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.
In that case, your post makes even less sense. In response to BF's post questioning the assumptions used to determine the age of the universe, I simply stated that the assumption used is that the speed of light is a constant. In that context (remember, you did quote my post), you started talking about darkness, and now God's first spoken words. Unless you have something relevant to the speed of light, your post now makes even less sense.
Let me put it this way, the scientists in what they claim as measuring the speed of light, they place darkness in the realm of infinity and light in the realm of the finite. As they claim to measure the speed of it, which requires a beginning and an end. So, at the end of the measurement they claim, which is required by the standard they use, all they have is infinite darkness.
And when they say the speed of light is a constant, their measurement requires an ending point. So, the only infinite constant they claim is darkness.
I don't believe the bolded is an accurate assessment. Most people understand that we have 5 physical senses, and that we extend those via technology to explore things we can not sense directly. We understand there may well be more things we have not detected, nor have a detector for. Doing so demonstrates that we grasp there is more reality than we have been able to or can detect.
There is insufficient research into detecting the potential components of reality, you claim to have done 3 times. For that matter 3 times is such a small number, even if a more reliable detection system were established, it could still be suspect as aberrant data. You could well be correct, but your reliance on such a small data set from a singular detector (yourself) is a concern. Not the least of which is pollution of the interpretation based on conflict of interest.
I am at a loss to imagine what the conflict of interest polluting my interpretation might be, but I have no quarrel with your rejection of the bold. It was perhaps too broad a brush to apply. But the essential point is that the user interface is NOT the Reality which is far more complex and quite literally can be described as FUBAR. After all, recognition and the ability to function within Reality DO require the simplification of the user interface.
I am at a loss to imagine what the conflict of interest polluting my interpretation might be
In the simplest form I can conjure presently, interpreting your own data to support your inference drawn by your meditative experience, has an elevated risk of bias contamination. I'm not arguing that happened, intentionally or not, simply recognizing that independent data and review are common, to mitigate to the greatest degree possible, such activity. Having not shared your experience, I'd not postulate methods of independent inspection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
but I have no quarrel with your rejection of the bold. It was perhaps too broad a brush to apply. But the essential point is that the user interface is NOT the Reality which is far more complex and quite literally can be described as FUBAR. After all, recognition and the ability to function within Reality DO require the simplification of the user interface.
Humans, the present height of rationale mental capacity on earth, and their bio-electrical and mechanical systems are certainly limited in perception and fragile. Our 'user interface' appears to have evolved to handle survival, far more than matters of cosmic and quantum proportions. I think it's simple as a result of being at it's developmental peak, rather than it has been simplified. Perhaps our descendants will possess natural abilities to detect the full EM spectrum, to detect gravitational waves, neutrinos, your universal consciousness.
Further I have zero issue with applying all of our faculties to pursuing what we don't know and can't perceive yet, I think we agree. I assume somewhere in all the 55K+ posts you've done, you've described the details of this experience, to help others understand the 6th or 7th or 100th sense you've implemented to discover this unknowable. I've been in and out of CD as time permits, and have not read your story. Perhaps you could find a link to it?
Using all the resources I have, including sharing information with others, I detect no reason to jump to a conclusion the universe is caused by, or IS a deity. Should sufficient new data become available, that provides compelling reason to move towards that conclusion, I should imagine it virtually impossible to resist accepting. Until then I don't believe a deity does exist, nor do I believe it couldn't exist. I am as neutral and devoid of belief, as the data.
Yes. It's an assumption. But one that we cannot possibly verify. We assume it's been constant as long as the universe has existed, but we really don't know.
No, it is based on observation. It is an assumption to believe it has changed if you have no evidence for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
That said, I mentioned earlier that it doesn't really affect the argument for the universe being created/caused based on the age. It could be 7000 years old, or 70 billion years old, and a cause/creator is still required
Which is true for other religions and atheism. The question is, what is the creator?
Atheists seem to have great difficulty comprehending the Oneness, Gldn. They are too strongly embedded in a "separate things" perspective of "created things" instead of just existing.
Once you get hip to The Oneness...you gain true basic understanding and the foundation to build greater enlightenment upon.
You teaching me this made it possible for me to gain that basic understanding. It enabled me to find God...Objectively!
My wish/hope is for everyone to be clued into it.
Nothing about your statement invalidates the idea that a creator exists. That was the point I was making. I wasn't stating the speed of light is not constant. I suggested it might not have always been. But then I also went on to state that the age does not invalidate the need for a creator.
Now, I'm going to assume that you were not being intentionally dishonest here. But I wasn't making that point to support the idea of a creator causing the universe. Maybe you coming late to this party didn't really understand that, but it's a side issue.
So, please. Let's argue the actual topic here.
Seems you really are interested and wanting to argue the topic here, but I'm not sure about your argument, so let's try again. At least to clarify what your argument actually is...
Let's assume for sake of argument that "nothing invalidates the idea that a creator exists." I don't agree, but leave that be for now. Just seems to me that nothing validates the idea a creator exists, and because I am not aware of any good validation along these lines, I am an atheist.
You believe that because everything exists, this validates the belief in God.
Is my understanding correct about this?
If so, the problem is simply that I don't consider that sort of rationale a validation for such a belief. Reads much like what I don't know or understand must mean a god exists. Also not good validation.
No point in continuing to argue this in any case. I've addressed where and why I see your logic quite faulty, but if you can consider no possibility other than a god despite all the problems I've explained with that line of reasoning, then no doubt I/we are done here.
So you don't know, don't REALLY have an answer, but you know the one you are unwilling to take. Even if it's the most logical.
I have explained what I believe to be most logical and why...
This reminds me of when I was in an algebra class and some students could well solve algebra problems as a result of the logic that allows some students to do so while other students could not solve the same problems because they couldn't understand the logic necessary to do so.
Clearly you think I'm the one lacking the necessary reason and logic while I see it the other way around, but at a minimum you should not suggest I'm unwilling to consider your logic. I have a few times now, and I've explained where the problem(s) exist. You are unwilling to consider those flaws in your argument.
So it seems we've got to leave it there just like all these arguments tend to end...
Read it again. I didn't say you were. I said I want to think you weren't being dishonest. I know that's important to you. Don't be so quick to overreact.
Why does someone suggest dishonesty in the first place?
I think we can probably all agree that the age of the universe does not explain from whence it came.
If you can't sit with uncertainty, then you can certainly subscribe to whatever explanation pleases you. That is a major feature of religion, it purports to have actual answers to the Great Questions. It is my view that "we don't have enough data to say, although we have some pretty informed hypotheses that are scientifically falsifiable" is a better answer than "my deity of choice spoke it into existence", which to me is on a level with "it came about by magic". But it is not an easy, black and white or pleasing answer. Religion provides such answers. It's a big reason why people are religious. It eliminates ambiguity and hard choices through dogma and moral certitude and a lack of concern with supporting evidence.
Some people consider such an explanation somewhat insulting (see my Ten Truths thread), and I suppose I can understand that perspective to a point, but I'm inclined to value the truth of these matters over how it makes people feel. I'm sure you too mean no insult. There is plenty truth in what you explain here and too bad more people don't want to recognize it as such.
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.
