Mind and Matter (atheism, demons, Universe, recall)

[fishbrains]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

Complete nonsense. You don't know what matter is. And you don't know what information is.

Sure I do. Matter is the physical stuff that makes up the universe. Information is the description of that physical stuff. This isn't hard.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The universe is made of a unified field that manifests as various vibratory events like photons, particles, atom, molecules, consciousness, etc. The Standard model can account for many of those manifestations but NOT the manifestations in consciousness including information. The information is an abstraction at the level of consciousness above materiality as are the other cognitive constructs that consciousness interprets from the actual data manifestations in the Standard Model.

Another one of your faith assertions without evidence.

Both of you are trying to pass off information as some sort of mystical thing. It simply isn't. Information is a description of knowledge and characteristics. That is all. Information does not have an independent existence as a thing.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

It isn't QUITE understood YET????

You are doing the familiar error of implying that something completely unknown is close to being understood.

And I NEVER said we don't know anything. We know that atoms are made of particles and molecules are made of atoms, etc. We know something, and I never said we don't know anything. I hear that accusation all the time from materialists. You know some things. Many others you don't know. And one of the things you DO NOT KNOW is what matter is made of.

So without knowing what matter is made of, your belief that everything is made out matter has no meaning.

I don't think you're getting the point. You accept that we know quite a lot -compared to knowing nothing, I mean. There's a lot to find out about what matter/energy and 'Information' (in terms of what the basic stuff of matter/energy is and what it does-like Quantum/string -theory). The point is that we know enough that we don't have to postulate some cosmic mind doing it all. Using 'we don't know what it is' as as some kind of argument for that is no more than a gap for God argument.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

Atheists won't open their minds and hearts to direct spiritual experiences. And if they had one, they could always say it was a hallucination. That's how they explain away everything they don't like.

Good description of a Christian faced with verifiable evidence that his beliefs are not true..

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

Well fine, I never said anything to contradict that.

Yes you did. You claimed Darwin's theory claimed that members of a species are born slightly different from each other. That is not how evolution works at all and I doubt that Darwin would have said what you claimed. Again, it works by organisms/species having to adapt to their environment in order to survive and they will do so with the least expenditure of resources and energy that they can get away with. New generations of a species may not need to adapt so they don't change. I gave you the crocodile as an example.

Originally Posted by nateswift

Well, yes, but "survival of the fittest" assumes an environmental "cutting edge."

...but it isn't "survival of the fittest". That is just a nonsense phrase that has come about from those that don't really understand. Species don't always get stronger or 'fitter' in order to survive. Sometimes they will will get weaker or smaller if by doing so it uses less resources and survives just as well. It's not all about being the fittest and strongest. Many insects have evolved and survived whilst things with the size and strength of an elephant have not.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

It isn't QUITE understood YET????

You are doing the familiar error of implying that something completely unknown is close to being understood.

And I NEVER said we don't know anything. We know that atoms are made of particles and molecules are made of atoms, etc. We know something, and I never said we don't know anything. I hear that accusation all the time from materialists. You know some things. Many others you don't know. And one of the things you DO NOT KNOW is what matter is made of.

So without knowing what matter is made of, your belief that everything is made out matter has no meaning.

It means we have evidence. We are still waiting for some from you.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

Complete nonsense. You don't know what matter is. And you don't know what information is.

We are still waiting for you to tell us which definition of information you are talking about. Because just saying information tells us nothing. It certainly does not lead to an intelligent universe.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

You are ignorant of modern physics then. If Einstein had figured out what matter is, then physicists would not still be trying, vainly, to figure it out. Why did they bother developing string theory? Which, of course, failed to answer the question. Why are they still trying?

Einstein showed the relationship between matter and energy. That does not tell us what matter is, or what energy is.

You have not been paying attention to the evolution of science.

Matter is made of atoms. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons are made up of quarks.

Wikipedia
Quark
A quark (/kwɔːrk, kwɑːrk/) is a type of elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter.

Properties
Electric charge
Quarks have fractional electric charge values – either (−​1⁄3) or (+​2⁄3) times the elementary charge (e), depending on flavor. Up, charm, and top quarks (collectively referred to as up-type quarks) have a charge of +​2⁄3 e, while down, strange, and bottom quarks (down-type quarks) have −​1⁄3 e. Antiquarks have the opposite charge to their corresponding quarks; up-type antiquarks have charges of −​2⁄3 e and down-type antiquarks have charges of +​1⁄3 e. Since the electric charge of a hadron is the sum of the charges of the constituent quarks, all hadrons have integer charges: the combination of three quarks (baryons), three antiquarks (antibaryons), or a quark and an antiquark (mesons) always results in integer charges.[63] For example, the hadron constituents of atomic nuclei, neutrons and protons, have charges of 0 e and +1 e respectively; the neutron is composed of two down quarks and one up quark, and the proton of two up quarks and one down quark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark


Wikipedia
Electron
The electron is a subatomic particle, symbol e− or β− , whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

Positive and negative charges are frequency vibrations (energy) which are responsible for the phenomenon of attraction/repulsion which in turn is responsible for quantum mechanics, the source of all ongoing change.

String theory postulates that there is a supersymmetry connection (strings) between bosons (photons) and fermions (quarks) that is one dimensional in nature rather than the point like "particles" or vibrating bits that we perceive.

[Good4Nothin]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

Matter is made of atoms. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons are made up of quarks.

Wikipedia
Quark
A quark (/kwɔːrk, kwɑːrk/) is a type of elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter.

Properties
Electric charge
Quarks have fractional electric charge values – either (−​1⁄3) or (+​2⁄3) times the elementary charge (e), depending on flavor. Up, charm, and top quarks (collectively referred to as up-type quarks) have a charge of +​2⁄3 e, while down, strange, and bottom quarks (down-type quarks) have −​1⁄3 e. Antiquarks have the opposite charge to their corresponding quarks; up-type antiquarks have charges of −​2⁄3 e and down-type antiquarks have charges of +​1⁄3 e. Since the electric charge of a hadron is the sum of the charges of the constituent quarks, all hadrons have integer charges: the combination of three quarks (baryons), three antiquarks (antibaryons), or a quark and an antiquark (mesons) always results in integer charges.[63] For example, the hadron constituents of atomic nuclei, neutrons and protons, have charges of 0 e and +1 e respectively; the neutron is composed of two down quarks and one up quark, and the proton of two up quarks and one down quark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark


Wikipedia
Electron
The electron is a subatomic particle, symbol e− or β− , whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

Positive and negative charges are frequency vibrations (energy) which are responsible for the phenomenon of attraction/repulsion which in turn is responsible for quantum mechanics, the source of all ongoing change.

String theory postulates that there is a supersymmetry connection (strings) between bosons (photons) and fermions (quarks) that is one dimensional in nature rather than the point like "particles" or vibrating bits that we perceive.

Now all you have to do is explain what quarks are made of.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

Of course there is a question. Do you think the universe is a mindless mechanism, or is it alive and conscious?

all of it or parts of it?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

Now all you have to do is explain what quarks are made of.

You are still missing the point. If I may posit an analogy, you are like someone arguing that car engines are driven by invisible gnomes. We explain how an engine works, and you say that combustion drives the engine, sure, you're not denying that, but we can't explain combustion. We then explain how the molecular reaction of fossil fuel, air and sparks causes a power -producing reaction, and you say that we don't know what molecules are, and when we explain, you say we don't know what particles are, and so on (1).

Do you get an inking of how much evidence that invisible Gnomes do mot drive engines you are ignoring by focussing on what basics are not yet known (and perhaps never will be) and pinning your whole argument on that, which is really irrelevant? You do the same with your argument regarding evolution, (and don't say that you accept evolution, because we know that. It is simply an attempt at misdirection n your part).

(1) It's worth noting, fellow folks and folkesses, that this is a not unfamiliar Theiopologetic ploy - to deny, deny,deny and make us explain, explain, explain, and they retreat to the next objection until we get to one where we have to say 'we don't know'. And THEN they can shout ""Ah-Hah!!!"" Another ploy is to switch to a different subject, but the tactic is the same - the "Atheist -Stumper" gambit. Find anything we can't answer or explain, and that gives them the "Ah-Hah!!". And if they can't do that, say something idiotic and try to bewilder us so they can Claim that we we 'couldn't answer'. If all else fails, try to start a fight and then flounce off claiming thatyou can't argue with the closed -minded or you won't argue with such WUDE people.

In all cases, it is Cheating.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

Now all you have to do is explain what quarks are made of.

Quarks are energetic vibrating bits variously described as closed loops or open ended strings. In much the same way that light can be described as both discrete particles and waves.