Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
1) How so? If one could prove that reality has always existed would that not go about disproving god?
Also... actually, there is some thought that it can't be disproven.
2) Never said it did. Simply illustrating the fact that your being hypocritcal
3) What does literal interpretation of the bible or young earth creationism have to do with anything i've said?
As for the evidence... i already have. It's been observed that the brain is too hot for quantum effects to work. Something everyone agrees with execept for a few people who believe in Quantum Mind theory... who have come up with wild specultiive theories on what may be the case... ones that would generally match anything a religious person has done... with the exception that there are plenty of other theories of consiousness that prove promising.
Additionally nuerons are just too big for quantum noise to effect it anyway. Electrons jumping this way and that isn't going to effect the rock it is a part of afterall.
|
I'm not being hypocritical. I complained that listing scientists that believed in God as proof of God was an appeal to authority and not emperical evidence, the fact that I think that something with no evidence is possibly true is not the same scenario. If I said 'XXX' believes in quantum mind so it must be true then yes I would be a hypocrite.
Really I don't know why you brought that old conversation up when it was wildly off-topic. I'm not going to get back into a debate about whether quantum mind is possible or anything else about consciousness which is what you seem to be angling for here.
|
No. You are being hypocritical. You are argueing from the point of an empiracist when other beleifs show you to not be one.
