Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 10-12-2020, 10:58 AM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,467,787 times
Reputation: 2070

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
To specify my previous statement, regarding the question of how our current universe came to be, when I said we'll never know...I was referring to how everything came to be, including whatever forces resulted in our universe...because that's what the question tends to come back around to anyway. If the universe emerged from the Big Bang, there remains the question, "What was the source of the big bang?"

If there's a God that created the big bang, the question remains, "what was the source of the God?"

If there was no source of the God or the big bang, the question remains, "How can a God exist without a source?" and "How can the Big bang happen without a source?" And if we find a source, the only option for our feeble human brains would be to keep finding more and more sources for those sources...and we end up with either something popping into existence for no reason, or an infinite number of sources, and while I'd say the infinite number of sources, or some eternal source sounds more sensible to me in the same way that a monkey might consider a car their new friend...that's not saying much.

But I would say there is evidence for the big bang having occurred. It doesn't explain how everything came to be, but the Big bang theory isn't supposed to...just how our universe came to be....which is the actually question of the thread, so I'd say that "in the beginning - kaboom!" is a more on-topic answer than mine.

From what I understand, the evidence is something like:

A: scientists don't see any objects older than 13.7 billion years old
B: The further objects in space are away from us, the faster they spread away from us...and this is happening pretty much everywhere, except with nearby galaxies and such. So, because everything appears to be spreading further apart, that implies that everything was once closer together.

I'm sure there are other explanations I've forgotten about too or haven't read yet.
see my post for an easy look.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-12-2020, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
5,671 posts, read 4,324,270 times
Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You infer or attribute nonsense to me that I never espoused. Our consciousness is the composite of the entire brain state, not just parts of the brain. Biochemical processes explain HOW life operates NOT why it even exists. You insist on the creationist nonsense instead of the existential. I taught Bayesian statistics for 30 years so to accuse me of not knowing what is or is not a probability distribution is ludicrous. It is the data you presume, assume, or assign to the distribution that is equally assignable to my view of what our Reality IS. You simply refuse to acknowledge that. There is no way to probabilistically differentiate what you think our Reality IS from what I think our Reality is. Discerning HOW our Reality operates does NOT determine WHAT our Reality IS. Your nonsensical pretense that it does is preposterous. LOL, "We Do Not Know WHAT our Reality IS" but YOU know it is NOT a living God. How exactly do you know that??? You really have trouble with the equivalence of our views because you are convinced yours is the default without any scientific reason other than your belief. Do you know what equivalent means, Harry?

Haha! I've gotcha mystic! You've engaged in abundant flawed reasoning...and this time, you've done so in plain English rather than via referencing theories I've never heard of before, and words that are too large for me to understand without the dictionary! I win! I win! I'm smarter than you! EVERYONE FEEL FREE TO BASK IN THE GLOW OF MY INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY! IF YOU ASK NICELY ENOUGH, I MAY DEEM TO EXPLAIN TO ALL YOU SIMPLETONS SOME OF MY BOUNTIFUL WISDOM!

So...#1. It's quite sensible to claim that we don't know what X is, but that we know what X is not. I don't know what dark matter or energy is. I'm pretty confident it's not a fleet of winged rabbits though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Rather than your truncated assertions, try this syllogism on for size. Refine as needed.[

1. The Universe exists
2. The Universe is the reason we, consciousness, life and everything exists
3. Being the reason we, consciousness, life and everything exists is an attribute of a God
4. Nothing that is the reason for something else can be lesser than that something else.
5. The Universe exists, it is conscious, alive and it is God



#2. point 4 is your problem. There is no such thing as "lesser" without context described. Something can be less weight, or of greater importance than something else. There is nothing in existence that is simply "lesser" than anything else though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You have correctly discerned my argument but have mischaracterized it using your assumption of a vacuous universe using cause instead of status. Causal reasoning leads to an endless loop. God must be definitional because, prima facie, consciousness is an attribute that is superior to all other causally-derived attributes. (We can expand this status/cause reasoning at the risk of having the post deleted or the thread locked so I suggest we forgo it). Status is why I reject the vacuous universe label since anything with consciousness is superior to anything without. If the universe has no consciousness, it is lesser than that which exists with consciousness which is inconsistent and absurd.
Quote:
Your fundamental premise in your vacuous universe is that ALL attributes have the same status because they can all be reduced to the same fundamental causes. I agree and disagree because I view the fundamental cause as a unified consciousness field which imbues the substrate with the only attribute not explicable by all the others. You might want to call it quantum foam, but I call it imagination - the ability to create what does not exist out of nothing without regard to any of the existing laws and constraints.
There you are again, using that word "superior." Consciousness is NOT superior to anything. It simply is. You have no reason I'm aware of to call quantum foam "the imagination." I don't see why they'd have anything whatsoever in common, or why anyone would see them as having anything whatsoever in common. The imagination appears to come from a very specific structure called a brain. Quantum foam does not appear limited in such ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I have trod this logical fallacy nonsense many times fruitlessly because what should NEVER be accepted is that consciousness can "emerge" from a substrate that is NOT itself conscious. Consciousness possesses a totally unique attribute of imagination which creates ex nihilo within its neural field unconstrained by any of the laws that govern all other manifestations in our Reality. All the logical machinations from a vacuous universe cannot overcome that deficit.
You also have no reason I'm aware of to believe that consciousness cannot emerge from a substrate that is not itself conscious. Things are continually creating things that are different from themselves. I don't see why consciousness, created by brains, need be any different.

Last edited by mensaguy; 10-13-2020 at 07:08 AM.. Reason: Tried to fix missing quote tag.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2020, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
5,671 posts, read 4,324,270 times
Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
see my post for an easy look.
Yeah...you got to it first, and I skimmed it, just like the other 19 or so pages, so I missed that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2020, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Germany
16,578 posts, read 4,864,291 times
Reputation: 2060
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I have trod this logical fallacy nonsense many times fruitlessly because what should NEVER be accepted is that consciousness can "emerge" from a substrate that is NOT itself conscious. Consciousness possesses a totally unique attribute of imagination which creates ex nihilo within its neural field unconstrained by any of the laws that govern all other manifestations in our Reality. All the logical machinations from a vacuous universe cannot overcome that deficit.
Wow, I missed this question begging.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2020, 12:13 PM
 
29,335 posts, read 9,498,691 times
Reputation: 3415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
None of us know. We can guess, of course, but I don't see the point in reading people's guesses.
Once upon a time the same thing could have been said about knowing the Earth was not flat or what was at the end of the Earth, and they weren't really "guesses" that ultimately helped us learn the truth about this sort of thing. In any case, there are guesses and there is fact, evidence, reason and logic that helps us know what is true and what is not true. Nothing wrong with accepting what we don't know until we can know better, but I think there is something wrong when people guess or speculate about such unknowns and claim them to be true without any good proof that any such thing is true.

So perhaps we agree. No point in reading people's guesses. Better to consider the facts, and there is always good reason to do so if it's the truth of these matters that makes a difference to you. If nothing else to help from promoting falsehoods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2020, 12:34 PM
 
63,367 posts, read 39,631,847 times
Reputation: 7771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
Haha! I've gotcha mystic! You've engaged in abundant flawed reasoning...and this time, you've done so in plain English rather than via referencing theories I've never heard of before, and words that are too large for me to understand without the dictionary! I win! I win! I'm smarter than you! EVERYONE FEEL FREE TO BASK IN THE GLOW OF MY INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY! IF YOU ASK NICELY ENOUGH, I MAY DEEM TO EXPLAIN TO ALL YOU SIMPLETONS SOME OF MY BOUNTIFUL WISDOM!
I am happy for you Clintone. It is a pleasure to make someone so happy. Sadly, we still disagree.
Quote:
So...#1. It's quite sensible to claim that we don't know what X is, but that we know what X is not. I don't know what dark matter or energy is. I'm pretty confident it's not a fleet of winged rabbits though.
Sensible is good but not dispositive since you use something we could identify to deny what we cannot identify. Failure to identify is the sticking point to rejecting what it is NOT.
Quote:
#2. point 4 is your problem. There is no such thing as "lesser" without context described. Something can be less weight, or of greater importance than something else. There is nothing in existence that is simply "lesser" than anything else though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You have correctly discerned my argument but have mischaracterized it using your assumption of a vacuous universe using cause instead of status. Causal reasoning leads to an endless loop. God must be definitional because, prima facie, consciousness is an attribute that is superior to all other causally-derived attributes. (We can expand this status/cause reasoning at the risk of having the post deleted or the thread locked so I suggest we forgo it). Status is why I reject the vacuous universe label since anything with consciousness is superior to anything without. If the universe has no consciousness, it is lesser than that which exists with consciousness which is inconsistent and absurd.
There you are again, using that word "superior." Consciousness is NOT superior to anything. It simply is. You have no reason I'm aware of to call quantum foam "the imagination." I don't see why they'd have anything whatsoever in common, or why anyone would see them as having anything whatsoever in common. The imagination appears to come from a very specific structure called a brain. Quantum foam does not appear limited in such ways.
Everything we DO know is constrained and limited by the laws and processes we have discovered about our Reality, EXCEPT consciousness via the process of imagination. All other manifestations in our Reality are constrained but it is NOT. That is superior. Only quantum processes are believed to be capable of creation ex nihilo. Consciousness via imagination is capable of creation ex nihilo so it is as superior to other manifestations in that respect as quantum processes are believed to be. IMV, consciousness exists at the quantum level in quantum time which is why it is equivalent to implied quantum processes.
Quote:
You also have no reason I'm aware of to believe that consciousness cannot emerge from a substrate that is not itself conscious. Things are continually creating things that are different from themselves. I don't see why consciousness, created by brains, need be any different.
Reread what you quoted from me and what I have written above. No other manifestation of the substrate is free of the constraints of our Reality or possesses anything like consciousness and its imagination. To posit the emergence of such a totally unique, unconstrained manifestation from a substrate devoid of it is to imply magic is at work.

Last edited by MysticPhD; 10-12-2020 at 12:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2020, 01:27 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,467,787 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post

So...#1. It's quite sensible to claim that we don't know what X is, but that we know what X is not. I don't know what dark matter or energy is. I'm pretty confident it's not a fleet of winged rabbits though.

nipped for space ...
EXACTLY ...

claiming its a flock of winged rabbits and that it is nothing (no proof of anything) are exactly the same type of faith base claim. I say faith based because not only are they silly, they counter the observations we have.

Also, the strawman and false dichotomy do not apply either. based on what we do know that is.

Good job by you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2020, 02:12 PM
 
1,440 posts, read 464,145 times
Reputation: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post



That seemed to translate as 'claiming closed -minds on the part of the opposition excuses me from giving any kind of reason other than Faith. I hope one day they'll find Faith.'

Understanding and knowing is the very antithesis of Faith, except where that is what Faith is called.
Your response to me has already been foretold, in the last sentence of the first paragraph, of the post of mine that you responded too.

You can call yourself the opposition if you want. And you can find no value in what I share if you want. Apparently, by the volume of your post's you are very faithful to what you believe.

Understanding and knowing are essential to being faithful.

In the last sentenced of my post that you quoted. A sentence that you overlooked and walked right on past in your reply to me, leads right into the reply I made in my next post after that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2020, 02:38 PM
 
63,367 posts, read 39,631,847 times
Reputation: 7771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
EXACTLY ...

claiming its a flock of winged rabbits and that it is nothing (no proof of anything) are exactly the same type of faith base claim. I say faith based because not only are they silly, they counter the observations we have.

Also, the strawman and false dichotomy do not apply either. based on what we do know that is.

Good job by you.
I am surprised that you were taken by this particular silliness, Arach. The problem of identification gums up the works. How do you decide what our Reality is NOT without being able to identify it? We are talking about what does exist, remember, NOT something we do not know exists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2020, 02:54 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,467,787 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I am surprised that you were taken by this particular silliness, Arach. The problem of identification gums up the works. How do you decide what our Reality is NOT without being able to identify it? We are talking about what does exist, remember, NOT something we do not know exists.
Yeah, I am kind of between you two on this one. Let me explain using dark matter.

I look at god claims exactly like I look at dark matter. I do that because they both have some data and both dont have a lot of data.

faith:

some atheist:
There is no dark matter and everything you guys claim is wrong

some theist:
the dark matter is a bearded guy in the sky waving his hands around making galaxies clump and light bend.

both are junk. they are both based on fear and revenged more than anything lese to me.

I mean even MQ and Mensa fully admit we have some seaously scarred atheist here. to which I say ... yeah, we know.

Scientific method based:

mystic:
we see bending of light and the speed of objects on the outside is way to fast. Something must be there and I am calling it god.

ARACH:
we see bending of light and the speed of objects on the outside is way to fast. Something must be there and I am calling it [something more]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top