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 describe how the universe works, well, you know what I mean, and then people start calling me names.
Not a real theist
not a real atheist
sortagodder
humanist
materialist
the list goes on ...
If the descriptions fits their agenda I am insightful
if the descriptors don't fit their agenda I am stupid
the funny thing is, if they took the time to list what I say about how the universe works it really doesn't change. The personal needs of a person changes from person to person. Rarely do we find a person truly in the middle
AA...you more than "get it". You use the best possible starting point..."How The Universe Works"...and proceed from there. If someone has better...I've yet to see it.
It only bothers those afflicted with headtrips based in bias and emotional issues.
Qualia requires subjectivity and subjectivity requires a subject. Gaylen wants us to believe that the subject is reality itself and we are just individual manifestations of it. That is no different than my view that reality is God and we are individual manifestations reproducing God's consciousness (subjectivity).
The Reality Is God concept you were so magnanimous to take the time to explain to me...is so on point, reasonable, and logical, it helped me to find God!
Your hypothesis as to the inner workings of it all...the unified field manifesting through consciousness...is an illation more than worthy of consideration and contemplation.
I get so lost in all those names because I just don't know what they mean, and then if I read about it, it somehow gets lost, and so I have a big box for that.
You won't find out asking Arach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
AA...you more than "get it". You use the best possible starting point..."How The Universe Works"...and proceed from there. If someone has better...I've yet to see it.
It only bothers those afflicted with headtrips based in bias and emotional issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
The Reality Is God concept you were so magnanimous to take the time to explain to me...is so on point, reasonable, and logical, it helped me to find God!
Your hypothesis as to the inner workings of it all...the unified field manifesting through consciousness...is an illation more than worthy of consideration and contemplation.
I am so glad that you three have finally Found each other. I hope you'll all be very happy.
I am so glad that you three have finally Found each other. I hope you'll all be very happy.
lmao. you don't get it. Or you willfully ignore the point.
In science, we layout all the data and come up with a storyline that links those data sets as best we can. We come up with "unifying theories" that describes and predicts the events around us when possible.
You do not use science unless it fits your agenda. Your is "anti-religion" first, how the universe works second. I mean, come on now. Who else answers to a belief statement first?
For examples
1) Plate tectonics.
It is an unifying theory in geology. i don't care if we called it shell movement or cover wrinkles. I only care that the theory lines up with the data sets, observations, and models we have.
You arg, you play a different game. Your play is based on your belief statement. You are bound to answer to your belief statement first. You shun, ignore, minimize anything that doesn't fit your belief statement.
You anti-religion will ignore parts of the universe's working to maintain a belief, here, anti-religion.
2) gld is a good example. His observations that little pieces of the universe interact to make bigger pieces of the universe are valid. Its a valid claim.
I don't call it all powerful oz, I call it the universe. But his reasons are sound. that's a fact.
the observations are valid. You challenge the word "god". Your choices are based on the emotional reaction you have to the word "god", not the observations he is using to come up with the unifying theory.
what other group do we know that change to conform to a belief about "god"?
3) My question to you. How would you best describe the biosphere's interactions as whole? Life, non-life, or in between (like virus). or come up with one to talk about.
You answer "natural". That answer is a red flag. Then you told me when I pointed out the major disconnect that answer has to the question, you said "I gave it and i don't care if you don't like it.". Who else says things like that with such a simple science question? when the questions counters a personal need?
I hate to tell you trans, you and your sick kicks are not out to describe how the universe works. You are out to convert people. maddy actually believes she knows what best for public consumption, which I actually understand myself.
"anti-religion" is not what's best to be forcing on people. Teaching people where their beliefs line up with science and don't line up with science is whats better than you know best. That will weaken "big religions hold".
"anti-religion" is not the flag to be fighting under when fighting for freedom, liberty, and justice for all people.
example;
"gay rights", I am for giving every person the rights we all get. Hmmm, I never said anything about religion.
gay is against god". First, lets talk about what god is "enter universe". Actually Gay can't be against the universe because the way the body works. Things like hormones, physical make up, and mind set determine the sexual preference of people.
Hmmmm, never did I say "anti-religion" or the word "god." My as premis is teaching people how to believe based on what we do know. That is different than you. i don't care what you believe. I care how you believe.
yes, don't ask arach if you don't know or have stupid agenda of anti-religion or "my god only" agenda. He will not bit on such personal emotions deciding on how the universe works.
Qualia requires subjectivity and subjectivity requires a subject. Gaylen wants us to believe that the subject is reality itself and we are just individual manifestations of it. That is no different than my view that reality is God and we are individual manifestations reproducing God's consciousness (subjectivity).
I wouldn't say that it is "no different" although I can see that the differences are subtle and could be easy to overlook. And, of course, it still depends on your concept of God.
Based on comments in this thread and elsewhere, I think I have failed to explain my concept of "self = an Aristotelian universal." Unfortunately I can't think of a way to explain it any better than I already have. But for the purposes of the current distinction I want to make, all that matters is that this concept of self-as-a-universal does not logically imply the existence of anything that most people would call "God". (But the existence of a "Cosmic Mind" etc. is not logically excluded either, which is why I have to be agnostic until better evidence comes along.) If one is going to call the universe "God" then the most likely scenario is that "God" is a Being with an infinitely extreme version of MPD (Multiple personalities). If my theory of self is correct then, yes, ontologically-speaking there is only one qualitative "feeling of being me" that we all share, and one could call this feeling "God", but epistemologically-speaking it is possible that "God" will never be cured of the MPD, in which case the ontological fact of unity would be a "difference that makes no difference" insofar as anyone's personal experiences are concerned. It could be that when you die, your experiences simply end, just as most atheists imagine. There is nothing inherent in the "self=universal" concept to guarantee immortal conscious experience from the perspective of any given individual. In other words, consciousness in some sense might be eternal so long as complex physical universes are eternal, but unless the functions of my physical life (especially some more or less neural encoding of memories) are instantiated beyond this particular physical body, "I" won't have the personal experience of transitioning to an afterlife, or anything of that sort.
The key thing to realize about my concept of "self=universal" is that it is a type of ontology that would, in principle, allow for immorality and/or some sort of top-level God-consciousness but, most likely, in order for any "higher-level" and/or immortal personal narratives (i.e., "immortal souls" in the usual terminology) to exist, some clever and highly-advanced civilization would need to employ some as-yet undiscovered physical laws in such a way so as to make this happen in physical systems. Personally, I think that the infinite multiverse is probably the right sort of system wherein Reality could find a way to "cure itself" of the "MPD" which means that I think that I will probably experience something more or less like "immoral life" - but it is all speculative. What's missing (in my theory) is any fundamental top-level Intelligent Designer to make it all happen. If God-consciousness and/or immortal personal narratives are going to happen, it will ultimately need to be a "bottom-up" evolution-style affair, not a matter of Divine top-down design work. Luckily, we understand the basic principles that would allow for the necessary bottom-up evolution to occur. And, given an infinite multiverse, I personally suspect that the necessary evolutionary steps toward curing the MPD are probably inevitable (and have probably, to some extent, "always already occurred").
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 03-30-2018 at 08:01 AM..
i wouldn't say that it is "no different" although i can see that the differences are subtle and could be easy to overlook. And, of course, it still depends on your concept of god.
Based on comments in this thread and elsewhere, i think i have failed to explain my concept of "self = an aristotelian universal." unfortunately i can't think of a way to explain it any better than i already have. But for the purposes of the current distinction i want to make, all that matters is that this concept of self-as-a-universal does not logically imply the existence of anything that most people would call "god". (but the existence of a "cosmic mind" etc. Is not logically excluded either, which is why i have to be agnostic until better evidence comes along.) if one is going to call the universe "god" then the most likely scenario is that "god" is a being with an infinitely extreme version of mpd (multiple personalities). If my theory of self is correct then, yes, ontologically-speaking there is only one qualitative "feeling of being me" that we all share, and one could call this feeling "god", but epistemologically-speaking it is possible that "god" will never be cured of the mpd, in which case the ontological fact of unity would be a "difference that makes no difference" insofar as anyone's personal experiences are concerned. It could be that when you die, your experiences simply end, just as most atheists imagine. There is nothing inherent in the "self=universal" concept to guarantee immortal conscious experience from the perspective of any given individual. In other words, consciousness in some sense might be eternal so long as complex physical universes are eternal, but unless the functions of my physical life (especially some more or less neural encoding of memories) are instantiated beyond this particular physical body, "i" won't have the personal experience of transitioning to an afterlife, or anything of that sort.
The key thing to realize about my concept of "self=universal" is that it is a type of ontology that would, in principle, allow for immorality or some sort of top-level god-consciousness, but in order for any "higher-level" and/or immortal personal narratives (i.e., "immortal souls" in the usual terminology) to exist, some clever and highly-advanced civilization would need to employ some as-yet undiscovered physical laws in such a way so as to make this happen in physical systems. Personally, i think that the infinite multiverse is probably the right sort of system wherein reality could find a way to "cure itself" of the "mpd" which means that i think that i will probably experience something more or less like "immoral life" - but it is all speculative. What's missing (in my theory) is any fundamental top-level intelligent designer to make it all happen. If god-consciousness and/or immortal personal narratives are going to happen, it will ultimately need to be a "bottom-up" affair, not a matter of divine top-down design work. Luckily, we understand the basic principles that would allow for the necessary bottom-up evolution to occur. and, given an infinite multiverse, i personally suspect that the necessary evolutionary steps toward curing the mpd are probably inevitable.
bingo!!!!
my point since day-1 here. The first few days where mordrant said "although valid we shouldn't talk about it because it makes our job at converting people to atheism."
AA...you more than "get it". You use the best possible starting point..."How The Universe Works"...and proceed from there. If someone has better...I've yet to see it.
It only bothers those afflicted with headtrips based in bias and emotional issues.
little pieces of the universe working together to make bigger pieces of the universe.
friggen simple.
and trans and his groupies are at war because of the word "god".
the word "god" is an inkblot test.
say the word, watch what happens.
foaming at the mouth, glazed eyes, and snarling give us a clue.
usually, Literal theist denominations and literal anti-religious atheist denominations will have a positive test for infection.
I'd like to take a moment to synergistically "combine" my two previous posts. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that I'm right about all that stuff in my previous post, and let's also suppose that, for whatever reason, the "MPD" is ultimately incurable. Then, for all practical purposes, the atheists have it right insofar as most religious beliefs are concerned. There would be no personal narratives involving experiences of life after death and no higher-level loving Intelligence paying any attention to human affairs, etc. The fact of the equation "self=universal" would, in that case, be an ontological fact of Reality that ultimately makes no difference to anyone's personal experiences as their life-narratives unfold and eventually end.
Personally, my sense of adventure and curiosity leads me to hope that the MPD can be cured to some extent and that somehow I will, indeed, discover that I have continued experiences after the death of this particular body. But, oddly enough, I do not find the "atheists-end-up-being-right" scenario to be depressing, and even if this somewhat "worst-case-scenario" is true, there are still some amazing avenues of profound spiritual meaning. This is where my prior post comes into play. The "atheists-are-right" scenario does absolutely no damage whatsoever to the things I said about my fascination with the Ultimate Mystery. The logic of Existential Absurdity is utterly impervious to any Theist vs. Atheist considerations. Whatever else turns out to be true or not-true about the nature of Reality, the Existentialist Mystery is rock-solid and, for me, it is a "spiritual plus" - a "safety net" of sorts that prevents me from ever thinking - so long as rational thought remains an option for me - that life is completely meaningless/hopeless and/or I am completely alone. The irony here is mind-boggling. The very point of Existentialist Absurdity is that Existence, as such, cannot possibly have a "prior purpose" or "pre-given meaning" of the sort that most traditional theists think that God provides but, as I tried to explain in the earlier post, it is precisely the Mystery inherent in Absurdity, along with the fact that all consciousness shares in this Mystery, that I find so spiritually moving. We are all undeniably "One" in this. No matter what else is or is not true about Reality, we are all "metaphysical blood brothers", so to speak. If God exists, then even God shares this with us.
And, finally, even if the MPD is utterly incurable in any practical physical terms, it is still possible, in principle, to "realize" the Unity of Self. The potential mechanisms are a bit more than I want to explain at the moment, but for any particular person the bottom-line experiential nature of this realization could be something along the lines of a Mystical Insight and I suspect that this sort of insight could easily take a form similar to what MPhD has described as his feeling of "God is Love." Mystics throughout the ages have had experiences that they have interpreted in various ways and I suspect that these interpretations have been heavily influenced by personal life histories and cultural contexts, but - despite the different interpretations - I suspect that these experiences are not just chemistry that has randomly gone haywire. I have some reasons to believe that the structures of conscious - the "facts of Reality" that ground the existence and nature of conscious experience - leave room for knowledge that is not reducible to rational prose.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 03-30-2018 at 09:07 AM..
I'd like to take a moment to synergistically "combine" my two previous posts. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that I'm right about all that stuff in my previous post, and let's also suppose that, for whatever reason, the "MPD" is ultimately incurable. Then, for all practical purposes, the atheists have it right insofar as most religious beliefs are concerned. There would be no personal narratives involving experiences of life after death and no higher-level loving Intelligence paying any attention to human affairs, etc. The fact of the equation "self=universal" would, in that case, be an ontological fact of Reality that ultimately makes no difference to anyone's personal experiences as their life-narratives unfold and eventually end.
Personally, my sense of adventure and curiosity leads me to hope that the MPD can be cured to some extent and that somehow I will, indeed, discover that I have continued experiences after the death of this particular body. But, oddly enough, I do not find the "atheists-end-up-being-right" scenario to be depressing, and even if this somewhat "worst-case-scenario" is true, there are still some amazing avenues of profound spiritual meaning. This is where my prior post comes into play. The "atheists-are-right" scenario does absolutely no damage whatsoever to the things I said about my fascination with the Ultimate Mystery. The logic of Existential Absurdity is utterly impervious to any Theist vs. Atheist considerations. Whatever else turns out to be true or not-true about the nature of Reality, the Existentialist Mystery is rock-solid and, for me, it is a "spiritual plus" - a "safety net" of sorts that prevents me from ever thinking - so long as rational thought remains an option for me - that life is completely meaningless/hopeless and/or I am completely alone. The irony here is mind-boggling. The very point of Existentialist Absurdity is that Existence, as such, cannot possibly have a "prior purpose" or "pre-given meaning" of the sort that most traditional theists think that God provides but, as I tried to explain in the earlier post, it is precisely the Mystery inherent in Absurdity, along with the fact that all consciousness shares in this Mystery, that I find so spiritually moving. We are all undeniably "One" in this. No matter what else is or is not true about Reality, we are all "metaphysical blood brothers", so to speak. If God exists, then even God shares this with us.
And, finally, even if the MPD is utterly incurable in any practical physical terms, it is still possible, in principle, to "realize" the Unity of Self. The potential mechanisms are a bit more than I want to explain at the moment, but for any particular person the bottom-line experiential nature of this realization could be something along the lines of a Mystical Insight and I suspect that this sort of insight could easily take a form similar to what MPhD has described as his feeling of "God is Love." Mystics throughout the ages have had experiences that they have interpreted in various ways and I suspect that these interpretations have been heavily influenced by personal life histories and cultural contexts, but - despite the different interpretations - I suspect that these experiences are not just chemistry that has randomly gone haywire. I have some reasons to believe that the structures of conscious - the "facts of Reality" that ground the existence and nature of conscious experience - leave room for knowledge that is not reducible to rational prose.
your point is, we cannot separate us, and our emotion, from the universe. Its that simple. the universe self organized and is quantum computing right now.
jesus meant just that when he said "I and the father are one". I mean for what they didn't know, mighty fine job on his part. I must admit,I am more of a washington, lincoln, sherman, and lee man myself, but jesus was a good dude for sure.
your point is, we cannot separate us, and our emotion, from the universe. Its that simple. the universe self organized and is quantum computing right now.
jesus meant just that when he said "I and the father are one". I mean for what they didn't know, mighty fine job on his part. I must admit,I am more of a washington, lincoln, sherman, and lee man myself, but jesus was a good dude for sure.
That Jesus guy...as good as it gets.
Summed up the formula for the ideal way of human conduct and interaction with three words: "Love Each Other".
I know that many others said the same...but never with the same leverage and mojo he did.
2000 years removed and he is STILL the most influential person. We even mark the date based upon him! There will never be another with that enduring stature and standing.
And this is from a completely nonreligious standpoint.
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.
I am so glad that you three have finally Found each other. I hope you'll all be very happy.
