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.
back to the question. But you and I both know your answer.
is "no-nothing more to the universe" or "something more to the universe" a more reasonable conclusion in the context of this "believing" vs. 'non-belief" war. and even admitting we don't know. Based you answer on the very simple notion of emergence. Be sure to include what emergence is and how it relates to your choice. You many include graphs and diagrams.
Ah, Now I get you. And I appreciate a belly laugh to a post like mine.
Well, Something more to the universe is a more reasonable conclusion in terms of knowing and not knowing, but in terms of believing, then what that something more is needs some validation. and so far all I have seen is faith -based claims with some more of less Woo -based science to provide a framework. And as soon as it comes under scrutiny, we get the old Gap for God objections.
As to Emergence, I though my overview touching on what it pretty well known from physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology and physiology was adequate. Did I really need to explain all the detail, let alone draw maps? I can do it if needed, but that would still leave gaps.
It is worth pointing out yet again that this is the A/A forum, not philosophy, not physics, not even biology. If the question of the case for God is not the aim of the thread, it is not appropriate to the forum.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,507,366 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
tests = experiment for me.
Theory:
its not only about making some "reasonable hunches" based on what we know. Even more importantly, are there other "guesses" that just are not on equal terms even when we admitt we don't know it all. for example: The breaded dude is gone, that is just not reasonable today. even admitting we don't know "that god" conclusion does not fit many conditions.
you see that this site and others are at war. people want to "dominate" other people. So, we have to check things out. So I start simple. What conclusion(s) can we hold that fit as many possible conditions and/or conditional changes around us.
ok, now what?
lets experiment!!!
equipment: My single brain cell. I actually have two, but one is for my name and last four digits of my SS.
procedure:
1) Answer the following question:
is "no-nothing more to the universe" or "something more to the universe" a more reasonable conclusion in the context of this "believing" vs. 'non-belief" war. and even admitting we don't know. Based you answer on the very simple notion of emergence. . be sure to include what emergence is and how it relates to your choice. You many include graphs and diagrams.
conclusion: (5pts)
there is no right or wrong answer. This is an absolute value experiment. You are graded only on how well you link "emergence" to your conclusion. You lose points for personal emotion and or anything not relating to emergance.
Follow up questions.
What Qualifies as "credible" evidence one can use their the experiment? Moreover since the answer anyone gives would be not just be for you but for the whole board. How do we all show we are in agreement that the evidence ( for that experiment ) would be "credible"?
Follow up questions.
What Qualifies as "credible" evidence one can use their the experiment? Moreover since the answer anyone gives would be not just be for you but for the whole board. How do we all show we are in agreement that the evidence ( for that experiment ) would be "credible"?
I am sorry I didnt know you asked me something my bad. I will answer later. But lets just keep it simple. I assume you have science training. maybe even more than me.
Yes, you are correct but we are just exploring one question for now. You are most correct in being leery. We can assume People that know what creditable data is don't question when it is presented. They don't need a reference. If they do, that's telling right there. Maybe they shouldn't be talking. So I stick with college textbook science stuff. It Just makes it easier in regards to creditable. I think if it is in many different textbook publication it probably is at least ok to use for this site.
Now back to the question: (in the context of my first post (i think) to you)
is "no-nothing more to the universe" or "something more to the universe" a more reasonable conclusion in the context of this "believing" vs. 'non-belief" war. and even admitting we don't know. Based you answer on the very simple notion of emergence. . be sure to include what emergence is and how it relates to your choice. You many include graphs and diagrams.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 02-26-2015 at 01:49 PM..
This is why you lose any credibility with me. You repeatedly use assertions of "baseless" and "not one shred" etc. ignoring the bases of my inferences as if they do not exist. You do not agree with how I interpret the bases . . . but they definitely exist.
How do we do this . . . by using the very senses we are confirming??? Catch 22. Why is it different for things the brain detects without resort to the typical sensory system?How do you know what realm it has evolved to detect??? How is my experience of the things I am claiming to detect not evidence?
Any ignoring of your posts has been due to your incessant whining and complaining about ME, my method of communicating and my understanding. You seldom address ANY of the relevant material I DO present . . . dismissing it ALL as "baseless," "not one shred", etc. without detailing why it is so. QED. Your selective cropping of my post above evidences that very problem. You do not actually try to address my arguments . . . you just ignore and dismiss them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
Would that that was of concern to me. It is not. The credibility loss of note comes not from me - but the person who claims to have had an experience one day decides for no reason that this means there is a god.Conclusion A claim you refuse to back up when asked - and pretend you were not asked when you were. You require credibility before acting like you can comment on it in others. Acquire some.
The "basis" is clear. You had an experience (or so you claim - we can in no way verify this) one day while meditating - or possibly snoozing. You claim to have had an experience that many others - myself included - have had. And for no reason whatsoever I can find in your texts - have decided this experience was of a conscious external god. Conclusion-again
< snip - One big ad hominem whine and complain as I said. QED!>
My notes in blue confirm your focus on my conclusions and the experiential basis(singular) that began my odyssey of discovery. . . NOT the scientific bases (plural - for those in Rio Linda) that led to the hypotheses my conclusions are predicated on. You have a one track mind and a one track focus on my ultimate conclusions (hypotheses) which I have never pretended were confirmed for anyone BUT ME. The tests I performed were all of necessity subjective and would need to be repeated individually by anyone else wanting to confirm things for themselves. NONE of that alters the fact that the existing science provides more than sufficient bases (plural) for the PLAUSIBILITY of my extrapolations and hypotheses that lead to my personally verified conclusions. Your dismissals and disputation of my speculations, extrapolations, and hypotheses in no way means there are no bases (plural) for them or no reasons or "not one shred" . . . or whatever other arrogant dismissals you proffer. Plausibility demands such bases (plural) . . . and I have that. You simply prefer to deal with the space between those bases and my ultimate conclusions knowing they are not verified . . . except subjectively by ME.
My notes in blue confirm your focus on my conclusions
Still playing that card are you. As I said I have VERY specific links to me VERY specifically asking you for the basis behind a number of your conclusions. You outright lied in those links claiming I have no interest in your basis and focus only on your conclusions. You are repeating that here.
It does not matter how often I inquire into the basis of your conclusions, you simply refuse to give any in order to maintain the illusion that I keep ignoring it. But as I said I can not ignore what is not there.
That is "The problem with mystics trying to talk to atheists". The mystics can not lend a basis to their claims and engage in your (and Deepak) style hand waving and dodging to make it look like your failure to offer a shred of evidence - is somehow everyone elses fault but your own.
YOU - claim that the universe is conscious. I have asked for evidence for this. You give none.
YOU - claim that Jesus was something more than human. I have asked for evidence for this. You give none.
YOU - claim there is a god that will judge us morally after our death. I have asked for evidence for this. You give none.
YOU - claim that human consciousness can survive the death of the brain. I have asked for evidence for this. You give none.
I have asked you NUMEROUS times for the basis of these claims. Instead you ignore those requests and declare I have no interest in the basis of your claims. Your misrepresentation of me fails - as do your premises and claims.
You have a one track mind and a one track focus on touting your conclusions and avoiding lending them substance or a basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The tests I performed were all of necessity subjective and would need to be repeated individually by anyone else wanting to confirm things for themselves.
And as I keep pointing out many of us have done all the things you describe - and have had all the experiences you describe - and not only have we come out of that not claiming the baseless nonsense that you claim - but also have no idea what your basis is for claiming it - because you refuse to offer any - and offer insults - ad hominem and even falsehoods to cover up that failure or whatever other arrogant dismissals you proffer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Plausibility demands such bases (plural) . . . and I have that.
Great - then - for once - offer them. I have given 4 of the things you claim above - offer us this scientific basis for them of which you speak. Stop dodging.
Ah, Now I get you. And I appreciate a belly laugh to a post like mine.
Well, Something more to the universe is a more reasonable conclusion in terms of knowing and not knowing, but in terms of believing, then what that something more is needs some validation. and so far all I have seen is faith -based claims with some more of less Woo -based science to provide a framework. And as soon as it comes under scrutiny, we get the old Gap for God objections.
As to Emergence, I though my overview touching on what it pretty well known from physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology and physiology was adequate. Did I really need to explain all the detail, let alone draw maps? I can do it if needed, but that would still leave gaps.
It is worth pointing out yet again that this is the A/A forum, not philosophy, not physics, not even biology. If the question of the case for God is not the aim of the thread, it is not appropriate to the forum.
well, one of my axioms is don't curse a person that can't cut your throat. I lived that in person and it hurts. I also know what emergence is. I'll let ya know when you misuse it.
and that is it for me arg. For now, I look for base axioms to use in making choices. Every discussion I have with "myself" refers back to "self evident" axiom(s). My #1 axiom: I apply the scientific method. I Take it to "not me". I take it to people that don't like me and see what they say. I give it to as many people willing to think about it as I can. Then I rethink it and retest it. My #2 axiom: I look for conclusion(s) that hold up under as many human conditions as possible. None hold up under every condition. I can describe why that is, but not now. beside You know.
an axiom (they have no order): "something more complex" is more reasonable than "no nothing more complexes". This one conclusion has held up under the simplest cross check of "emergence". again! (like 1000's) It holds up under far more cross examining using "deeper" science. And It has held up to you.
So what is this forum about again? no nothing? is the only reasonable conclusion? The 'real and only truth"? "we have clarity logic and reason and they don't?" I have been called names, put down, quoted out of context, ignored and banned for saying "no nothing' is not a reasonable conclusion compared to "something more", based on what we know. No-ba-Jesus I felt like I was in a Christian forum. Mort will say its a "hook". well, yeah, when we practice honesty others can use it against us. But "honesty" first when you go to "crush" memes that are residing in a human protein water bottle. At least for me... When truthful, turning off a set of memes is fine. Some meme mixtures are very dangerous. Like "literal religion memes"
now I need another base "valid" axiom. Nobody should have just one, that's stupid. what base axiom do you want to test in this forum? and why? I would like to add one from you to mine.
The problem with mystics trying to talk to atheists
The problem with mystics trying to talk to atheists is the only thing atheists focus on are the ultimate conclusions for which they want evidence. There is no evidence for the ultimate conclusions that is NOT subjective and the result of personal experiences. No matter how many times this is pointed out there is no comprehension. It makes me want to utter one of my favorite expressions from Saturday Night Live . . . "Jane you ignorant . . . " There is a plethora of extant knowledge that provides the plausible bases (plural) for my extrapolations and ultimate conclusions. Atheists do not like the inferences I draw from the science but they are not "baseless" because there is definitely science that provides that BASIS for the extrapolations and hypotheses. Repeatedly asserting that there is not one shred of evidence for the ultimate conclusions is disingenuous . . . because I never claim that there IS . . . only that there is science that provides a BASIS for extrapolating and confirming what I personally experience as true. To those who refuse to see this or deny that my Synthesis has provided an extensive supporting BASIS for my ultimate conclusions . . . I can only say . . . "Jane you ignorant . . ."
well, one of my axioms is don't curse a person that can't cut your throat. I lived that in person and it hurts. I also know what emergence is. I'll let ya know when you misuse it.
and that is it for me arg. For now, I look for base axioms to use in making choices. Every discussion I have with "myself" refers back to "self evident" axiom(s). My #1 axiom: I apply the scientific method. I Take it to "not me". I take it to people that don't like me and see what they say. I give it to as many people willing to think about it as I can. Then I rethink it and retest it. My #2 axiom: I look for conclusion(s) that hold up under as many human conditions as possible. None hold up under every condition. I can describe why that is, but not now. beside You know.
an axiom (they have no order): "something more complex" is more reasonable than "no nothing more complexes". This one conclusion has held up under the simplest cross check of "emergence". again! (like 1000's) It holds up under far more cross examining using "deeper" science. And It has held up to you.
So what is this forum about again? no nothing? is the only reasonable conclusion? The 'real and only truth"? "we have clarity logic and reason and they don't?" I have been called names, put down, quoted out of context, ignored and banned for saying "no nothing' is not a reasonable conclusion compared to "something more", based on what we know. No-ba-Jesus I felt like I was in a Christian forum. Mort will say its a "hook". well, yeah, when we practice honesty others can use it against us. But "honesty" first when you go to "crush" memes that are residing in a human protein water bottle. At least for me... When truthful, turning off a set of memes is fine. Some meme mixtures are very dangerous. Like "literal religion memes"
now I need another base "valid" axiom. Nobody should have just one, that's stupid. what base axiom do you want to test in this forum? and why? I would like to add one from you to mine.
I have 9 axioms so far.
No 5. It takes far less words to say: "There are fairies at the bottom of my garden." than to explain why there probably aren't.
To those who refuse to see this or deny that my Synthesis has provided an extensive supporting BASIS for my ultimate conclusions . . . I can only say . . . "Jane you ignorant . . ."
Yes, we can all plainly see that emotionally-charged insults are all you have for people who don't accept your faith-based claims on the matter. I can't imagine why you are happy representing yourself with this sort of behavior, but it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in the rationality of your beliefs.
No 5. It takes far less words to say: "There are fairies at the bottom of my garden." than to explain why there probably aren't.
lmao, pretty writing again. Its funny, I knew you had wto choices. BS or nothing. Do you have 1 real one? That fits more conditions than just "your feeling"? I mean this No 5 is not a rational axiom. It's nothing more than blind faith your part. It doesn't hold up to anything. If ya want to explore the things around us that that are "real", that's one thing. If you want to defend an irrational personal "feeling" that drive people's choices, that's another.
that fact remains in the "real world". Based on emergence.
1) claiming something more is more rational than claiming fairies and "no nothing" combined.
2) claiming that organisms can and do connect with their surroundings is more rational then claiming they do not connect with their surroundings.
again, I'll try a "real" axiom, if ya want.
Ima not into a fairy tales and such
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.
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.
The problem with mystics trying to talk to atheists
