Theism vs. Atheism debate

I'm saying that your requirement that things must first have observable evidence for them in order to be accepted or believed in is already inconsistent with what you accept or believe in. Consciousness and meaning are two examples. So you remedy the inconsistency by accepting indirect evidence as well or you can choose to accept that there is no consciousness and/or meaning.

I accept conciousness as a convenience and readily admit that it may not exist and meaning is merely an artificial standard created by humans (who may not actually be concious). You are misrepresenting me and that is called a strawman.

Do you agree with me that conciousness may not exist and that meaning certainly does not except in the context of what humans find subjectively meaningful or do you have an actual argument for why I should accept that either concept is more than this?

In my worldview, even "the physical" is a mental construct

There exists people who feel no pain, however, there skin still burns.  The burn is not a mental construct.

It is physical/energy of occupied space being transformed.

Why do so many philosophers and religious types like to play bubble gum-for-the-mind games?

Is it primarily ego based? 

If you can write me an equation that would accurately measure consciousness throughout the cosmos then you might make it analogous to gravity. Until then, I see no observable (independently verifiable perceivable) evidence of consciousness.

There exists various kinds of consciousness and you cannot accept any of them.

There exists various definitions for differrent kinds of consciousness and you cannot accept any of them.

A closed//narrow mind shuts iself off from truths it does not want hear, consider, explore etc.

Welcome to many religious and some philosopher types. It is about their ego, nothing more nothing less.

Consciousness either exists or does not.

The default position is non-belief.

In order to move from non-belief to beliefor non-acceptance to acceptance, even as a matter of convenience, you must have evidence for that belief in order for it to be rational. 

You have no observable evidence but said that there is indirect evidence. So explain why indirect evidence is impermissible but the alternative, complete lack of evidence, is.

There exists various definitions for differrent kinds of consciousness and you cannot accept any of them.31.00627668029982017547631506710.006276680299820175476315067101

The be more accurate I should state there varying degrees of complexity involved  with consciousness and that equates to various kinds of consciousness.

Woman is most complex consciousness.  Twoness between two particles of  mass there one or more lines-of-relationship is the simplest consciousness existence.

My most recent explorations of four level/line as numerical torus, reveal that most minimal quanta of Universe/God, the graviton-darkion may have 78 lines-of-relationship between its total 9 surface nodal points and 4 inside-the-tube nodal points.

13^2 = 169

169 - 13 =  156

156 / 2 = 78 i.e. n^2 - n and then divided by 2 = total lines-of-relationship. See LINK

Fullers Operating System of Universe, is based on the cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron that has 12-around-1 nodal points and once the nuclear nodal point is removed the  the jitterbug has12 surface nodal points and the ability to transforms into many shapes including well known exotic shapes ex the double sine wave of EMRadiation.

However, 12 nodal points have 66 lines-of-relationship and also have the ability to stabilize as the icsosa{20}hedron --see shell of many viruses--.

Pi-time = 66.4 via Pi^4 - 31 { 31 bilateral spinal nerves ergo 62 }

An assumption is not the same as a presupposition.  To assume is to act in the role of.  Presuppositions are assumptions without evidence.  I have evidence, so it's not a vacuous assumption.  It's a logical one.

Please share when you actually have any rational, logical common sense that actually invalidate any comments by me, as stated. You share none because you have none to share.

Like Fallenese you need to begin with a dictionary and actually look at at least some basics of word definitions ---ex consciousness, color, sound etc---   and then  perhaps you can begin to access some rational logical common sense as to how those definitions come about and how new words come to exist.

You think everything is just nonphysical empty space with no physical reality?

How true.  Even if some people cannot feel pain, the stove or ionizing radiation will still burn them to a crisp or liquid.

I understand that Jacob Bekenstieins black hole mathematics ---and later verified by S Hawking--  led him to make the following statements to Scientific American, ...."we appear to be 2D creatures have an illusion of 3D"....

Ive also give geometric examples of the same phenomena. Ex when a 3D tetrahedron turns iself inside-out, there is postion where the nodal point { vertex } is in same plane with its peripheral three nodal points ergo we have a seemingly subdivided 2D triangle.

So we may say that, a 3D tetrahedron is just warped 2D.  If the warped 2D subdivided triangles nuclear nodal point oscillates { motion } between inside-out and outside out, over time and distance, then we begin to arrive at a 3D di-pyramid pattern that infers a seemingly set of 5 nodal points of existence.

If this pattern of oscillation is extended will get the following seemingly criss-crossing, sine-wave pattern

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Consciousness exists because it is manifest in me.

And complex consciousness exists with  the cow, dog, cat, turtle, cetaceans etc.  Its a minimal brainer.

Fallanese is religious philosopher type whose ego keeps them ignorant of speaking of truth and continually  chewing the same mind-game gum long after any flavor of truth has gone from whats being chewed.

Religious philosopher type may be further from truth than just religious, or some philosopher types.

My ego { * i  * } is in search of truth.

we don't really know what conciousness is.

Yes we do and Fuller laid it out clearly for us beginning with the most minimally least complex set for consciousness { awareness ergo otherness ergo twoness }.

A true philosopher does not carry a dictionary. 

A true philosopher fleshes out everything.

Or may be we just find it hard to articulate what consciousness is....

What is the practical difference for the purposes of this conversation?

I accept it's hard to pin down what consciousness is, but until a rock has an identity crisis and starts writing bad poems about life I won't accept consciousness is nothing at all.

An illusion is something kieth.

Why would I start at a dictionary when I already have tautologies and they're already better.

  Please share when you actually have any rational, logical common sense that actually address my comments as stated, by adding to or detracting from, then,  

1} Obviously you despise, and do not understand, how or why. dictionaries have come to exist.

2} you carry that dispostion over onto others who even suggest you begin with a dictionary,

Until you can accept the hows and whys for the existence of dictionaries your ego is going to keep your playing the same repetitive  chewing gum mind-game with me, instead of;

A fundamental consciousness would mean that a prime, eternal consciousness exists

Here are brief examples for why belief in God is more rational. I'll be glad to discuss in more depth depending on your level of interest in the subject.- first cause 

- best explanation for cause of the Big Bang

- best explanation for fine-tunedness of the universe

- best explanation for the origin of the information in first life forms