U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-11-2011, 11:04 AM
 
40,117 posts, read 26,779,715 times
Reputation: 6051

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Says you, but given that you have no evidence, argument, data, or reasons to suggest there even IS a god entity.... what you said literally means nothing.
What does a God have to be OTHER THAN the Source of everything in existence . . . especially our consciousness. BTW . . . what is the Source of everything in existence that gets possession of all our scientific evidence? You seem to want to ignore that aspect of your arrogant request for evidence.
Quote:
Unless.... as I said before..... your definition of god is simply "What I call anything we do not understand" in which case all you are saying is that "Everything you accept as knowledge about Reality IS knowledge about Reality" which is not saying much more than nothing anyway.

However I note that no matter how many times I ask you, on how many threads I ask you, you do not define exactly what you mean by god.... yet you keep telling us it exists. This is about as useful as me telling you "Spluddunksplitz" exists and then refusing to tell you what that word actually means to me. You can not prove "Spluddunksplitz" does or does not exists... because you simply have no idea what it even is... so where can you start?

Then simply define what "god" is in your opinion and adumbrate for us exactly what you think it explains and how. You can then move to to your evidence, argument, data or reasons for thinking it exists as merely having explanatory power is not enough. If I find a dead body then the idea magical elves killed the person might explain it.... but that does not mean that is actually what happened or that those elves exist.

Really it is simple:

Step 1: Explain exactly what you mean when you say "god" as thus far it appears all it means to you is "a label for anything we do not understand".
Step 2: Explain exactly what you think the concept of god explains and how it explains it and why.
Step 3: Explain exactly what your evidence, argument, data and reasons are for thinking the entity defined in step 1 exists
You can repeat and repeat and try to mischaracterize what I say to your preferred straw man . . . but it will not work. We are not talking about ANYTHING we do not understand. We are dealing with a very SPECIFIC lack of explanation that you have absconded with surreptitiously as your default position (without explanation or justification) and from which you assume your arrogant perch of "show me any evidence." Of course you have assigned all the evidence to your non-explanation default AS IF you had some scientifically validated basis for doing so. You do NOT! I assume that this is the result of a lack of philosophical education or understanding of the epistemological issues of our reality.

Step 1. Stop being obtuse and disingenuous as if you do not know exactly what I mean and quit mischaracterizing my views to facilitate your arrogance.

Step 2. It explains the existence of the universal field (God's consciousness) that establishes all the parameters and characteristics of our reality. It explains the existence of life and consciousness as the basis of our reality. The procreation of consciousness explains the accelerated expansion attributed to dark energy. The recycling of life energy in the galaxies explains dark matter as aspects of God's life processes. The concept of vibrational resonance or dissonance explains how the distinctions in the fate of life energy are made.

Step 3. Everything I refer to exists without question. My hypotheses are not in conflict with existing scientific knowledge. So what are your hypotheses?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-11-2011, 03:42 PM
 
Location: Houston
223 posts, read 233,392 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Step 2. It explains the existence of the universal field (God's consciousness) that establishes all the parameters and characteristics of our reality. It explains the existence of life and consciousness as the basis of our reality. The procreation of consciousness explains the accelerated expansion attributed to dark energy. The recycling of life energy in the galaxies explains dark matter as aspects of God's life processes. The concept of vibrational resonance or dissonance explains how the distinctions in the fate of life energy are made.
Could you elaborate on this? This may not be the thread for this particular question, but I see you drawing connections between one of the many possible universal fields (or are you referring to the hypothesized unified field that existed close to the 'big bang' prior to the splitting off at various points of the four fundamental fields as the energy levels permiating the universe became more diffuse through expansion, or the inflaton field itself? or the 'universal constant' or any of the other swathe of fields which could explain the expansion of the universe? Or are you arguing that because particles are no more than vagrancy in fields themselves per Maxwell that all fields are in fact unifiable? (a bit of a stretch) and that they are God?) and God's consciousness, when all we can say with certainty is that some kind of electromagnetic field seems to generate consciousness in a specific configuration. The presence of a field in the Universe that isn't at the minimum point in its potential energy curve only speaks to the existence of a field within the Universe that is at rest above it's 0 point and so actively driving expansion. It says nothing to its specific configuration. In other words, I can't see where you can make a solid logical connection between one and the other, and all I have to go on here is an absolute axiom based on very little science.

What do you mean by 'life energy' and how is it recycled? And what process causes this to explicate Dark Matter, given we don't have a firm grasp around Dark Matter, with the most likely candidate being super symmetry, which actually relegates Dark Matter to high mass (read energy) particle companions of existing particles and hence removing the need for any special explanation for it, beyond that required for any other knots in fields (read particles) why does it require more explanation than any other particle? (Of course if the LHC fails to produce any of these particles by producing collisions of high enough energy to activate their respective fields enough to condense back into those particles then this is all up in the air, yet again, or they may have been WIMPs all along).

Please don't read this as an attack, because it's not. Your posts always make me think and this one did, and I'm sure you have answers to these questions and I'm genuinely curious to hear your philosophy in more detail.

Spank.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2011, 06:24 PM
 
40,117 posts, read 26,779,715 times
Reputation: 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spank316 View Post
Could you elaborate on this? This may not be the thread for this particular question, but I see you drawing connections between one of the many possible universal fields
It isn't . . . but your questions are excellent and should be addressed. Perhaps resurrecting one of the many threads where I have discussed these issues and their philosophical implications with others similarly interested would be the best approach.
Quote:
Please don't read this as an attack, because it's not. Your posts always make me think and this one did, and I'm sure you have answers to these questions and I'm genuinely curious to hear your philosophy in more detail.
Spank.
I try not to see posts as attacks until their content reveals it. These are excellent and legitimate questions that are squarely in the middle of the current speculations in physics and philosophy. The main sticking point is that in most theories of quantum gravity, the gravitational field itself is also quantized. A quantization of gravity implies some sort of quantization of timespace geometry which is problematic for the presumed classical timespace background of general relativity. The technical, methodological and ontological issues present profound challenges for the physicist and the philosopher.

I am convinced we need a mathematical breakthrough on the order of the calculus (fluxions) to resolve the diverse representations of reality. Something on the order of Bohm and the Maldacena conjecture incorporated into either the String or Loop quantum gravity theories. I believe the vibratory schema of the String theory is essential so it may be the better option.

Last edited by MysticPhD; 05-11-2011 at 07:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2011, 07:01 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,546 posts, read 62,287,227 times
Reputation: 32297
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
What does a God have to be OTHER THAN the Source of everything in existence . . . especially our consciousness. BTW . . . what is the Source of everything in existence that gets possession of all our scientific evidence?
Well, one approach has had a common theme of attributing a consciousness to whatever that is and the other common approach is limiting whatever that is to the physical; an energy.

For the agnostics both groups tend to be viewed as rather absurd positions to commit to as (to date at least) there is still no reciprocation (that we're aware of) from any consciousness andever more accumulation of data (despite how fascinating that all is) that attempts to define an energy.

There are a large number of people who are as intrigued as the scientists doing this noble work to know the ultimate truths these investigations are working toward but aren't particularly concerned about having it yield answers, at all let alone to every question or even most of them. The world seems to continue on the same today as it has for millennia regardless of how much we don't know.

The real tripping point though is when stories get made up out of whole cloth to explain the unknown to the uncurious. Through the era's and epochs these stories evolve but they almost always have at their root the brightest minds of their day using their latest scientific and philosophical understandings.

Somtimes they have even have the facts straight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2011, 01:35 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,286,683 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
That is not true. You cannot claim lack of substantiation simply because you assign all the existing evidence to "we don't know what"
I claim lack of substantiation.... because the claim is unsubstantiated. Simple. If it were substantiated... I would not call it unsubstantiated. Also simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
What does a God have to be OTHER THAN the Source of everything in existence . . . especially our consciousness.
You tell me. You are the one that on more than one thread now is refusing (or are incapable) to tell us what you define god as actually being and meaning. As I said it seems to be that you are defining it as follows:

1) We do not know what the "source" of everything is.
2) Whatever it is, though we do not know what it is, you are calling "god".

And thats it. You are simply calling something you have no idea what it is "god" and acting like that means something. It does not. It is... as I said... just as useful as calling it "sludunkysplitz" or "walladumpydoo" or some other word you make up. In the end all you are doing is pointing to something we do not know, and calling it "god" and then when anyone questions that or tries to query it you go on a tirade of name calling like "arrogant" over and over.... forgetting as you do the important rule that "insults demean only the insulter, never the target, EVER".

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
what is the Source of everything in existence
You are the one assuming there IS a source, not me. Where is your evidence to establish this as the "default". Why could it not be sourceless and eternal. People seem to operate on the assumption that there was nothing, and then something was created. Why is "nothing" the default from which we must explain all else? Why can it not just as validly be that the "something" is the default? Why does the source, if it exists, have to be in the opinion of so many people an intelligent entity with a will that most people call "god"? What does "god" even mean to you? When YOU use the word "god" are YOU talking about an entity with intelligence and a will? Do YOU think this entity is contactable by prayer or that it responds to, or even notices, any form of human contact or propitiation?

Simple questions really. I rather expect to find you avoiding them again however. Do try and surprise me and not do that THIS time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2011, 01:31 PM
 
40,117 posts, read 26,779,715 times
Reputation: 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
I claim lack of substantiation.... because the claim is unsubstantiated. Simple. If it were substantiated... I would not call it unsubstantiated. Also simple.
As is typical you avoided responding to my full post . . . I guess I'm free to impute ineptitude or ignorance as the reason. Let me refresh it for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
That is not true. You cannot claim lack of substantiation simply because you assign all the existing evidence to "we don't know what" and call that the default without a scientific basis for doing so. Consciousness and intelligence exists as part of our reality. There is NO LOGICAL syllogism you could EVER create that begins with a premise of non-consciousness and non-intelligence and produces a predicate of consciousness and intelligence. The primacy of consciousness as the basis for all your logic and reason is absolute.
Care to actually address my posts when I do (many times) answer your puerile questions. Why do you avoid the substantive parts to focus on your bald-faced assertions. I'm going to guess again . . . same conclusion.
Quote:
You tell me. You are the one that on more than one thread now is refusing (or are incapable) to tell us what you define god as actually being and meaning. As I said it seems to be that you are defining it as follows:

1) We do not know what the "source" of everything is.
2) Whatever it is, though we do not know what it is, you are calling "god".

And thats it. You are simply calling something you have no idea what it is "god" and acting like that means something. It does not.
No I am attributing the evidence of life; consciousness; intelligence; consistency; control; "laws" we have discovered; processes we have discovered; DNA design and coding; and the various RNA activators; etc. etc . . . to God (who has traditionally been the over-arching recipient of such attributions . . . until the science/religion schism). And I did answer your questions which you avoided addressing.

Your question - Step 2: Explain exactly what you think the concept of god explains and how it explains it and why.

Step 2. It explains the existence of the universal field (God's consciousness) that establishes all the parameters and characteristics of our reality. It explains the existence of life and consciousness as the basis of our reality. The procreation of consciousness explains the accelerated expansion attributed to dark energy. The recycling of life energy in the galaxies explains dark matter as aspects of God's life processes. The concept of vibrational resonance or dissonance explains how the distinctions in the fate of life energy are made.

BUT you avoided specifying who/what you are attributing it all to. Just more tiresome sidestepping and avoidance. Let me refresh again
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
What does a God have to be OTHER THAN the Source of everything in existence . . . especially our consciousness. BTW . . . what is the Source of everything in existence that gets possession of all our scientific evidence? You seem to want to ignore that aspect of your arrogant request for evidence. You can repeat and repeat and try to mischaracterize what I say to your preferred straw man . . . but it will not work. We are not talking about ANYTHING we do not understand. We are dealing with a very SPECIFIC lack of explanation that you have absconded with surreptitiously as your default position (without explanation or justification) and from which you assume your arrogant perch of "show me any OTHER evidence." Of course you have assigned all the evidence to your non-explanation default AS IF you had some scientifically validated basis for doing so. You do NOT! I assume that this is the result of a lack of philosophical education or understanding of the epistemological issues of our reality.
Care to actually address any of the substance you avoided in that part? Same guess . . . same conclusion.
Quote:
You are the one assuming there IS a source, not me. Where is your evidence to establish this as the "default". Why could it not be sourceless and eternal. People seem to operate on the assumption that there was nothing, and then something was created. Why is "nothing" the default from which we must explain all else? Why can it not just as validly be that the "something" is the default?
It is irrelevant whether or not it is eternal (I happen to accept that it is) . . . but IT still cannot be sourceless. All that power and control over life and non-life; the sheer scale and scope; the immeasurable energy expenditure; . . . IT IS something . . . NOT an illusion. What is doing all that and why? Its EXISTENCE is far too much to not account for while actively denying an appropriate attribution to God. Why have you avoided answering these questions?
Quote:
Why does the source, if it exists, have to be in the opinion of so many people an intelligent entity with a will that most people call "god"? What does "god" even mean to you? When YOU use the word "god" are YOU talking about an entity with intelligence and a will? Do YOU think this entity is contactable by prayer or that it responds to, or even notices, any form of human contact or propitiation?
I left this in because it reveals your hang-up over religious BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . that have nothing to do with God's EXISTENCE (which is a purely scientific question). The scale and scope of the scientific evidence for degree of power and control over all aspects of our reality (life, consciousness, intelligence, etc.) is either sufficient or it is not. I am confident that there is plenty of substantiation for the existence of God.

You have YOUR preferred beliefs about God's unvalidated attributes as revealed in your default. Religious nuts and others have their preferred belief about their unvalidated attributes.. NONE of those beliefs about unvalidated attributes scientifically impact the undeniable existence of God. They are attributes that have to be substantiated or refuted as separate issues. You have no more substantiation for your preferred attributes than anyone else does. But I have proposed hypotheses consistent with extant science that provide a basis for MINE. Why have you avoided presenting yours?
Quote:
Simple questions really. I rather expect to find you avoiding them again however. Do try and surprise me and not do that THIS time.
I leave this in as evidence for applying the adjective "arrogant" to you since I avoided nothing . . . and to highlight your hypocrisy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2011, 04:35 AM
 
Location: Log "cabin" west of Bangor
5,678 posts, read 6,782,919 times
Reputation: 10273
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Moreover, no matter what the position a person holds, it obviously has some value to them or they wouldn't hold it. Even though we may heartily disagree with whatever that position is, we at least owe them the simple courtesy of respecting the idea and not ridiculing it, don't you think? After all, don't we expect the same thing from them?
No.

If I were standing, looking at a rainbow, and some guy standing next to me started going on about leprechauns and pots of gold like he was expecting me to believe such nonsense I would laugh derisively and tell him in no uncertain terms that he had bats in his belfry.

He may have the right to believe such things, and the right to speak about them, but that right does not compel or obligate others to consider them seriously or to respect such nonsense.

The right to believe and speak as one wills does not bestow any right to be shielded from any repercussions from doing so.

I believe that laughter and derision are among some of the best tools to combat the promotion of outdated and baseless superstition. Anyone promoting superstitious nonsense to me, and expecting me to believe it, is already insulting me and therefore is not deserving of any respect in return.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2011, 06:11 AM
 
Location: zone 5
7,330 posts, read 13,257,354 times
Reputation: 9611
I'm not a psychologist but it seems to me if you really want to change somebody's mind or educate them, laughter and derision will be counterproductive. It just makes people feel defensive and angry and unwilling to listen to reason. If you could try to gently tell that guy his leprechauns were imaginary, and you got through to him, wouldn't you think you'd done him a service, rather than just saying rude things that may amuse yourself, or make you feel superior, but don't accomplish anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2011, 07:57 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
15,310 posts, read 10,355,258 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
So now the real motive surfaces. What laws bother you? Take care.
See following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
You make it sound like this was some hidden motive that is only becoming apparent to you now. It is not so. Many of us are quite clear that this is one of the main motives of what we are talking about. That is essentially what secularism is.... denuding public policy, law, education and science of the truth claims of religion.

And to answer your question, it is not just laws that are current that bother such people, but ALSO laws that people are trying to implement. Not just laws either, but policy and education curriculum. All around the world for example people are trying to change education curriculum to include the idea that the earth is 6000-10000 years old, that noahs ark is historical and not metaphorical, and that any science or history being taught in schools that contradict that should be removed.

Even in the north of Ireland, a small corner of the world, the political party DUP are attacking Museums and schools for this very thing, and demanding that they change their ways to reflect a young earth rather than what science and history actually tell us is true.

So no, this is not some hidden real motivation that you have heroically uncovered... it is a very real concern and one people who call themselves atheist or secular are very open about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by axemanjoe View Post
SO, to get back to the original post, I do not have respect for anyone who displays their ignorance as well as their puerile beliefs,....
I have no problem with ignorance. What I do have a problem with is self-imposed ignorance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2011, 08:08 AM
 
3,884 posts, read 8,971,690 times
Reputation: 1476
Quote:
Originally Posted by axemanjoe View Post
Well, after all, this is an atheism forum, if people are going to put up posts that delcare their beliefs to be religious based doesn't that seem like poking that metaphorical rattlesnake.
Indeed, I believe it's a call for help. lol I will gladly give them a rattle or two!

I tend to wonder if they even want my respect or my soul? Every church I'm familiar with gives the command to spread the word of the Lord. I think they come on this thread for the challenge. lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top