U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-09-2019, 12:20 PM
 
40,056 posts, read 26,739,576 times
Reputation: 6050

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonof View Post
Do you know any other way anything gets originated, including brain activity that, in turn, produces what can be called "mindful"?

Oh, dark matter and dark energy! that's where you are coming from!
So you are equating the enormously massive amount of "something" with the enormous amount of "missing" knowledge? By this "logic", since hydrogen is 75% of what is known in the Universe you should conclude, that by learning what there is to know about hydrogen, we"d gather 75% of what there is to know about known Universe? Do you see how silly that is!!? What if DM/DE is simply a ridiculously huge amount of simplest "antihydrogen" or something, that is doing nothing, but pushing things apart and there is nothing else to know about it? After all, that's the only DM/DE effect that can be noted and measured for now, so how do you get to an assumption that it does anything else or, even worse, hides in itself 95% of what is knowable?
At your request, I will broach the subject briefly. DM/DE and consciousness are equally unmeasurable directly. We know them only by their effects on what we can measure. They comprise 95% of and are responsible for the maintenance of the entire system that is growing (accelerating expansion) without explanation. Consciousness and Life are the only known growing aspects of our Reality yet you pretend that to consider them the source of growing (expanding) Reality is silly. What do you know that I do not which explains why it is silly since I am certain you have no more idea what is causing the effects of DM/DE than anyone else. Naming them an unknown gravity source and anti-hydrogen may seem like explanations to you, but absent actual knowledge of what is involved it is capricious, at best.
Quote:
Another silly approach. Why do you need another label? We already have one - Reality. Why to invoke another, completely unnecessary one that does not add anything to our understanding of our existence and the existence of everything else we know about, but brings in a huge number of completely unnecessary
complications?
Do you see how silly that is!!?
The label God existed first so where do you get the chutzpah to claim it is invoking another? The existence of human speculations that added irrational or questionable attributes (even by consensus) is hardly a scientific reason to do so. Do you see how silly and unscientific that is?

 
Old 06-09-2019, 12:25 PM
 
39,062 posts, read 10,837,135 times
Reputation: 5085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonof View Post
Thank you for looking out for me, but I think I see what's going on and pretty much sure I can handle myself
I'm sure you can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The unknown status of our Reality is the "larger more complex system" that exists whose label rests between those two extreme labels. Neither theists nor atheists actually know WHAT it is or WHY it is, so we disagree over its label and attributes in our as yet unsatisfiable ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonof View Post
There is a confusion here.

The status can not be system. Reality can be system. Status is a state of the system at any given point in time.
If Reality is the system, then its status is well known to the highest degree of certainty. The status is - Reality exists and works predictably.

Please rephrase what you want to say without confusing things. It will help to understand your point.
I'm not at all tempted to help you out here, because I'll be interested to see whether you come to the same conclusion as everyone else (other than Mystic and possibly a disciple or two of his).
 
Old 06-09-2019, 12:30 PM
 
39,062 posts, read 10,837,135 times
Reputation: 5085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonof View Post
That would be Big Bang. How Big Bang originated and, while at it, how organic chemistry turned into biology
we don't know, but, like I said, the "God" hypothesis is still useless, so no need to get it involved.

Do you know any other way anything gets originated, including brain activity that, in turn, produces what can be called "mindful"?

Oh, dark matter and dark energy! that's where you are coming from!
So you are equating enormously massive amount of "something" with enormous amount of "missing" knowledge? By this "logic", since hydrogen is 75% of what is known in the Universe you should conclude, that by learning what there is to know about hydrogen, we"d gather 75% of of what there is to know about known Universe? Do you see how silly that is!!? What if DM/DE is simply a ridiculously huge amount of simplest "anti hydrogen" or something, that is doing nothing, but pushing things apart and there is nothing else to know about it? After all, that's the only DM/DE effect that can be noted and measured for now, so how do you get to an assumption that it does anything else or, even worse, hides in itself 95% of what is knowable?

Another silly approach. Why do you need another label? We already have one - Reality. Why to invoke another, completely unnecessary one that does not add anything to our understanding of our existence and the existence of everything else we know about, but brings in a huge number of completely unnecessary
complications?
Do you see how silly that is!!?
Doing great so far. I will risk a 'spoiler' that you are quickly reaching a conclusion that is the common one of every other poster that has engaged with Mystic.

I will toss in something that might help to clarify the issues a bit.

If everything is Intelligent, it can justifiably be called "God".

If it is not intelligent, then we call it '"Nature", "Reality" being shall we say - an attribute of 'nature'. It is what exists so far as we know and is Not intelligent (or indeed 'Living' in the biological - organic sense, for that matter) so far as we can demonstrate.

If anyone claims that it is Intelligent (or 'Living') let them evidence that claim.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-09-2019 at 12:40 PM..
 
Old 06-09-2019, 01:10 PM
 
40,056 posts, read 26,739,576 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Doing great so far. I will risk a 'spoiler' that you are quickly reaching a conclusion that is the common one of every other poster that has engaged with Mystic.

I will toss in something that might help to clarify the issues a bit.

If everything is Intelligent, it can justifiably be called "God".
Losing confidence that he will correctly "suss" me, Arq? I thought you were NOT going to help him reach your conclusion. Just couldn't resist poisoning the well, eh?
Quote:

If it is not intelligent, then we call it '"Nature", "Reality" being shall we say - an attribute of 'nature'. It is what exists so far as we know and is Not intelligent (or indeed 'Living' in the biological - organic sense, for that matter) so far as we can demonstrate.
If anyone claims that it is Intelligent (or 'Living') let them evidence that claim.
You have consistently NOT understood Arach's attempt to point out that every component of a living system would NOT be characterized as alive (as in a cell) which is why you miss the relevance of the "Body" analogy. Not everything that comprises your body is intelligent but that doesn't mean that you aren't (though sometimes I wonder).
 
Old 06-09-2019, 01:56 PM
 
476 posts, read 94,654 times
Reputation: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
its not about invoking another view. we are defining reality. if the traits of his god line up exactly to the traits of the system we are in who is more wrong?

you that say there is nod god or him that says I am calling the, lets say the biosphere, god?

I mean you can ask why call it god, but explain to me, why you are more right in saying there is no god?
This was directed at Sonof, who can speak for themself (and has)... but here's how I see those questions:

If what you and Mystic are really doing (or attempting to do) in these arguments is say that "god" is what we all know as the UNIVERSE... or REALITY... or the BIOSPHERE... or the SYSTEM WE ARE IN.... then the answer is that we already have terms for those things (see words in caps). At that point, if "god" is synonymous with something for which we already have a commonly-used term, then all we are doing is playing with words.

Whether we understand everything about those things is a different question entirely, and clearly we don't. But re-purposing a thing for which we already have a word and a definition, in order to call it "god," doesn't do anything to advance that understanding.
 
Old 06-09-2019, 02:58 PM
 
69 posts, read 9,634 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
DM/DE and consciousness ...
Where did consciousness come from in your argument all of a sudden?
It was just DM/DE with 95% of knowledge a post ago. Now it is DM/DE, and Consciousness, and Life...
Are you just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks? Or you need more real estate to hide "95% of available knowledge"?

BTW, I still did not hear how you came up with these 95%?
As i suggested you did, by assigning the same weight to mass and to amount of knowledge?
Or you do have some less silly way to calculate exactly how much we don't know.
Obviously, to come up with %% you need to start with some kind of ratio.
I'm very curious what you put in denominator and how you came up with that number.
 
Old 06-09-2019, 03:37 PM
 
13,493 posts, read 4,993,580 times
Reputation: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeelaMonster View Post
This was directed at Sonof, who can speak for themself (and has)... but here's how I see those questions:

If what you and Mystic are really doing (or attempting to do) in these arguments is say that "god" is what we all know as the UNIVERSE... or REALITY... or the BIOSPHERE... or the SYSTEM WE ARE IN.... then the answer is that we already have terms for those things (see words in caps). At that point, if "god" is synonymous with something for which we already have a commonly-used term, then all we are doing is playing with words.

Whether we understand everything about those things is a different question entirely, and clearly we don't. But re-purposing a thing for which we already have a word and a definition, in order to call it "god," doesn't do anything to advance that understanding.
yes ... its a play on words. Like I said, We can argue about the words. I said that no less than a million times in the last few years.

But I am asking is who is more right? I have to determine who is more valid in their claim. "something" (but a wrong word) or nothing and they are delusional.

so ..

If what they think is god is the biosphere. are they more right or wrong that something is there vs people that claim there is nothing there and the believers are delusional?

It is important to keep in mind the original claim. as per sonof, its obvious to a nine year old that we are part of a larger more complex system. I totally agree ... its obvious.

I only am considering the claims side by side for a relative validity scale. because we are short on information.

Last edited by Arach Angle; 06-09-2019 at 03:45 PM..
 
Old 06-09-2019, 03:43 PM
 
13,493 posts, read 4,993,580 times
Reputation: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonof View Post
Where did consciousness come from in your argument all of a sudden?
It was just DM/DE with 95% of knowledge a post ago. Now it is DM/DE, and Consciousness, and Life...
Are you just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks? Or you need more real estate to hide "95% of available knowledge"?

BTW, I still did not hear how you came up with these 95%?
As i suggested you did, by assigning the same weight to mass and to amount of knowledge?
Or you do have some less silly way to calculate exactly how much we don't know.
Obviously, to come up with %% you need to start with some kind of ratio.
I'm very curious what you put in denominator and how you came up with that number.
its accepted that its around 95%. closer to 96%. Sonof, thats basic info he using.

Its more sound, IMO, to approach questioning him from the angle that he is basing his claim on an unknown and maybe we should be basing our claim on a known. then the actual numbers become less important.
 
Old 06-09-2019, 03:54 PM
 
13,493 posts, read 4,993,580 times
Reputation: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonof View Post
Do you seriously want me to asses some fantasies that you can come up with?
For me, to consider all this seriously you need to show that "it" is there in a first place.
If you can not show that "it" is there before you start giving "it" some traits, then what you are doing is engaging in a mental masturbation, which is something I'm not interested to participate in.
you are avoiding the question. you are starting to see the flaw in denying everything when we actually start defining what their god may actually be. yeah, they got parts of it wrong. But they have parts of it correct too.

forget the my-god-only types. they are fools. lets look at the person believing in something vs those that deny everything. we have to put your claim next to theirs to see who is more right. whos claim fits the standard model more. your deny everything or their claim that we are connected to a larger more complex system.

are they more right in saying that something(although some of them are completely screwing it up) is there or are you more right in saying there is nothing there?

by your little tantrum, I can see that you see.

Last edited by Arach Angle; 06-09-2019 at 04:02 PM..
 
Old 06-09-2019, 04:01 PM
 
40,056 posts, read 26,739,576 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeelaMonster View Post
This was directed at Sonof, who can speak for themself (and has)... but here's how I see those questions:

If what you and Mystic are really doing (or attempting to do) in these arguments is say that "god" is what we all know as the UNIVERSE... or REALITY... or the BIOSPHERE... or the SYSTEM WE ARE IN.... then the answer is that we already have terms for those things (see words in caps). At that point, if "god" is synonymous with something for which we already have a commonly-used term, then all we are doing is playing with words.

Whether we understand everything about those things is a different question entirely, and clearly we don't. But re-purposing a thing for which we already have a word and a definition, in order to call it "god," doesn't do anything to advance that understanding.
Then you are discrediting the very process that produced your preferred words from the original word - God - or are you unaware that the science terms were born of repugnance for the term God during the period of the religious autocracy persecuting the originators of science.
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.


Closed Thread

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
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