Deities cannot exist because of their consciousness

Doktor DynaSoar targeting at
Wed Dec 3 15:54:21 EST 2003

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:40:15 GMT, "Dio" <dadaismo at> wrote:

} Doktor DynaSoar ...
} >Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special
} >Olympics.
} I understand what you mean:)

But you're going to try to rationalize continuing, because you intend
to continue despite the fact that the rationalizations are irrelevant
and post-hoc to the decision to continue.

} But we can talk when we do not agree. If I and you agree on everything, that
} would be a bad thing.

That does not logically follow, but it would have certainly resulted
in your not posting.

} We need to be different(a little of course), so our knowledge can goes on.

That most definitely does not logically follow. The superordinate and
subordinate clauses are unrelated.

} What do you think about that subject, I mean about deities, consciousness
} and so on.
} Let me know

If you could understand it (i.e. if argumentation would actually serve
any purpose other than mere existential signalling of "Human here!
Human here!"), it would not be a diety. If X were a diety, no amount
of argumentation would serve to clarify anything, because the human
mind is incapable of understanding it. In short, of all possible
wastes of time as fgar as arguing on the internet, this argument is
the worst.

As for consciousness, it is a function of mind.
Mind is a verb. It is what brain does.
Ask me again, using consciousness as a verb.

But don't expect me to notice.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list