BlueBanana

Nice try, but we do not have the ability to clone every single cell of every single person so the argument has a bit of a gap there, as we can afford ...

I don't have the time to go more into detail concerning your response right now, my apologies, but might you know the aristotelian stance on whether k...

But are they the main component? Is it possible for the sub-consciousness, for example, exist without the conscious mind? I disagree. Because of the t...

How do you know? Your body does not, true, and your vital functions remain stable, but what about your mind? Do you have experiences of it existing wh...

Sorry but that seems like a logical fallacy. The argument, although briefly, is stated above and I don't see how one's capability to make that argumen...

Indeed, and I think the lack of observation is the significant part. Are the memories not there, or are we only not remembering them? Our brain does h...

Same answer - I think I am, to some extent.

Well, you were the one to ask me whether I understood the scientific stance, to which I'm merely trying to answer. Whether I do understand that or not...

Edit: treat this comment as if it didn't exist, I misunderstood.

Well, how can anyone know they understand anything? I think I understand it but strictly speaking, a cogito, ergo sum.

How can you know the difference between knowing and thinking you know?

I agree with this, but is the existence of the mind required during that time for these claims to remain true? I believe this might be a poor phrasing...

How do you reach the conclusion that respecting marriage, even a non-existent one by avoiding premarital sex, is more important than not murdering peo...

Does killing a sleeping person count as a murder? They don't have conscious and sentient mind at the time of the murder, so it's justifiable to make t...

Natural sciences can't explain consciousness, sentience. Under such circumstances I don't see how one could consider natural sciences fully explaining...

Or maybe you know very well that you're very likely to die if you shoot yourself. If the chances of getting a tails is 50/50 and you throw 10000 coins...

Then that description is a very incorrect one. The problem doesn't exist because the premise (first quote) is icorrect.

It's not possible for the first coin flip to have 50/50 chances, the second coin to have 50/50 chances and the odds of both having the desired result ...

If you try to shoot yourself, are your odds of surviving 50%? Are your odds of dying for no reason at that moment 50%? If both are yes, why not shoot ...

Is your argument that because the're are too many factors or the problem is too hard to calculate, we're to assume 50/50 odds? Tell me this, what are ...

What if someone defines god as a being that didn't create the world? Are they correct because "ultimately that's implied in any concept of god, anyway...

Are they? Where does this assumption come from? What are the odds of throwing a tails with a coin twice in the row?

It doesn't imply that it did, either, making it false.

Do you have statistics on the success rate of entrepreneurs?

No, if you throw a die the odds of getting 1 are at any given time and in any given place 1/6. How long the life is does matter in this case. How long...

That's not the Deistic definition either because it includes the god creating the world.

Of course the rule only applies to possible events, as Tim noted in his comment:

If you die the time frame is not infinite. That's why I added "assuming you live infinitely".

The answer is: absolutely - assuming you live infinitely.

It most certainly is, but where do you get the 50/50 from? The odds of that happening are 100%, not 50%.

When an event happens infinite times, p(A happens) approaches one, p(¬A happens) approaches one, p(¬(A happens)) approaches zero (A never happens), an...

Could you present some examples of the freedom that we've lost in the last decades? Even being somewhat familiar with the show, I can't think of any. ...

That is a false premise because your definition is not how God is defined. First, the definition does include "the first being that existed", but not ...

This sounds like a very regional issue of your home country.

Exactly, for terrorists they're not collateral damage because killing them is the goal.

Does only the result matter, or the motivation as well? For one killing is negative, for the other it's positive.

You provided examples of how altruism can be a product of selfishness, but not proof.

So far I agree, these kinds of conditions exist for everything. In order to love something unconditionally, the conditions of you existing, loving tha...

That's not a condition of love, that's a condition of it being unconditional.

No, it doesn't. Unconditional love means that the love has no conditions. Every condition you've presented in this discussion is a condition for it be...

Life doesn't want to survive; each individual being does. If there's an empty ecological niche, then it's the fittest form due to the lack of competit...

I'll try another phrasing of what I mean: unconditional love can't be unconditional, but love, that is unconditional, can be unconditional.

An example of what I mean: that's a condition of the love being unconditional, not a condition of love.

What I wrote doesn't imply that such a condition necessarily always exist, so it's not excluded. The text is only definition of condition as it's a ho...

That's not what unconditional or condition means in the context. Condition for love towards something means that there is love towards something if th...

Thinking the mirror test would be a half decent indicator of self awareness, consciousness or sentience was always such a stupid idea. How it went on ...

First, what even is this evidence you could have of things being as they seem? Second, knowledge in this context means 100% certain with absolutely no...

But how do you know how things are? You can't know that, you can only ever know how they appear to you. Same question here: Your arguments seem to be ...

If you can't recognize it, how do you claim you know it?

The perceptual evidence, via which you'd be able to distinguish between the two. I'll rephrase my comment: I'll also quote another part of your post: ...