The problem with atheism.

[hawkeye]

Logical proof for god is very easy to establish as, at least plausible.

Premise 1: God = absolute truth
Premise 2: Absolute truth exists
Therefore: God exists.

Premise 2 is a no-brainer given that any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence, so that only leaves Premise 1 as an issue, and it's not really a issue given that it's simply ascribing a different name to a constant.

There is plenty of empirical (physical) and mathematical (abstract) evidence for god, but you need to know philosophy which has the tools you need in order to make sense of the relationship between the mathematical and empirical, and this includes understanding the limitations of each discipline, and also the ways in which they compliment each other.

Well, if god is just a constant then it can't have any other properties that you ascribe to it.  It is a label only.  Like saying x = absolute truth.  You can't then ex post facto ascribe a bunch of properties to x and assume the equation is still true.  

Still waiting for empirical proof of God.

[the joint]

The Christian God is interpreted in so many different ways -- and I haven't done nearly enough research on Christian history or the Bible to comment too much otherwise -- that it's hard to debate with you about it and know that we're talking about the same thing.  That being said, I agree that there are some ridiculous beliefs about God that are just plain unsound know matter how you try to spin it.

In exodus, God confronts Moses by appearing as a burning bush. He tells moses to rescue the Israelites from egypt, where they are currently enslaved. Moses asks God what his name is, and God says his name is "I am." That is open to much interpretation, yes, but as he is actually HAVING a CONVERSATION with someone, and he is making decisions, he is SENTIENT. This whole abstract "absolute truth" BS cannot fit.

I think of the Christian God as omnipotent. omnipresent, and omniscient, that he was also Jesus, and that he "am who am."  I think we can at least agree that this is at least a broad, but general, start to the Christian definition of God.

If you think he is also jesus, or that jesus isn't the son of christ, then you hold Jewish beliefs.

Assuming for fuck's sake that God exists and he is omnipotent.  Well, an omnipotent being would also be able to stratify himself such that he would be less than himself at the same time that he is himself.  To that extent of Jesus and his relationship with God as de facto (basically the crux of 'christ'ianity), plausible based on the commonly held beliefs about the Christian god.

Why are we assuming for fuck's sake that God exists? Isn't that what we are debating right now? I'm not just going to assume he exists because you tell me to.

Your problem with premise 1 is because you have problems with premise 2.  You can't empirically 'prove' anything because of the problem of induction.  You can only 'prove' within a certain margin of error, and if you find any academic article that asserts a conclusion without allowing a margin of error (e.g. The results indicate a positive correlation between x and y, p < .05), then they totally fucked the scientific method.

Actually, no, my problem with premise one is NOT because I have a problem with premise 2. It's because God cannot equal absolute truth. It doesn't work. Absolute truth is not a sentient thing.

True logic exists according to what the rules of logic indicate true logic to be.  Logic is a closed system, and it's a self-reinforcing system.  When you try to break this system, you will find that it's impossible too because it will automatically lead yourself to a contradiction.

Yes, and your logic is flawed. The truth of your argument you can see above "Assuming for fuck's sake that god exists and he is omnipotent." You believe this because you think that god is absolute truth, but god cannot be absolute truth because absolute truth is not sentient and god is.

It's absolutely impossible to deny absolute truth.  To deny absolute truth is to say it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth.  If you say truth is relative, you are saying it is the absolute truth that truth is relative.  If you say there is more than one absolute truth, then you are saying that it is the absolute truth that...well...you get it. 

This is just some abstract bullshit that is part of a completely different argument. I don't give a fuck whether absolute truth exists, because it has nothing to do with the existence of god.

Read it again. 

Read over it twice before submitting and once after.

The problem I had is that you responded to me as if my conception of god is the same as the typical Christian concept of god.  It's not.  So your entire response was almost totally irrelevant. I was simply commenting upon the plausibility of this widely held belief about the Christian god.  I said to assume he exists "for fuck's sake" because I wasn't trying to hammer home a convincing argument outside if the plausibility of the claim.

The problem you have with premise 1 is sounding more like stubbornness now.  If you believe absolute truth exists then you should having no qualms about what it's called as long as we each know that we're talking about the same thing.  There is absolutely no good reason why I can't call absolute truth 'god' or 'x' or whatever else.  It's the same thing as calling an apple "la manzana" in Spanish.  It means the same thing as "apple" and they are interchangeable.  I'm just using the word 'god' as an arbitrary alternative to 'absolute truth.' Thus, the reason you should have a problem with premise 1 is just as I said, i.e. you must not believe absolute truth exists.

1) la manzana = apple
2) apple exists
Therefore, la manzana exists.

Would you refute premise 1 here?

[hawkeye]

1) la manzana = apple
2) apple exists
Therefore, la manzana exists.

Would you refute premise 1 here?

Now you've changed the nature of your equation.   You are using two well defined labels that have certain properties and equating them to each other here.

In the previous example you said god = absolute truth.   Previously you have ascribed ominiscient powers to God, but never proved that absolute truth has omniscient powers.

[Rassah]

The Bible says in Matthew 10:33 "But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven."

Atheists don't deny god. To deny god, one must first acknowledge him. Atheists don't even go that far. They just ignore him completely, as if he doesn't exist. And if they die and go to heaven, they'll be like, "Oh, hey, sup. Guess you're real after all. OK." And not, "Ahh! You're real! I deny you!"

[bythesea]

The Bible says in Matthew 10:33 "But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven."

Atheists don't deny god. To deny god, one must first acknowledge him. Atheists don't even go that far. They just ignore him completely, as if he doesn't exist. And if they die and go to heaven, they'll be like, "Oh, hey, sup. Guess you're real after all. OK." And not, "Ash! You're real! I deny you!"

As Atheist I don't refuse to believe in God, I simply chose my version of truth that he is a fairy tale. I chose not to believe in a story of a all mighty being with infinite knowledge that is committing mass genocide, killing kids and babies. An all mighty being that impregnated a virgin by himself and late she gave birth to himself. Talking snake, woman created from a rib and so on. Reward for living life according to religious rules doesn't apply to atheists, since I had sex without being married, I eat what am not supposed to and so on...
So yes, God doesn't exist, there is no heaven or hell...

[Netnox]

The Bible says in Matthew 10:33 "But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven."

Atheists don't deny god. To deny god, one must first acknowledge him. Atheists don't even go that far. They just ignore him completely, as if he doesn't exist. And if they die and go to heaven, they'll be like, "Oh, hey, sup. Guess you're real after all. OK." And not, "Ash! You're real! I deny you!"

As Atheist I don't refuse to believe in God, I simply chose my version of truth that he is a fairy tale. I chose not to believe in a story of a all mighty being with infinite knowledge that is committing mass genocide, killing kids and babies. An all mighty being that impregnated a virgin by himself and late she gave birth to himself. Talking snake, woman created from a rib and so on. Reward for living life according to religious rules doesn't apply to atheists, since I had sex without being married, I eat what am not supposed to and so on...
So yes, God doesn't exist, there is no heaven or hell...

I think everything is too perfectly created to just assume it suddenly happened out of nowhere. I believe there is a higher power and how we live our lives has an effect after we die. I can't go along with the stupid idea of vanishing for ever.

[RodeoX]

Prove God's existence?  That's easy. Science offers any theory a seat at the table. Theories are then reviewed and tested. Theories that are not testable and cannot be demonstrated are not considered theories at all. These are musings, guesses, or baseless ideas.

This has always been where science and religion depart. Religion depends on "belief". If nothing supports your assertion but you believe it anyway then you are just being superstitious. Science does not deal in superstition. It deals with provable facts.

For example, someone may believe they can read minds; after all, many people do. Now take them into a lab under controlled conditions and they can't do it. In fact, no one has ever done it under controlled conditions. That is why we know it can't be done. Still, the superstitious believer will have to construct elaborate reasons why the experiment failed. "The cosmic energy of the lab was interfering", or some such nonsense.

This is seen constantly in religion. Which is why believers invented Intelligent design. Because it is in no way a science you can say anything you want and draw a line back to the "designer", who must exist. Why does he/she/it exist? Because there must be a designer or the whole house of cards comes down.

[BitChick]

The Bible says in Matthew 10:33 "But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven."

Atheists don't deny god. To deny god, one must first acknowledge him. Atheists don't even go that far. They just ignore him completely, as if he doesn't exist. And if they die and go to heaven, they'll be like, "Oh, hey, sup. Guess you're real after all. OK." And not, "Ash! You're real! I deny you!"

There are other verses that say the same thing for those who "do not know God" if the word "deny" is an issue.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9  He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

I just think it is quite risky to think that one can claim ignorance as an excuse.  Do you really think that will work?

[RodeoX]

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9  He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

I do not "obey" Jesus and I could care less about God. Yet I live a charmed life filled with love, happiness, wealth, and peace of mind.  Just saying. 

[BitChick]

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9  He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

I do not "obey" Jesus and I could care less about God. Yet I live a charmed life filled with love, happiness, wealth, and peace of mind.  Just saying. 

And many Christians have suffered much, are poor, and live with great difficulties.  This life is not fair.  So the question is more about Eternity and if there is more than just this short life we have here on earth or not?  For those that feel this is all there is, then I guess the goal for them is to pursue the greatest life possible now.  My concern, believing in God, is that it is so short sided and there will come a day of great regret.

The story that comes to mind is this one:


Luke 16:19-31

New International Version (NIV)


The Rich Man and Lazarus

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

[RodeoX]

Two guys died and this is what happened in the afterlife. But who witnessed all this?
Sorry, but it just looks like a children's story. You can't quote a source to prove the source. By that measure all fiction is fact.
Harry Potter is a real warlock because on page 233 it says "I am Harry Potter and I'm a real warlock". Is that proof?

[BitChick]

Two guys died and this is what happened in the afterlife. But who witnessed all this?
Sorry, but it just looks like a children's story. You can't quote a source to prove the source. By that measure all fiction is fact.
Harry Potter is a real warlock because on page 233 it says "I am Harry Potter and I'm a real warlock". Is that proof?

Who witnessed this?  This is a parable that Jesus told.  If He is God in the flesh it would not be hard for Him to know the story.

But as for the Bible being proof, therein lies the dilemma.  If the Bible is not true then you are right.  There is no need to worry.  Eat drink and be merry should be the goal of life.  On the other hand, if the Bible is true then what?  It should be a bit disconcerting and cause someone to at least study the Bible carefully to make sure they are right. Most people who discredit the Bible have never even read it.  As for the Bible just being any other book, millions of people believe it to be true to the core of their being.  People die for their faith in Jesus that they have found by reading the Bible.  Are we all crazy or is there something more to this book that has been cherished for so many?  No one would die for Harry Potter so that book cannot compare.  You could debate that other religious books are as valid but the Bible stands apart.  It is the only book that says that there is no way we can earn salvation by our own merit.  It is a free gift from God.  Other "gods" or paths are all about working or earning our way to heaven somehow.

 

[RodeoX]

Two guys died and this is what happened in the afterlife. But who witnessed all this?
Sorry, but it just looks like a children's story. You can't quote a source to prove the source. By that measure all fiction is fact.
Harry Potter is a real warlock because on page 233 it says "I am Harry Potter and I'm a real warlock". Is that proof?

Who witnessed this?  This is a parable that Jesus told.  If He is God in the flesh it would not be hard for Him to know the story.

But as for the Bible being proof, therein lies the dilemma.  If the Bible is not true then you are right.  There is no need to worry.  Eat drink and be merry should be the goal of life.  On the other hand, if the Bible is true then what?  It should be a bit disconcerting and cause someone to at least study the Bible carefully to make sure they are right. Most people who discredit the Bible have never even read it.  As for the Bible just being any other book, millions of people believe it to be true to the core of their being.  People die for their faith in Jesus that they have found by reading the Bible.  Are we all crazy or is there something more to this book that has been cherished for so many?  No one would die for Harry Potter so that book cannot compare.  You could debate that other religious books are as valid but the Bible stands apart.  It is the only book that says that there is no way we can earn salvation by our own merit.  It is a free gift from God.  Other "gods" or paths are all about working or earning our way to heaven somehow.

 

I do not think believers are crazy. But why do you pick one religious book? Why not the Egyptian book of the dead? People believed that book as fervently as you believe in the Bible.  Or why not worship Kim Young Un, leader of North Korea. Many people are prepared to die for him as their god. The number of people who believe and how much they believe is not a factor in truth. The world was never flat, even when it was widely believed.

[BitChick]

Two guys died and this is what happened in the afterlife. But who witnessed all this?
Sorry, but it just looks like a children's story. You can't quote a source to prove the source. By that measure all fiction is fact.
Harry Potter is a real warlock because on page 233 it says "I am Harry Potter and I'm a real warlock". Is that proof?

Who witnessed this?  This is a parable that Jesus told.  If He is God in the flesh it would not be hard for Him to know the story.

But as for the Bible being proof, therein lies the dilemma.  If the Bible is not true then you are right.  There is no need to worry.  Eat drink and be merry should be the goal of life.  On the other hand, if the Bible is true then what?  It should be a bit disconcerting and cause someone to at least study the Bible carefully to make sure they are right. Most people who discredit the Bible have never even read it.  As for the Bible just being any other book, millions of people believe it to be true to the core of their being.  People die for their faith in Jesus that they have found by reading the Bible.  Are we all crazy or is there something more to this book that has been cherished for so many?  No one would die for Harry Potter so that book cannot compare.  You could debate that other religious books are as valid but the Bible stands apart.  It is the only book that says that there is no way we can earn salvation by our own merit.  It is a free gift from God.  Other "gods" or paths are all about working or earning our way to heaven somehow.

 

I do not think believers are crazy. But why do you pick one religious book? Why not the Egyptian book of the dead? People believed that book as fervently as you believe in the Bible.  Or why not worship Kim Young Un, leader of North Korea. Many people are prepared to die for him as their god. The number of people who believe and how much they believe is not a factor in truth. The world was never flat, even when it was widely believed.

Why pick one religious book?  Well that would take a while to write.  Here is a good link:  http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/the_study_of_god/how_do_we_know_the_bible_is_true.aspx

That said, have you read the Bible?  I would say at least read the gospel of John before you discredit it. Maybe you will then see why perhaps so many have found it to be true for themselves.

[SlyWax]

I think everything is too perfectly created to just assume it suddenly happened out of nowhere. I believe there is a higher power and how we live our lives has an effect after we die. I can't go along with the stupid idea of vanishing for ever.

Well, 13 billion years is not really suddenly.
If you multiply by the number of planets,
it's quite probable that the earth would exist.

[the joint]

1) la manzana = apple
2) apple exists
Therefore, la manzana exists.

Would you refute premise 1 here?

Now you've changed the nature of your equation.   You are using two well defined labels that have certain properties and equating them to each other here.

In the previous example you said god = absolute truth.   Previously you have ascribed ominiscient powers to God, but never proved that absolute truth has omniscient powers.

"Omniscient powers" have nothing to do with the argument, and the argument doesn't require me proving that absolute truth "has omniscient powers."  You're overthinking this.  Why do you have such a problem with me calling something 'god' instead of 'absolute truth' when I set them to be equal?  Whatever label you want to tack onto it, there still remains the burden of defining the concept.

By the way, what do you think the "apple" quality is that gives an apple it's appleness?  What property is that?  I'm specifically referring to something unique to apples and not to, for example, all fruits in general.

[termhn]

1) la manzana = apple
2) apple exists
Therefore, la manzana exists.

Would you refute premise 1 here?

Now you've changed the nature of your equation.   You are using two well defined labels that have certain properties and equating them to each other here.

In the previous example you said god = absolute truth.   Previously you have ascribed ominiscient powers to God, but never proved that absolute truth has omniscient powers.

"Omniscient powers" have nothing to do with the argument, and the argument doesn't require me proving that absolute truth "has omniscient powers."  You're overthinking this.  Why do you have such a problem with me calling something 'god' instead of 'absolute truth' when I set them to be equal?  Whatever label you want to tack onto it, there still remains the burden of defining the concept.

By the way, what do you think the "apple" quality is that gives an apple it's appleness?  What property is that?  I'm specifically referring to something unique to apples and not to, for example, all fruits in general.

The genetic make up, the taste, the smell, the look. All these are unique to apples.

[termhn]

Atheism makes no sense. If you want to call yourself an atheist because you don't believe there's a god, that's fine. But to try to claim that there can't be a god is just utterly insane.

In order of logic, from sane to insane:
Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There can't possibly, under any circumstance or at any point in time, be a moose in these woods, but I have no proof."

Sorry, that's not how I look at it, and not how I believe the definition applies. It should be:

Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There is no evidence that there is a moose in the woods, or that there ever was a moose in the woods, and thus the idea of a moose in the woods is simply irrelevant and shouldn't even be taken into consideration."

Clearly the atheist position is the most logical one, as the agnostic one would have to take into consideration every single creature that may or may not exist, or every single god or deity that was ever invented, to stay agnostic. Do you consider that every good w ever thought of might exist? And how does that affect your life?

I like these better

Agnosticism: "There might be a monster in Loch Ness."
Theism: "There is a monster in Loch Ness and I know some people who have personally experienced it but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There is no evidence that there is a monster in Loch Ness, or that there ever was a monster in Loch Ness, and thus the idea of a monster in Loch Ness is simply irrelevant and shouldn't even be taken into consideration.  Knowing what we know the idea is ridiculous and contradictory.  It's basically just an old myth."

The atheist position in these examples seems to be based on a logical fallacy: that absence of evidence implies evidence of absence. That's just wrong and unscientific. For scientists to be true-to-form (or atheists claiming a scientific basis for their beliefs), they basically can't be atheists. Positive evidence can always be disputed and rejected and so on, but pretty much the only things they can do with an absence of evidence is:
1) look for it
2) wait until somebody else finds some

Of course there's also a 3rd option:
3) ignore the issue
but then they're not doing any science and there's no science backing their views either.

Both the agnostic and theistic views are more logical. E.g., for theists: their beliefs have a basis, i.e. personal experience, and they correctly label their belief as a belief. Similarly for agnostics: lack of evidence does not imply anything, it's just a lack of evidence and there's nothing to suggest that some new knowledge won't emerge in a future.

For the most part I don't believe in the 'stories', although some of them are likely based on historical events (e.g.: floods happen all the time, massive climatic events also happen occasionally). However, I'm sure I've mentioned Qualia a couple of times already in this thread -- real, observable phenomena that 21st century science still can't explain. Everybody (those without disabilities) sees colours or hears sounds but what the hell is this process? I'm not talking about mechanical/electrical/chemical series of events tickling the brain-machine, I'm talking about the conscious mind that bears witness to it all.


To throw a spanner in the works and directly question epiphenomenal views of the world, if free will doesn't exist, then surely consciousness would never have evolved in the first place? (If it somehow evolved). To quickly elaborate on what I mean: if free will doesn't exist, then the conscious mind basically can't do anything anyway. It would be a helpless prisoner inside someone's body, sensing everything that they do, but being unable to exert any influence over that motion-picture experience. I've heard theories that an illusion of free will somehow evolved to combat the problem of "the feeling of helplessly observing the world from someone's body"... but come on, invoking evolution to fix a problem that needn't exist in the first place? That's why they call it the HARD problem of consciousness, i.e.: it's not easy.

Except that chemical reactions going on in the brain IS what consciousness is.

[the joint]

Atheism makes no sense. If you want to call yourself an atheist because you don't believe there's a god, that's fine. But to try to claim that there can't be a god is just utterly insane.

In order of logic, from sane to insane:
Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There can't possibly, under any circumstance or at any point in time, be a moose in these woods, but I have no proof."

Sorry, that's not how I look at it, and not how I believe the definition applies. It should be:

Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There is no evidence that there is a moose in the woods, or that there ever was a moose in the woods, and thus the idea of a moose in the woods is simply irrelevant and shouldn't even be taken into consideration."

Clearly the atheist position is the most logical one, as the agnostic one would have to take into consideration every single creature that may or may not exist, or every single god or deity that was ever invented, to stay agnostic. Do you consider that every good w ever thought of might exist? And how does that affect your life?

I like these better

Agnosticism: "There might be a monster in Loch Ness."
Theism: "There is a monster in Loch Ness and I know some people who have personally experienced it but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There is no evidence that there is a monster in Loch Ness, or that there ever was a monster in Loch Ness, and thus the idea of a monster in Loch Ness is simply irrelevant and shouldn't even be taken into consideration.  Knowing what we know the idea is ridiculous and contradictory.  It's basically just an old myth."

The atheist position in these examples seems to be based on a logical fallacy: that absence of evidence implies evidence of absence. That's just wrong and unscientific. For scientists to be true-to-form (or atheists claiming a scientific basis for their beliefs), they basically can't be atheists. Positive evidence can always be disputed and rejected and so on, but pretty much the only things they can do with an absence of evidence is:
1) look for it
2) wait until somebody else finds some

Of course there's also a 3rd option:
3) ignore the issue
but then they're not doing any science and there's no science backing their views either.

Both the agnostic and theistic views are more logical. E.g., for theists: their beliefs have a basis, i.e. personal experience, and they correctly label their belief as a belief. Similarly for agnostics: lack of evidence does not imply anything, it's just a lack of evidence and there's nothing to suggest that some new knowledge won't emerge in a future.

For the most part I don't believe in the 'stories', although some of them are likely based on historical events (e.g.: floods happen all the time, massive climatic events also happen occasionally). However, I'm sure I've mentioned Qualia a couple of times already in this thread -- real, observable phenomena that 21st century science still can't explain. Everybody (those without disabilities) sees colours or hears sounds but what the hell is this process? I'm not talking about mechanical/electrical/chemical series of events tickling the brain-machine, I'm talking about the conscious mind that bears witness to it all.


To throw a spanner in the works and directly question epiphenomenal views of the world, if free will doesn't exist, then surely consciousness would never have evolved in the first place? (If it somehow evolved). To quickly elaborate on what I mean: if free will doesn't exist, then the conscious mind basically can't do anything anyway. It would be a helpless prisoner inside someone's body, sensing everything that they do, but being unable to exert any influence over that motion-picture experience. I've heard theories that an illusion of free will somehow evolved to combat the problem of "the feeling of helplessly observing the world from someone's body"... but come on, invoking evolution to fix a problem that needn't exist in the first place? That's why they call it the HARD problem of consciousness, i.e.: it's not easy.

Except that chemical reactions going on in the brain IS what consciousness is.

 

[termhn]

Should have quoted just the part it was responding to, which is the part where he mentions Qualia.