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 04-27-2015, 02:34 PM
 
40,056 posts, read 26,735,309 times
Reputation: 6050

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It is preposterous to claim that ALL the energy is accounted for when we cannot even measure directly more than 4% of what exists. It is a measurement problem . . . NOT a God of the gaps problem. We KNOW the energy exists or the universe would NOT be expanding and at an accelerating rate, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
We know about energy. We know about the evidence for dark matter and dark energy. We know that there is a lot we don't know. None of this does a single thing to make your faith -based theory credible. Monumentus is right. It is based ...-well; on faith of course...but the hypothesis is based entirely on the argument that what we can't explain yet - and maybe not ever - must be "God". It absolutely is a god of the gaps hypothesis, Sorry.
I agree with you about my conclusions from the existence of dark energy and dark matter, Arq. But monumentus is pretending that I "made up" their existence because I refer to them when he tries to claim that all the energy involved in producing our consciousness (or life for that matter) is accounted for. THAT is what is preposterous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
My goodness, is MysticPhD still peddling the "dark matter = God" hypothesis?
I am peddling nothing, Freak. I am providing extant support for my hypotheses that atheists seem to either ignore or deliberately misconstrue about reality. I get that they disagree that consciousness energy is of the same type as dark energy . . . but that does not mean I "made up" a category of energy. I merely suggested the possible kind involved. That is vastly different from "made up."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-27-2015, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Florida
19,795 posts, read 19,895,713 times
Reputation: 23212
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I am peddling nothing, Freak. I am providing extant support for my hypotheses that atheists seem to either ignore or deliberately misconstrue about reality. I get that they disagree that consciousness energy is of the same type as dark energy . . . but that does not mean I "made up" a category of energy. I merely suggested the possible kind involved. That is vastly different from "made up."
So I do have to ask you, why aren't you over on the Science board 'peddling' this theory?
Since you are promoting it all as proof of god, why do you bring it to the atheism forum?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 04:10 PM
 
40,056 posts, read 26,735,309 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I agree with you about my conclusions from the existence of dark energy and dark matter, Arq. But monumentus is pretending that I "made up" their existence because I refer to them when he tries to claim that all the energy involved in producing our consciousness (or life for that matter) is accounted for. THAT is what is preposterous.
I am peddling nothing, Freak. I am providing extant support for my hypotheses that atheists seem to either ignore or deliberately misconstrue about reality. I get that they disagree that consciousness energy is of the same type as dark energy . . . but that does not mean I "made up" a category of energy. I merely suggested the possible kind involved. That is vastly different from "made up."
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
So I do have to ask you, why aren't you over on the Science board 'peddling' this theory?
Since you are promoting it all as proof of god, why do you bring it to the atheism forum?
I do not bring it here to promote God. Atheists use their knowledge of the state of reality as the basis for their atheism. I am simply presenting a clearer and more objective picture of that reality and its failures as a philosophical underpinning for their atheism. That is the purpose of discussion on such issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 07:32 PM
 
Location: California
30,700 posts, read 33,467,623 times
Reputation: 26118
Quote:
Atheists use their knowledge of the state of reality as the basis for their atheism
Is that back wards though? The reality is I experience no indication of a god and wouldn't even dream that scenario up.. You don't have to have any knowledge of anything, just a lack of religious peddling and salesmanship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 08:35 PM
 
39,062 posts, read 10,837,135 times
Reputation: 5084
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I do not bring it here to promote God. Atheists use their knowledge of the state of reality as the basis for their atheism. I am simply presenting a clearer and more objective picture of that reality and its failures as a philosophical underpinning for their atheism. That is the purpose of discussion on such issues.
Yes, I can see that, and dark matter has niow been observed, I believe. 'dark energy' (which seems to be something a bit different) is supposed to be there on indirect evidence. Rather like the evidence for the big bang.

I am also aware that your synthesis only exists because of God -belief. But ok, you are arguing for 'something More' than can be accounted for by materialism. The something more is quite evidently a universal consciousness which we all share and is a cosmic mind aka "God".

I am also aware that this is very much related to Biblegod because of the 'spiritual fossil record' which culminates in the most sophisticated manifestation - the gospels.

That given the synthesis stands or falls on its own merits rather than the godfaith which is its origin. The validity of Revelation (which you argued for in one thread) you do not (to do you credit) drag into the discussion.

Have to say in the end after looking at your case against the materialist default and for the need for 'something more' (or " a clearer and more objective picture of that reality") I have to consider that it signally fails to make the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 08:54 PM
 
39,062 posts, read 10,837,135 times
Reputation: 5084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
Is that back wards though? The reality is I experience no indication of a god and wouldn't even dream that scenario up.. You don't have to have any knowledge of anything, just a lack of religious peddling and salesmanship.
Not really. It is our understanding of the way the world is that makes us say that we do not see any evidence for gods.

Religions produce a lot of arguments for the existence of gods, mainly gap for god argument, argument for trustworthy holy books and arguments from various kinds of personal experiences, from Fatima -type events to NDE's. If they do not persuade, then we remain atheist and are, in effect, saying that so far as we know, there is no compelling reason to doubt that reality does or can work or Be without the need for a god.

In addition we have Mystic's arguments from First Cause to Hard question and I have to say that they fail, mainly because they are gap for God or gap for Something More arguments.

I confess I had to give up when Gaylen claimed that a mind experiment involving human simalcrums without sensory experience somehow disproved physicalist monism and I have to declare that I see no reason whatsoever to doubt that human consciousness could have evolved along with Life and indeed as an aspect of it, derived from the basic reactions of one particle with another.

I even begin to see the case for dualism based on the Hard Question as a kind of argument from Complexity.

However that may be. I remain unpersuaded and therefore atheist. I don't think it can be said I didn't give it a fair whack.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 03:35 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,697,087 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I agree with you about my conclusions from the existence of dark energy and dark matter, Arq. But monumentus is pretending that I "made up" their existence
So you have taken to ignoring my posts and misrepresenting them in posts directed to others. Not only did I not do what you just claimed I did above - my most recent ignored post actually explained the EXACT opposite.

The fact is we have _no idea_ what Dark Energy or Dark Matter are. We call them energy and matter without even knowing they are any such thing. The use of Energy and Matter is misleading. It makes it sound like we have some idea what these things are. We simply do not. They might not even exist. They may simply be errors in what we know so far. Essentially the terms are PLACEHOLDERS for our ignorance. And nothing more.

You run away with them however. You act like they are evidence for the things you simply make up about the universe and human consciousness. And it is that which I call you on - and your inability to answer those challanges forces you instead to wholly misrepresent what I have been saying and doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I refer to them when he tries to claim that all the energy involved in producing our consciousness (or life for that matter) is accounted for.
Not what I claimed. Again with your misrepresentations. My actual claims are two fold:

1) All the energy that comes into our body through food etc is accounted for.
2) There is no basis at this time for claiming that consciousness has anything to do with energy other than that which we take in by food.

Your entire foundation for your hypothesis requires there to be other tiers of energy - not accounted for by our intake of food - that is related to consciousness. Yet you have evidenced neither a) that such energy exists or b) that consciousness has anything to do with energy other than that taken in in food.

Were you to evidence either you would at least be on the right path. But you simply assert both. Thats the issue - not what you have invented and put into my mouth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 04:21 AM
 
39,062 posts, read 10,837,135 times
Reputation: 5084
The while things seems to be back to front. What we know is merely ignorance but what we don't know is evidence for "God". Evidence about mechanical processes counts for nothing but possible other explanations counts as reliable fact. "Emergence" is sneered at even though it is demonstrable and I would prefer not to comment on the sleight of hand that this is not a fact but an observation'. Whatever it is, it occurs rather than not and therefore accounts for consciousness.

Same with 'Life' even though some mysterious Other something is a feature of it without which an exact functioning reproduction if it didn't come about through the primate life-cycle isn't life at all. Ocam's razor is also sneered at because it gets in the way of the argument. Never mind that I showed that (like other conventions like the calendar or mathematics) it has a very real basis in the natural world, quite aside from being necessary for logic to work

What we can prove is regarded as unreliable because of imperfect human perception, but human feelings and perceptions are regarded as hard reliable fact. The burden of proof itself is reversed, with God claimed as 'obvious' until we disprove it. The obviousness of God is in nature in which we can see God because..it is Obvious.

It is, in fact the familiar inversion of reason and evidence as lies (or at least complete ignorance and fallacy) and faith -based speculation and illogic, I have to say (because the most erudite and complex logical constructs are worthless is based on an unvalidated premise - and the premise here is "God is the a priori given") is taken -not as the more probable theory, but as undeniable, life -changing fact.

And of course, explanations as to why the hypothesis doesn't convince is taken personally. Because -as is usual - the faith -based theory is directly related to the feelings of self -worth (let alone self -importance) of the person peddling the theory.
Just so nobody can be in any doubt just what we got, because it is often a protracted business to find this out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 05:47 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 4,993,580 times
Reputation: 1365
We, thus our "awareness", is a set of events in a much larger set of events. That cannot be debated. From our perspectives the events are largely based on electron movements. Imagine if you will seeing the world as just moving electrons. From this perspective you would see areas of dense electrons that represented "things" and the "speed"/type of movement of the electrons in the these dense areas would indicate the various objects that we know. Think of bees near a hive.

What is interesting is that we would see electron moving fairly freely between the "groups" of electrons. We would notice the boundaries are not as definitive as the ones we see with our eyes. Because we see with photons, but that's a story for another day. What this "electron world" would show is they we clearly are part of something more complex.

This perspective is an indirect line of observations using a known particle that supports quite clearly that we are part of "something more". And to dismiss it out of hand is an emotional response/need and not a logical/objective need. Also, we can look at many more perspectives that "logically" support the notion that we are a subset of "life", not life itself.

The only logical conclusion with understandings of the vast amount of particle interactions around us is that we are part of "something more". It may not fill the "emotional needs" of some, that is true, but that's what belief based rituals are for.

And arg is right. People get upset when their personal needs are challenged with indirect evidence to the contrary. But that because "indirect" is not literal enough for the fundie personality type. Also fundie type people don't deal in thoughts outside of their brain as real. Only their type of brain is real to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 06:13 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,937,789 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I am simply presenting a clearer and more objective picture of that reality
So says the guy who is pimping a religion he made up based on a subjective experience he had in a dream. You're not fooling anyone - that's the exact opposite of an objective picture of reality.
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
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