Recently a heated debate broke out at a Think Tank and in this think tank an Atheist and Christian Scholar politely argued over the possibility of science and researchers being able to develop the perfect artificial intelligent computer chip able to fully integrate itself with while being human/computer interface enabled. Having cognitive functions and add-on memory to name a few of its capabilities.

The debate turned into a side question of whether man's brain was a physical brain working as a spirit or if the brain worked randomly. Without knowing of the atheists knowledge or theories of how the brain worked the Christian Scholar stated: "If this is so, then by your theory that your thoughts come from your brain which is physical particles, your thoughts are chaotic random arrangements, they mean nothing and they prove nothing and therefore your own words are self-contradictory when you claim that you know you are right.”

The Atheist countered this comment as this was nothing near his thinking, but also added some other insight perhaps worthy of mention and stated:

"Wait one second Dear Sir, being right or knowing truth is subjective and I did not say everything is chaotic. In fact those are words you put into my mouth, prior to proper input of my observations. Additionally the brain does not work on complete chaos, as the brain seems to spend a lot of time defragging while sleeping. I use the term loosely as the organic brain is not a computer, it is much better than one in many regards, yet not as good in others. The brain is set up to categorize and make connections and imprints of electrical impulse flo

ws in its storage mechanism. Additionally one theories of chaos, randomness or order, have nothing to do with self-contradiction of what is right or wrong or a near miss. It does not prove the meaning of anything is "No thing” or even if the existence of "No Thing” is even possible, thus how could anything be possible. Therefore your multiple variables to prove your point are in error, even if one did believe in a fate or randomness that would not make truth an either/or choice. If indeed total truth could exist. So, in review you have miss characterized my thoughts on the matter, brought us to an irrelevant point and failed to make yours. Try again.”

What do you think of the physical particle comment or self-contradiction of chaos and randomness? What do you think of the way misunderstandings break out and impede thought between atheists and Christians? How would you explain what is going on in the human brain? Do you believe truth and perception are subjective? Which side of this argument do you fall on? We would like to hear your input on this? Think on this in 2006.

Tell Your Friend