Edit for speling...
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:59 am
[
Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #107JoeyKnothead wrote:Assuming is a poor way to get at the truth.
Since I was talking about the assumption that you and Transponder have been defending, you have three fingers pointing back at yourself.
Regardless of which way the fingers point, do you deny that assumption is a poor means of determining truth?
Athetotheist wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote:
Ergotism is caused by the Claviceps purpurea fungus.
And that relates to this discussion.......how?
It may help to understand a discussion if ya read all of a given post, but here's a refresher...
From
Post 107:
Athetotheist, in Post 106 wrote:
As soon as I finish, dragon tracks start appearing in the flour. With no conventional way to account for this, how do I continue to argue to my neighbor that there's no invisible dragon?
To which I noted how ergotism is the product of being in contact with, or digesting flour that's been contaminated with the Claviceps purpureus fungus.
So then, we have a possible, and most likely explanation for you and / or your friend seeing dragon footprints in flour. While I prefer shrooms or vitamin a, or peyote when available for my psychedelic endeavors, I ain't ajudging ya neither one.
So now I ask, again...
Have you seen the footprints of this "cosmic consciousness"?
Returning to our regularly scheduled post...
Athetotheist wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote:Metaphysics or not, your "meta consciousness" proposal suffers from a lack of confirmatory evidence. You might as well propose Mother Goose laid her a golden egg, and the Giant climbed down the beanstalk and smooshed it, and how bout that, out popped the universe.
A cosmic consciousness is an unproven hypothesis.
"Unproven" being the operative word.
Athetotheist wrote:
Something proceeding from absolute nothingness is a logical absurdity.
This still doesn't address the following...
Where one proposes a "cosmic consciousness" to exist without cause, we lack data that provides for any logical, factual commitment of it being there.
It's further complicated by medical and physical science, where all evidence indicates thought is the product of a physical brain.
Then there's the whole deal of what powers this "cosmic consciousness"
Among other issues.
It 'demands' that the universe "came into existence", while discluding this "cosmic consciousness" from such a demand.
Athetotheist wrote:
I'm favoring a nonrational idea over an irrational one.
Thus, by your own words, we see your position lacks rational rigor, among it's other many problems.
I see little difference twixt what's nonrational, and what's ir.
The most rational conclusion here then, is that, according to the "always existed", or "don't need it created" "cosmic consciousness" hypothesis, we're just fussing the question back another step.
When
by those measures we can more rationally conclude the universe "always existed", "don't need it created", and that it is we, who have consciousness, hold the true and compelling claim that we are this "cosmic consciousness", by virtue of being borne of the universe itself.
"Cosmic consciousness" is little to not different from "god", both're hypothesi, as empty as the locker that'd contain their evidence.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin