Thinking you can prove a supreme conciousness when you can't even prove your own

>Thinking you can prove a supreme conciousness when you can't even prove your own

Just how irrational are theists?

THE FACT THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS CANNOT BE PROVED JUST REVEALS THE NATURE OF THE IMPAIRMENT OF PERSONS LIKE YOURSELF.

Prove it then.

we can't even define or explain what consciousness is in a useful way

I HAVE ALREADY PROVED IT; CONSCIOUSNESS IS PROVED TO ONESELF VIA INTROSPECTION, NOT TO OTHERS VIA DISCOURSE.

I SUGGEST THAT YOU AVOID THE METAPHYSICAL, BECAUSE IT IS BEYOND THE COMPREHENSION OF PERSONS LIKE YOURSELF.

No, you fucking dumbass. The question isn't whether or not my consciousness exists. It's about your own. I am asking you to prove your own consciousness. Learn to read.

did you prove to yourself what introspection is first, so that you knew you were doing it?

That's... what he said...

>you fucking dumbass

How ironic.

What he said was a non-squiturial non-answer.

what's wrong with non-sequiturs?

They don't pertain to the question at hand.

Well I think user is asking YOU to prove your consciousness to ME, sollepsism yo

>am i the bot or are they

The very fact that you are thinking actually proves that you are conscious.

what if he's a bot?

No, it wasn't...

Is an ant conscious? What about a computer?

I think therefore I am

I win

>I think
You cannot prove that there is an "I" doing the thinking, only that thought itself exists.

the thought wouldn't exist if I wasn't thinking it

>yet another rehash of le cogito ergo sum meme
End my life

>rationality is good
Only works if you presuppose the existence of a consciousness.

Prove it.

Can you even prove that the concept of proof is valid?

>Cleverbot thinks that it "thinks" lulz

I am replying to your fucking post , my thought is not independent of me

>>yet another rehash of le cogito ergo sum meme

NO.

YES

>Using the laws of logic, which are immaterial concepts, in order to prove that a naturalistic worldview is objective.

>my thought is not independent of me
Again, this is something that is being asserted. Can it be proven that thought requires a thinker?