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.
... I'm sure in the course of obtaining your master's degree you must have come across the idea that complexity is not proof of intelligent design, which is really what you are talking here....
just like using complex language is not proof of intelligence.
more often than not, particularly in a general forum such as this, it is simply bafflegabbing.
My goodness here we go again! I am using the emergent objective truths that come out of scientific research and discoveries about what is observed in our Universe.
It does not seem that you are looking but rather ascribing what you think.
Rather we have to accept what is scientifically valid and predictions which have been validated from experiments.
Since they do NOT even ask the questions raised by philosophical interpretations of ontology, they are utilitarian, NOT dispositive, Mat. Have you read ANY significantly deep philosophy or metaphysics at all?
Quote:
Again you seem to lack some very fundamental understandings. Perhaps you can think of it this way: Condensed matter is non-relativistic (recall that E = mc² is true only for an object that isn’t moving = Galilean relativity), whereas high-energy physics is relativistic = Lorentz-Poincare relativity.
What, from my myriad posts and sometimes detailed explanations of the physics could EVER lead you to conclude that I do NOT understand this????
Quote:
These well established objective scientific truths don't support your claims that everything in the Universe nothing but energy.
If you are going to claim that what science observes and tests is not reality then please come up with a better method for validating our reality. But that's not only what the measurements reveal. They reveal that Higgs boson is what gives particles mass.
You understand that a proton contributes to an atoms mass right? How so? Protons are made up of baryons which are massive particles which are made up of three quarks. Quarks are the building blocks which build up matter.
These are well established objective scientific truths that make up the Standard Model. What is the Standard Model? The Standard Model explains how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by four fundamental forces.
I use energy in preference to mass or momentum or matter strictly because it makes more sense to me. They do not support your assertion that it is mass or matter either. I use energy because it is the closest to the unified field that is comprised of various vibratory aggregates you lovingly assume are matter. Vibrations in a field do not strike me as remotely akin to what you consider matter, Higgs Boson and the Standard model notwithstanding. Did you ever read the spherical standing wave stuff???.
Quote:
You stated blatant false claims based on your interpretation. I stated facts based on the well established and well-tested experiments which resulted in these discoveries.
I made no false claims so I would appreciate you not claiming I did. I made assertions you disagree with from your limited perspective on the science, period.
Quote:
Please don't feel hurt as I in no way think any such thing about you. I am puzzled as to why you are trying to dispel well-established science. I am disappointed in the number of people in the world today who are taking science and trying to dispel the emergent scientific objective truths.
My objective has nothing to do with dispelling "well-established emergent scientific objective truths," Mat. I am interpreting it for wholly different purposes to highlight the ultimate subjective truth of our existence.
Quote:
To be honest with you I think instead of us thinking we have it all figured out with respect to how the Universe works to create our reality/spirituality we should instead be asking questions.
The Standard Model only describes the 4% of the known universe, and many questions remain.
Will we see a unification of forces at the high energies of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)?
Why is gravity so weak?
Why is there more matter than antimatter in the universe?
Is there more exotic physics waiting to be discovered at higher energies?
Will we discover evidence for a theory called supersymmetry at the LHC?
Or understand the Higgs boson that gives particles mass?
I see nothing to disagree with here, but using that 4% or so to pretend that it can explain ALL that exists seems more than a little arrogant and hubristic, especially since the very phenomenon that enables this discernment (our consciousness) can NOT be explained by that 4%.
Quote:
From my own personal experience of Lucid Dreaming (a place where my consciousness experienced a different reality and what seemed like a different dimension) and from reading the many accounts of NDE's I come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as the "god" described in religions or humans who create their own personal "god".
I will never play "God of the gaps" because science has shown time and time again how wrong believing in a "God of the gaps" proves to be. Science will continue to make leaps and bounds and as it does our understanding of the Universe is going to evolve more and more. We must evolve with it.
We do not disagree about the man-made nature of the God concepts currently extant. But it seems more than a little bit curious that you would write off your own experiences and those of others as inapplicable to understanding our Reality given our science has access to so little of it (4%). You reject the God of the Gaps despite the fact that it is a gap corresponding to 96% of our Reality.
Quote:
Our brains are hard-wired to easily evoke "spiritual" experiences. I will not ascribe a "God of the gaps" to these experiences. Doing so blocks you from truly understanding all the wonderment that is in our Universe. Humans need a paradigm shift away from the human created concept of a "god" and all stigma associated with believing in such a "god".
So you are willing to take it as a brute fact that our brains are hard-wired for these experiences, yet you are willing to reject them as providing any insight into our Reality because of the baggage associated with the extant concepts of God. Strange. You are essentially forcing yourself to rely totally on the information about reality that the brain receives from our usual sensory system. You ignore any information that the brain might receive directly without passing through our senses.
Quote:
I think we would start to see an improvement in the human species if humans approached the world with a cosmic perspective instead of these man-created "gods"
I really cannot disagree with you about this given the counter-productive nature of so many religions.
...Have you read ANY significantly deep philosophy or metaphysics at all? ... My objective has nothing to do with dispelling "well-established emergent scientific objective truths," Mat. I am interpreting it for wholly different purposes to highlight the ultimate subjective truth of our existence.
= woo
you are peddling metaphysics, which according to you = woo
it is speculative, it is imaginative, it is created by you and as you state clearly, your speculative imaginings are your own personal interpretations to suit your own purposes
they are entirely relevant and pertinent to this thread because the opening post and your entire stance is based supposedly on logical rational thinking. I am pointing out the many ways that you do NOT demonstrate logical rational thinking. You claim to be smarter than others yet your posts clearly demonstrate that you are not smarter than others. Entirely relevant and pertinent and essential in showing the many many flaws in your arguments, and the lack of credibility in both what you argue and how you argue.
You claim to have a superior way of doing religion yet you treat people like crap. An essential part of religion and spirituality is morality, ethics, integrity, and how we treat others. If your behavior is the advertisement and poster child for "how to treat others" based on the beliefs you hold and the beliefs you promote, then your personal behavior is extremely relevant. It is the out-picturing of your religious beliefs. A large part of why people reject your "religious beliefs" is entirely because of how you treat others. That is an essential part of religion. One you consistently say is not important. Which itself speaks volumes.
You do nothing but attack ME, Tzaph. You do not address ANY of the arguments you claim are not logical ALL your complaints are Ad Hominem designed to undermine ME and trash and smear my character and credibility, NOT my views. I would report you, but I do not want my thread closed which I know would suit you perfectly.
You do nothing but attack ME, Tzaph. You do not address ANY of the arguments you claim are not logical ALL your complaints are Ad Hominem designed to undermine ME and trash and smear my character and credibility, NOT my views. I would report you, but I do not want my thread closed which I know would suit you perfectly.
behaviors are being discussed.
how we treat others is being discussed.
outpicturing our beliefs by how we interact with others is being discussed.
those are all essential to religion and spirituality.
the opening post and topic of this thread claim superiority in terms of religious beliefs.
central to religion and spirituality is how we treat others.
so our behavior is essential to any discussion of religion and spirituality.
you seem to be promoting that ideas matter, but not how we treat others that is a central flaw to the religious ideas you present and promote and condone by your own behavior.
i will say it again, that is one of the main reasons people reject the religious views you present and promote. religion is not just a bunch of ideas and that seems to be what you are promoting and focusing on to the exclusion of all else, just a bunch of cerebral ideas. what people value in religion and spirituality is a guide to ethics, morality, improving ourselves, improving how we treat others. people see you dismiss that, and that is why so many people dismiss your theories.
that is logical.
that is rational thinking.
that is common sense.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-05-2018 at 07:57 PM..
You do nothing but attack ME, Tzaph. You do not address ANY of the arguments you claim are not logical ALL your complaints are Ad Hominem designed to undermine ME and trash and smear my character and credibility, NOT my views. I would report you, but I do not want my thread closed which I know would suit you perfectly.
and it's not your thread.
all that belongs to you are your posts, your views, your words.
the thread belongs to CD forum.
the discussion is created by everyone.
you do not own this thread. it is not your thread.
You forgot to add "Trouts, 1". Welcome to the fray . I Oughtn't to be here at all, as the discussion is really low -priority in the Global Atheist Agenda [GAA](I'm sorry you aren't on the mailing list for Atheist World Supremacy [AWS] newsletter, but you have to sign an affadavit confirming allegiance to the Book of Atheist Dogma [BAD] first) but Gaylen's posts are really good.
Since they do NOT even ask the questions raised by philosophical interpretations of ontology, they are utilitarian, NOT dispositive, Mat.
This is a total non-sequitur response to what I stated.
I simply refuted you trying to pin on me how I am using science. I am not using science from any stance or purpose other than to better understand the world we exist in.
You claimed that you are using the perspective of a philosopher looking for clues to the ontology of our Reality. How exactly are you doing this? I only observe you ascribing what you think Reality is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Have you read ANY significantly deep philosophy or metaphysics at all?
Yes indeed I have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
What, from my myriad posts and sometimes detailed explanations of the physics could EVER lead you to conclude that I do NOT understand this????
You stated:
Quote:
Particles are the manifestation of packets of energy within the unified field at frequency levels too high to measure any mass - massless quanta. Obviously, quantum field theory deals with particles and so it does not use mass because they cannot measure any such thing.
This is blatantly false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I use energy in preference to mass or momentum or matter strictly because it makes more sense to me.
Now we'ere getting to the bottom of things. I think you use energy because you simply want to believe that matter does not exist and that there is no such thing as condensed matter and life is nothing but one big conscious energy.
Regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it or not...you exist in this world as matter. Your consciousness could not exist without the matter of your brain. Destroy parts of your brain and your consciousness is dramatically affected. Talk to anyone who's had a friend or loved one experience a major traumatic brain injury or stroke resulting in a shift of consciousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
They do not support your assertion that it is mass or matter either.
Who is they and what assertion are you ascribing to me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I use energy because it is the closest to the unified field that is comprised of various vibratory aggregates you lovingly assume are matter.
Current status of the Unified Field Theory is the following:
Quote:
Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics to form a theory of everything. Trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions leads to fundamental difficulties and the resulting theory is not renormalizable. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics.
Therefore your claims and speculations are meritless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Vibrations in a field do not strike me as remotely akin to what you consider matter, Higgs Boson and the Standard model notwithstanding.
Show me where I made such a claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Did you ever read the spherical standing wave stuff???
No I've been pouring over the CERN website....lot's of great information on that site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I made no false claims so I would appreciate you not claiming I did.
You absolutely made false claims...ridiculously blatant false claims!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I made assertions you disagree with from your limited perspective on the science, period.
A person who has a limited perspective on science is the one who has to make up assertions to fit their personal narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
My objective has nothing to do with dispelling "well-established emergent scientific objective truths," Mat. I am interpreting it for wholly different purposes to highlight the ultimate subjective truth of our existence.
You are not interpreting science accurately and that's the issue we keep running into.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I see nothing to disagree with here, but using that 4% or so to pretend that it can explain ALL that exists seems more than a little arrogant and hubristic, especially since the very phenomenon that enables this discernment (our consciousness) can NOT be explained by that 4%.
Do you even know what is meant by the 4%? It's the realm we exist in. It's all the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today. We simply are not able to study the Universe because we can't reach it. We can only detect electromagnetic particles and waves and just recently detected the gravitational wave. Just because we can't reach the Universe for testing does not mean you fill in the void with a "god of the gaps" narrative.
Do you realize that to date, we have explored approximately 5% of the ocean? In addition to this the ocean covers 70% of the earth's surface that humans don't exist. So does this mean that the 95% of unexplored ocean is another "god of the gaps" narrative to be generated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
But it seems more than a little bit curious that you would write off your own experiences and those of others as inapplicable to understanding our Reality given our science has access to so little of it (4%).
I did not write off my own experiences. In fact it's my experiences that lead me to the conclusion that there is no such thing as the "god" described in religions or humans who create their own personal "god". It's my experiences that tell me loud and clear that the Universe works in a way that goes against the belief systems of most humans. I think the Universe works in ways that most cannot fathom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You reject the God of the Gaps despite the fact that it is a gap corresponding to 96% of our Reality.
Again the 4% is the realm we exist in. 95% of the world’s population is concentrated on just 10% of the land surface. We understand the reality of the realm we exist in. There is no Dark Matter or Dark energy here on Earth creating confusion for scientists. We have our existence pegged here on the 10% of the land surface we exist on...recall 70% of our earth's surface is covered by ocean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
So you are willing to take it as a brute fact that our brains are hard-wired for these experiences, yet you are willing to reject them as providing any insight into our Reality because of the baggage associated with the extant concepts of God.
No I simply understand that our brains are hard wired for these experiences and insights into the "god of the gaps" argument can be laid to rest through these experiences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Strange. You are essentially forcing yourself to rely totally on the information about reality that the brain receives from our usual sensory system. You ignore any information that the brain might receive directly without passing through our senses.
Strange. How does one sense anything without a sensory system? You are aware that the sensory nervous system is the part of the nervous system responsible for processing sensory information? A sensory system consists of sensory neurons, neural pathways, and parts of the brain involved in sensory perception.
Without this sensory system can you tell me about any other methods of transducing information from the physical world to our minds for interpretation?
This is a total non-sequitur response to what I stated.
I simply refuted you trying to pin on me how I am using science. I am not using science from any stance or purpose other than to better understand the world we exist in.
You claimed that you are using the perspective of a philosopher looking for clues to the ontology of our Reality. How exactly are you doing this? I only observe you ascribing what you think Reality is.
Yes indeed I have.
You stated:
This is blatantly false.
Now we'ere getting to the bottom of things. I think you use energy because you simply want to believe that matter does not exist and that there is no such thing as condensed matter and life is nothing but one big conscious energy.
Regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it or not...you exist in this world as matter. Your consciousness could not exist without the matter of your brain. Destroy parts of your brain and your consciousness is dramatically affected. Talk to anyone who's had a friend or loved one experience a major traumatic brain injury or stroke resulting in a shift of consciousness.
Who is they and what assertion are you ascribing to me?
Current status of the Unified Field Theory is the following:
Therefore your claims and speculations are meritless.
Show me where I made such a claim.
No I've been pouring over the CERN website....lot's of great information on that site.
You absolutely made false claims...ridiculously blatant false claims!
A person who has a limited perspective on science is the one who has to make up assertions to fit their personal narrative.
You are not interpreting science accurately and that's the issue we keep running into.
Do you even know what is meant by the 4%? It's the realm we exist in. It's all the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today. We simply are not able to study the Universe because we can't reach it. We can only detect electromagnetic particles and waves and just recently detected the gravitational wave. Just because we can't reach the Universe for testing does not mean you fill in the void with a "god of the gaps" narrative.
Do you realize that to date, we have explored approximately 5% of the ocean? In addition to this the ocean covers 70% of the earth's surface that humans don't exist. So does this mean that the 95% of unexplored ocean is another "god of the gaps" narrative to be generated?
I did not write off my own experiences. In fact it's my experiences that lead me to the conclusion that there is no such thing as the "god" described in religions or humans who create their own personal "god". It's my experiences that tell me loud and clear that the Universe works in a way that goes against the belief systems of most humans. I think the Universe works in ways that most cannot fathom.
Again the 4% is the realm we exist in. 95% of the world’s population is concentrated on just 10% of the land surface. We understand the reality of the realm we exist in. There is no Dark Matter or Dark energy here on Earth creating confusion for scientists. We have our existence pegged here on the 10% of the land surface we exist on...recall 70% of our earth's surface is covered by ocean.
No I simply understand that our brains are hard wired for these experiences and insights into the "god of the gaps" argument can be laid to rest through these experiences.
Strange. How does one sense anything without a sensory system? You are aware that the sensory nervous system is the part of the nervous system responsible for processing sensory information? A sensory system consists of sensory neurons, neural pathways, and parts of the brain involved in sensory perception.
Without this sensory system can you tell me about any other methods of transducing information from the physical world to our minds for interpretation?
I give up. We do not even inhabit the same reality. You actually think I am conversing with the piece of meat that is your brain.
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.
Vibrations in a field do not strike me as remotely akin to what you consider matter, Higgs Boson and the Standard model notwithstanding. Did you ever read the spherical standing wave stuff???.
. I Oughtn't to be here at all, as the discussion is really low -priority in the Global Atheist Agenda [GAA](I'm sorry you aren't on the mailing list for Atheist World Supremacy [AWS] newsletter, but you have to sign an affadavit confirming allegiance to the Book of Atheist Dogma [BAD] first) but Gaylen's posts are really good.