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 Yesterday, 04:05 PM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It is ironic how frequently you use the very arguments that you decry when they are used to defend God - "it just exists" and the like. Then you are not paying close enough attention. For one thing, you miss the essential feature of my view that our Reality exists in the consciousness field of God = unified field. Existing in consciousness means that God's imagination is the mechanism by which our little reality exists within God's consciousness. To paraphrase Sir James Jeans - our reality is more like a great thought than a physical mechanism. I have confidence you can extrapolate from there.
he doesn't care mystic.

he'll change what we say whenever he has to. thats how anti-god/religious operate. they know if they leave it the way we said it their statements of belief look clearly less valid.

of course, they will not addressees relative validity. meaning, what claims are more or less valid. They have to try and force people into "for us" or "against us".

the smart ones know how foolish that is.

 
Old Yesterday, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,342 posts, read 2,971,301 times
Reputation: 2026
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It is ironic how frequently you use the very arguments that you decry when they are used to defend God - "it just exists" and the like. Then you are not paying close enough attention. For one thing, you miss the essential feature of my view that our Reality exists in the consciousness field of God = unified field. Existing in consciousness means that God's imagination is the mechanism by which our little reality exists within God's consciousness. To paraphrase Sir James Jeans - our reality is more like a great thought than a physical mechanism. I have confidence you can extrapolate from there.
The problem with that simile I see is that I don't think we have the knowledge right now to compare the universe to thoughts. I don't see how we could.

It might be an interesting simile...in a poetic kind of way...but it seems like a simile without any more hardy substance to it than that.

Some metaphors, of course, are similar enough to be used to clarify things. For example, I can say "My id functions kind of like a dog. If you pet the dog and love the dog, it won't care why. It'll just like you back. if you hurt the dog...it won't care why. It may bite."

Of course, the I.D. is not a mammal...but the statement can lead to understanding within certain parameters, and can be useful that way.

Similarly, I kind of like Einstein's statement "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details." That statement could be unclear in some says. I'd say it'd be less clear than the id/dog comparison...but if you understand that Einstein was talking about wanting to understand how the universe works, it might help some people to visualize that there are reasons why things happen and why things work, and they don't just happen randomly. That'll be the case whether the universe works through the sorts of processes atheists would tend to believe in, or processes guided subtly by some kind of subtle, intelligent god that works through the laws of nature.

Your simile comparing the universe itself to thoughts though...I don't see how that helps clarify anything. That seems like it'd be jumping to conclusions at best, or making a partial comparison between two things that really may not be very similar, that may only have superficial similarities.

Nobody really understands exactly how thought works, right?
And regarding the nature of the universe...we're just hesitantly peeking over the edge, trying to understand something about the underlying nature of reality so far as I know.

My main point is that...I've seen none of your views that are interesting in anything more than a kind of poetic, potentially emotionally pleasing sort of way. I've read nothing that clarifies the nature of reality through comparing it to the thoughts of God, or to a God. I've read nothing in your statements about the universe that point to anything standing out as having characteristics that we might describe a god as having that we wouldn't have more reason to just describe a godless universe as having.

The big problem I see with calling something "God" that is not the traditional sentient, universe-ruling being is that nobody knows what, exactly is meant...so that warrants a detailed explanation...and you don't give that. You didn't give a detailed explanation of what you meant by "God" in your synthesis either, or why you felt that "God" is a fitting definition.

That sort of stuff sends people running around wondering you're talking about simple metaphors for the universe, or intelligent beings, or something in between, or whatever.

I could understand Einstein's and other's poetic way of describing God and dislike of atheists because he felt they were more of a social activist group. You get pretty unclear with stuff though...and you go into a lot of detail about your views, and I don't understand why you do that, given that you don't get around to describing just what you mean when you say "God."

Last edited by Clintone; Yesterday at 08:22 PM..
 
Old Yesterday, 08:19 PM
 
40,034 posts, read 26,715,004 times
Reputation: 6047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
The problem with that simile I see is that I don't think we have the knowledge right now to compare the universe to thoughts. I don't see how we could.
If we did understand (we don't) our imagination, we would understand how creation from nothing is achievable. Think about the great movie Avatar created from nothing but creative imagination within human consciousness. If the unified field that establishes our Reality is indeed a consciousness field all your objections and questions become irrelevant.

Last edited by MysticPhD; Yesterday at 09:26 PM..
 
Old Yesterday, 08:28 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,342 posts, read 2,971,301 times
Reputation: 2026
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
If we did understand (we don't) our imagination, we would understand how creation from nothing is achievable. Think about the great movie Avatar created from nothing but creative imagination within human consciousness. If the unified field that establishes our Reality is indeed a consciousness field all your objections and questions become irrelevant.

I
Not necessarily...because thoughts may not be composed of the same "stuff" or work the same way as the rest of the universe. In fact, given how different they are from the rest of the universe...I would strongly suspect they wouldn't work any way remotely like most of the universe.

Your statement is the equivalent of saying, "If we know fire burns wood into new substances, we'll understand how black holes work."

It's just different stuff that we're talking about, and their properties probably don't have much to do with each other.

If the universe is a consciousness field...there's still a WHOLE LOT we don't know about that field. I think you're jumping the gun a bit. It may not be a consciousness field that works anything like our thoughts.
 
Old Yesterday, 08:56 PM
 
40,034 posts, read 26,715,004 times
Reputation: 6047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
Not necessarily...because thoughts may not be composed of the same "stuff" or work the same way as the rest of the universe. In fact, given how different they are from the rest of the universe...I would strongly suspect they wouldn't work any way remotely like most of the universe.

Your statement is the equivalent of saying, "If we know fire burns wood into new substances, we'll understand how black holes work."

It's just different stuff that we're talking about, and their properties probably don't have much to do with each other.
You must have missed the factor that rebuts your assertions - the unified field in my view IS a consciousness field making whatever is possible by imagination in consciousness the controlling variable in God's mind.

[For interesting ruminations: The implications of this for the phenomenon of Jesus in the narrative is that if He DID indeed achieve the same consciousness as God ("mind of God") His "mind of Christ" (Identical to God = perfect resonance) then His purported miracles would be consistent with His authority.]
 
Old Yesterday, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,342 posts, read 2,971,301 times
Reputation: 2026
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You must have missed the factor that rebuts your assertions - the unified field in my view IS a consciousness field making whatever is possible by imagination in consciousness the controlling variable in God's mind.
Nothing you typed rebuts my assertions. I responded to this post of yours:

Quote:
If we did understand (we don't) our imagination, we would understand how creation from nothing is achievable. Think about the great movie Avatar created from nothing but creative imagination within human consciousness. If the unified field that establishes our Reality is indeed a consciousness field all your objections and questions become irrelevant.
In that post of yours, you never mentioned anything about that purely applying to your worldview. Therefore, my post remains accurate. It was rational to conclude you were jumping to conclusions.

Quote:
[For interesting ruminations: The implications of this for the phenomenon of Jesus in the narrative is that if He DID indeed achieve the same consciousness as God ("mind of God") His "mind of Christ" (Identical to God = perfect resonance) then His purported miracles would be consistent with His authority.]
I am, however, beginning to understand your worldview a little better, I think. Now I have something I can research. I read your synthesis. I do thank you for going over that with me. It just didn't really get me to understand what your worldview really was in a way I found useful.
 
Old Today, 08:08 AM
Status: "Scarface IS fiction!" (set 5 days ago)
 
Location: Germany
5,028 posts, read 932,188 times
Reputation: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It is ironic how frequently you use the very arguments that you decry when they are used to defend God - "it just exists" and the like.
It would be if that was what I was doing. God just existing is an assertion. Existing things having properties and behaviors is both observed and a logical necessity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Then you are not paying close enough attention. For one thing, you miss the essential feature of my view that our Reality exists in the consciousness field of God = unified field. Existing in consciousness means that God's imagination is the mechanism by which our little reality exists within God's consciousness. To paraphrase Sir James Jeans - our reality is more like a great thought than a physical mechanism. I have confidence you can extrapolate from there.
You need to pay attention to what I actually asked, your usual word salad and question begging does not answer my question. Your Arach like evasion is noted.
 
Old Today, 08:17 AM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
The problem with that simile I see is that I don't think we have the knowledge right now to compare the universe to thoughts. I don't see how we could.

It might be an interesting simile...in a poetic kind of way...but it seems like a simile without any more hardy substance to it than that.

Some metaphors, of course, are similar enough to be used to clarify things. For example, I can say "My id functions kind of like a dog. If you pet the dog and love the dog, it won't care why. It'll just like you back. if you hurt the dog...it won't care why. It may bite."

Of course, the I.D. is not a mammal...but the statement can lead to understanding within certain parameters, and can be useful that way.

Similarly, I kind of like Einstein's statement "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details." That statement could be unclear in some says. I'd say it'd be less clear than the id/dog comparison...but if you understand that Einstein was talking about wanting to understand how the universe works, it might help some people to visualize that there are reasons why things happen and why things work, and they don't just happen randomly. That'll be the case whether the universe works through the sorts of processes atheists would tend to believe in, or processes guided subtly by some kind of subtle, intelligent god that works through the laws of nature.

Your simile comparing the universe itself to thoughts though...I don't see how that helps clarify anything. That seems like it'd be jumping to conclusions at best, or making a partial comparison between two things that really may not be very similar, that may only have superficial similarities.

Nobody really understands exactly how thought works, right?
And regarding the nature of the universe...we're just hesitantly peeking over the edge, trying to understand something about the underlying nature of reality so far as I know.

My main point is that...I've seen none of your views that are interesting in anything more than a kind of poetic, potentially emotionally pleasing sort of way. I've read nothing that clarifies the nature of reality through comparing it to the thoughts of God, or to a God. I've read nothing in your statements about the universe that point to anything standing out as having characteristics that we might describe a god as having that we wouldn't have more reason to just describe a godless universe as having.

The big problem I see with calling something "God" that is not the traditional sentient, universe-ruling being is that nobody knows what, exactly is meant...so that warrants a detailed explanation...and you don't give that. You didn't give a detailed explanation of what you meant by "God" in your synthesis either, or why you felt that "God" is a fitting definition.

That sort of stuff sends people running around wondering you're talking about simple metaphors for the universe, or intelligent beings, or something in between, or whatever.

I could understand Einstein's and other's poetic way of describing God and dislike of atheists because he felt they were more of a social activist group. You get pretty unclear with stuff though...and you go into a lot of detail about your views, and I don't understand why you do that, given that you don't get around to describing just what you mean when you say "God."
now thats a rational counter argument ...

what they are looking at is "data processing". is the system "processing information in a meaningful manor". Its looking like it is. That all people like me say.

I like the part " ... looking in between ...". there is no biblegod thingie (or anything like that) but denying everything is just as irrational.

so yes, whats in between? what is the best interpretation we have for "in-between"?
 
Old Today, 08:19 AM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
It would be if that was what I was doing. God just existing is an assertion. Existing things having properties and behaviors is both observed and a logical necessity.



You need to pay attention to what I actually asked, your usual word salad and question begging does not answer my question. Your Arach like evasion is noted.
lamo ... yeah ... right tough guy.

thats why you last resort is 'I'll report you if anything you say lines up with what science says."

lmao ... i'll report you if your claims line up with science ... rotf lamo
 
Old Today, 09:50 AM
 
Location: WV and Eastport, ME
11,172 posts, read 10,989,569 times
Reputation: 7412
Here's what's wrong:

We don't know what this thread is supposed to be about. We (the moderators) watched closely to make sure we weren't seeing something that should have been posted in the Science forum. We finally asked what this was about, but got no response.

As the thread has gone on, we have had to deal with numerous reports, basically because two of you have been bickering with each other instead of discussing the topic.

We couldn't discuss it privately because Harry has his account set so he doesn't accept Direct Messages. Arach's posts seldom make much sense. If we ask for clarification, the response leaves us just as confused as before. Then, in a thread [possibly] about science denial, we keep finding a bunch of silly posts about imagination and the universe.

So, rather than issue infractions that would have at least three of you sitting on the sidelines, we are closing this thread. For he reasons stated above, we are taking this opportunity to [strongly] suggest that Arach and Harry from this time forth stop responding to each other. We are also suggesting that further mention of the universe, biosphere, and anything else that tries to circumvent the forum rules will be dealt as if it is a blatant violation.

__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html
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