Evolutionists actually can show us something expanding from the inside only.

As for your article and video on the question:

What is the Universe Expanding Into?

by Fraser Cain on November 28, 2013

I would be more than happy to debate that with you on another thread. Please start one and let me know through PM, or PM me and i will start it!? You know, not to derail the OP.

Thanks.