Mea quidem sentential[/quote
Your question presupposes consciousness exists before birth and after death. Let me put this another way. You have oxygen and hydrogen. You combine the two in a way so that water is the byproduct. Prior to that, water didn't exist. It was just these atoms. So it is with my brain, which is made up of atoms that have been around for billions of years. My consciousness is a byproduct. It's kind of hard to experience anything if I'm not conscious, self-aware, or sentient.
Sure water is a byproduct of hydrogen and oxygen, but your consciousness is not something physical. There are no elements that make it up this is why I say nothing physical could ever create consciousness including your brain. Your consciousness is not the byproduct of anything, but the reality you are currently experiencing is a byproduct of your consciousness.
Black Shadow
Theos just refers to "god". It doesn't have any connotations to it that narrow it down to say "the one God". It's used the same exact way as "god" is in English, actually. Theos can be used when talking about Zeus or Hermes just like "god" can be used when talking about them. And yes, "Theos" and "God" can obviously be used in sentences when referring to Yahweh/Jehovah when the writer didn't want to refer to Him via tetragrammaton.
Theos is used in the singular form you wouldn't say there were many Theos's meaning many Gods. The word Theo which is where theology and hell even theomorphism comes can mean God or Gods. I'm just kind of going off the top I didn't go and reference my notes.
Black Shadow
This extends to the word "Theism". Not only does Theism not refer to "the belief in one God", the word you were thinking of is "Monotheism". Monotheism is the belief in one God. If you study the etymology of words like you claim, then you've done it wrong. Besides, how did you think the ancient Greeks refereed to their gods before Christianity rolled through? They used the word Theos, obviously.
Look up Theism.
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
Most of the time if you are talking about a theist they only believe in one God, but I suppose your technically right it would be properly termed a monotheist yes. It's sort of like this, a theist believes that at least one deity does exist, but if they believe in more then one they are polytheist. Anyway this is all a moot point.
VeganAtheistNurse
Speaking like a true Christian. Funny how the religious actually go out and shame people for not following their religion too. Just their shaming is unjustified. But I am sure you will do a wonderful job of defining terms here and explaining yourself.
I'm not a Christian nor do I follow any religions I have studied them all including science.
V.A.N
Or you will just use an incorrect definition, you know to construct a straw man, so then you could knock it down. Google "atheism definition". Also, you don't get to define the position of others. The individual gets to do that.
This appears to be an ongoing theme in this thread where by agnostics prefer to call themselves atheists possibly because it is more popular and trendy to do so right now. Grab a dictionary and look up the word.
VAN
Ok great, you defined god. Lets hope you don't change definitions anytime soon for your own convenience. It is not the standard defintion of atheism though. As I have showed you how to find a better definition both on the internet, and in real life.
I gave the dictionary definition of the word then I gave my personal understanding of what God is. I think the most accurate definition of God is whatever created the universe. If the universe simply popped into existence from nothing then that would make the nothingness God.
VAN
Um what? This is the worst argument ever. . So you just define god into existence?
Yes by definition God does exist what you all fail to realize is that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether or not God is sentient or not. I'm not trying to convince you one way or the other the purpose of this thread is to show that nothingness is an impossibility which would cause logical fallacies to arise in true atheists. I'm talking about people who believe in nothing not agnostics who claim to be atheists.
VAN
Think again. They are not. You failed to define what conscious awareness is, and how you know that it is synonymous with god.
I'm using the standard definition, but I openly admit that is my opinion. I provided the logic which showed why I believe this.
VAN
I don't know. Can you show me nothing? I have never seen or been able to study nothing. So I don't know.
That's because nothingness doesn't exist. It's an idea and before you ask me to prove my claim I say the burden of proof lies on anyone claiming nothingness is even possible. It is them that is making the claim which they need to substantiate just like with the tea pot everybody is talking about.
I'm not an on the fence remain neutral kind of thinker. I will say blatantly people made unicorns up they don't exist. I'm not gonna say well I have no reason to believe they exist like the agnostics in here. No they don't exist and neither does nothingness.
VAN
See you say this, but then you say that it says that it came from nothing. Saying that it came from nothing, and saying that we don't know where it came from are not the same thing. Pretty sure from here on out, your argument deals with your poor understanding of science and logic.
There are only two possibilities where the initial singularity came from. Either it came from nothing or it was eternal. We have already concluded that something coming from nothing is not logical this only leaves the possibility of it being eternal.
Listen I told you from the very beginning if you believe it possible for something to come from nothing or are not willing to agree that something can not come from nothing then this logical argument will break down. You can simply disregard what I am saying here because you believe it possible for something to come from nothing. There is nothing I can say to that kind of logic other then good luck with that.
VAN
Oh wow. Look at that. I was right. How do you know that something had to exist to create the stuff. Maybe something can come from nothing. How did you eliminate that and all other options and demonstrate that a god exists?
I addressed both options very clearly.
VAN
When things die they stop living. To explain this phenomenon we use a shortcut called nothing. Religious people assert that something exists after death. How do you know this? When people say there is nothing after death, that is from a subjective perspective. Granted, I don't see how you could know this for sure, but there is no evidence to support the fact that there is something for us to subjectively experience since our central nervous systems are no longer functioning to produce consciousness. This assumption comes from the fact that the only things that we have ever witnessed to be conscious are things with central nervous systems. If you want to say that something can be conscious without one, I would ask for you to demonstrate that.
The only assumption being made is that physical matter could produce consciousness. Mentioning a central nervous system is not a good argument for you I'll let you reword it because I know that's not what you really meant. Bacteria don't have a nervous system neither does the sponge or plants...
ARTISTIC LAYMAN what's going on is that agnostics are claiming to be Atheist I don't know what point your trying to make however...
