sdelsolray

Regular Member
  • Content count

    3,203
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

sdelsolray last won the day on September 8 2016

sdelsolray had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,795 Wow

About sdelsolray

  • Rank
    I'm Not That Important

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Music, science, critical thinking, history, gardening, film noir movies.
  • More About Me
    "More About Me: Cannot be left blank".

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    None of the above

Recent Profile Visitors

3,026 profile views
  1. I don't pretend to know

    Just not in any way you can demonstrate.
  2. I don't pretend to know

    Well, that dictionary has seven definitions for the word, most of which punt to the word "aware". Of course, when you look up the word "aware", it defines it as "conscious". That's quite helpful.
  3. I don't pretend to know

    As Garry, the OP, stated when he started this thread, "I don't pretend to know."
  4. I don't pretend to know

    Note that no one is attempting to reach a consensus on a definition of "conscious" or "consciousness".
  5. Inconsiderate Christians

    That's funny.
  6. I don't pretend to know

    That would depend on the definition of "consciousness". You seem to require that the definition include the property of self-awareness. Other's may define the term without that specific property. That's fine, but I suggest you propose a definition and seek agreement before you or MOHO argue about a term of which neither of you have reached consensus.
  7. Says you. From reading it I can't tell what is the author's (you) intention. It could be sincere, a parody, a criticism, who knows? It's still religious nonsense from the get go.
  8. Still a POE. You should study Calvinism and related TULIP dogma.
  9. No, I read it. It's very similar to other Christian apologetic screeds I have read in the past. Well done. You're a living POE.
  10. The Westinster Shorter Catechism, quoted in the OP, is composed of a particular flavor of Christian apologetics. 1. It makes no mention (explicit or implied) of the Copernican Principle. Instead, it bleats religious dogma. 2. It makes no mention or reference (explicit or implied) to quantum mechanics. Instead, it pronounces religious dogma. 3. Although it nonchalantly (and without any rigor) assumes deterministic causation in some of the Catechism, that is a simple literary device used to get to the next Bible quote and the next mere assertion. 4. I fail to see any reference (direct or indirect) to the selection of "the space-time metric for General Relativity that yields an initial singularity at the universe's point of origin". I suspect you are reading something into the screed that is not there to begin with. 5. Similarly, I think you are giving the authors of the Westinster Shorter Catechism too much credit. They provide no a priori definition of the universe, other than to claim it was created by their sky fairy for the purpose of creating homo sapiens and fucking with them afterwards. They simply spout religious dogma without any care, curiosity or analysis about the content of their statements.
  11. Yeah, I assumed you are not promoting that screed. Still, it's funny stuff, as far as religious nonsense goes.
  12. Threatened by my pentecostalist father in law

    Yes, get legal advice under your particular facts and circumstances.
  13. Yes it makes sense. Memories are an integral part of our consciousness. A simple way to look at it is that you have to create new memories to populate your consciousness.
  14. Or other folks' perceptions...maybe...maybe not.