Is There A God ???

[DavidHenry]

Mare.

The basis of your motivation is mysticism, otherwise you could’ve directed me to just one piece of physical evidence that supports the idea that consciousness can exist independently of the host….not only can’t you do that, but more often than not, I suspect people who support/flirt with these strange idea’s have done so under the influence of mind altering substances, IOW, hallucinations led to inspiration {bizarre, but then again, most people are scientifically and philosophically illiterate}.

Science deals with rationality, pattern recognition, physical evidence and repeatable experiments……you lack all of that, yet ask me what would be wrong with launching a scientific investigation into the subject!!!!!!!!

You then ask what would be wrong with studying it anyway, just in case you accidentally discovered something worthwhile, IOW, if you learnt something scientific, something that could be verified…..well, how about studying something with a physical basis for its existence, you might then intentionally discover something worthwhile!

Anyway, knock yourself out, I think you’re dreaming, but my opinions not only won’t sway you, but will further enhance the idea that you’re onto a good thing….ie, you have a problem with rationality, objectivity and reality at a basic level.

I’m done btw, so if you choose to reply, make it short and sweet, because if it’s a recycling of what you’ve already said, I most likely won’t respond.

One more thing, despite the apparent tone of my writing, I don’t know you well enough to deem you unworthy of further discussions, but not on this subject.

All the best.

 

[r0beph]

Mare: Now that we have managed to teleport matter

Wow, this is news to me, when did this happen?

I also agree that the collectivist paradigm of controlled thinking stunts one's growth and has no place truth seeking.

I think what David's concern is that religion is being passed of as truth, where you see it as proving a theory.

Don't take <b>matter</b> as being that amazing. It's not like Jeff Goldblum in the fly transporting from hither and fro. Typically when you hear "teleportation" it's referent to quantum teleportation, entanglement, et al. Typically it's information and not true matter that is transported. There are some theories out there that hold a lot of water, and move away from the information teleportation and more into actual matter transference, again though, this isn't really something we can say "we've done"....



As for God, gods, goddesses, and supernatural in general; There is simply no ability for us, given our abilities as they are, to provide beyond theorem, and explanation for why we're here, how we're here, if we were intelligently designed or if nature itself is intelligent as per our definition. Simply put, no matter how sure the most extreme of the religious are, the fact remains there is not truly tangible proof for this assertion. On the other hand, the most militant of the atheists cannot prove to anyone that an intelligence does NOT exist. We just cannot, we haven't the ability to test all the possibilities that are. I myself am not very religious in the typical sense and I can't discount it anymore than I can believe it. Arguing about whether something unprovable exists is an exercise in futility, however I'll happily point and prod, and argue anyones "facts" that they assert proves god(s).

 

[Jenifer Johnson]

r0beph,

So actual matter isn't being teleported.

What I have heard is, through the use of nanotechnology, they are able to built from the ground up. So, teleportation would be having a scanner on one end and a printer on the other, then recreating the object through the nano information.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare.

The basis of your motivation is mysticism, otherwise you could’ve directed me to just one piece of physical evidence that supports the idea that consciousness can exist independently of the host….not only can’t you do that, but more often than not, I suspect people who support/flirt with these strange idea’s have done so under the influence of mind altering substances, IOW, hallucinations led to inspiration {bizarre, but then again, most people are scientifically and philosophically illiterate}.

Science deals with rationality, pattern recognition, physical evidence and repeatable experiments……you lack all of that, yet ask me what would be wrong with launching a scientific investigation into the subject!!!!!!!!

You then ask what would be wrong with studying it anyway, just in case you accidentally discovered something worthwhile, IOW, if you learnt something scientific, something that could be verified…..well, how about studying something with a physical basis for its existence, you might then intentionally discover something worthwhile!

Anyway, knock yourself out, I think you’re dreaming, but my opinions not only won’t sway you, but will further enhance the idea that you’re onto a good thing….ie, you have a problem with rationality, objectivity and reality at a basic level.

I’m done btw, so if you choose to reply, make it short and sweet, because if it’s a recycling of what you’ve already said, I most likely won’t respond.

One more thing, despite the apparent tone of my writing, I don’t know you well enough to deem you unworthy of further discussions, but not on this subject.

All the best.

Your amateur psychoanalyzing is hardly profound, David, you have misread me on more than one occasion and you continue to do so. Fine, if your arrogant attitude makes you feel superior, then I'm happy for you because you obviously need it.

I'm not sure how one would provide physical evidence of the hypothetical ghost in the machine since it is by definition non-physical--Hello? Using your "objective" viewpoint I suppose that you believe that love doesn't exist either since you can't see, smell it, or put it in a petri dish. Many things are non-physical, mathematics can be written down but the concepts are non-physical, what about imaginary numbers?

You keep demanding, demanding, demanding, why? It doesn't matter what sources I give you they aren't worth your looking at them. Yeah, and your drug accusation, I like that. All the cosmologists in history were on drugs. I notice that you never answer my questions, why is that?

You don't converse, David, you simply argue and you don't even do that very well, your name calling and idiotic drug references coupled with your somewhat dim demands for physical evidence of a non-physical experience suggest to me that you are a troll. I have enough trolls in my life without adding another to the list. Thanks for playing, but I do know you well enough to deem you unworthy of further discussion, please jerk off with someone else from now on.

 

[Jenifer Johnson]

love doesn't exist either since you can't see,

Love/hate is only one's perception of the subjective value of the truth, which only exists in one's mind. I can not feel for you and you can not feel for me, so yes, emotions do not physically exist. Your value for x has no value to me. We have to create standards of value for exchange.

Once on a winery tour, a person asked the tour guide what was the difference between an expensive wine and cheep wine. The tour guide said it is a matter of taste. She also said, if you prefer the cheep wine consider yourself lucky.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Love/hate is only one's perception of the subjective value of the truth, which only exists in one's mind. I can not feel for you and you can not feel for me, so yes, emotions do not physically exist. Your value for x has no value to me. We have to create standards of value for exchange.

Once on a winery tour, a person asked the tour guide what was the difference between an expensive wine and cheep wine. The tour guide said it is a matter of taste. She also said, if you prefer the cheep wine consider yourself lucky.

Is subjective reality any less real because you experience it differently than others?

 

[Jenifer Johnson]

Is subjective reality any less real because you experience it differently than others?

I would use subjective value to reality, rather than subjective reality, because there is only one reality. The only reality we share is that which we agree on. Because you can not do my thinking for me, there is no way for you to know what I am thinking or have my perception of reality. Only by agreement, which is why agreement is the basis for right from wrong.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I would use subjective value to reality, rather than subjective reality, because there is only one reality. The only reality we share is that which we agree on. Because you can not do my thinking for me, there is no way for you to know what I am thinking or have my perception of reality. Only by agreement, which is why agreement is the basis for right from wrong.

I don't think anyone has ever proven that there is only one reality, I think that there are some things that our realities share, but only ONE? I don't think so. Part of this would hinge on the definition of "reality". Since the observer interacts with whatever is being observed, I don't think there is any "objective" place to stand to look at "reality" objectively, is there? What if Pribram and Bohm are correct and our "reality" is simply a holographic construct mediated by our complex brain but actaully arises from a deeper level of reality? Is our reality the same reality that a "God" would experience? How could it be if the "God" existed outside of time and space?

In the end, there may be only ONE reality, but like the blind men examining the elephant I think that we each see only our own little part. How do we put all these little parts together and see the whole? I don't know, science seems to be our best bet right now. But as with Mr. Henry, there are portions of reality that are off-limits, things we cannot research or look at, so how complete can science be?

 

[top gun]

"Reality" is the preponderance of the evidence at hand in my opinion.

Much like comparing horse & buggy days to a space shot to the moon we are always growing, learning, evolving... teaching ourselves new things.

God or religion is something completely different. It's totally faith based. There's nothing really wrong with something being totally faith based as long as it's all good and beneficial.

The problem arises when something that is faith based is pushed as an absolute and forced on people that want to be indifferent to it. After all the fact that something is faith based means the individual would have to want to believe in it I would assume .

So it seems as science is an ever evolving search for testable knowledge that is built on positive definitive results in the past it has the credibility edge over blind faith.

It's like if you were in front of an old musket fireing squad and your choices were pure faith (Oh God please don't let those bullets kill me) or science based (I soaked their powder in water so it won't fire) one is repeatedly more likely to actually have proven better consequences.

I think I could have faith in that .

 

[numinus]

OK, most of that went over my head, but I gather that you don't think it's impossible, right?

No. Maxwell and einstein were talking about different ways of explaining the same thing.

 

[numinus]

DUMMY.....the big bang is just the mainstream version modern cosmology promotes, there are many other cosmologists looking into the question of the universes origin, but they'll all be wrong unless they accept that it's eternal.

The universe is EXPANDING according to hubble separation.

This expansion was predicted in einstein's field equation and independently derived by freidmann (minus the cosmological constant fudge factor). It was experimentally verified by hubble.

A steady-state universe in the field of cosmology is analogous to mein kampf in political philosophy. NOT ONLY ARE THEY RELEGATED TO OBSOLESCENCE, THEY ARE PROVEN TO BE PATENTLY WRONG.

Stop talking like a *****. It is useless on rational people in this forum.

The trouble with the big bang is that it assumes something can come from nothing, and that's impossible.

Not an assumption - it is the INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION.

 

[numinus]

It's a tactic known as hiding behind complexity

It's undergraduate level physics, *****. If segep can understand the sources he provided, then my reply wouldn't be totally beyond his comprehension.

 

[numinus]

Yes, religion posing as science.

Anything you don't understand is religion, eh?

As expected.

 

[numinus]

Or a preacher trying to pass off religion as science.

No need for a preacher since everything I said can be found in any standard college physics textbook.

 

[numinus]

That is because if he can't dazzle you with brilliance, he will baffle you with bull ****. The sign of intelligence is the ability to explain the complex in its simplest terms.

That is as simple as it gets, I'm afraid. That is precisely why they do not accept morons to college.