My Argument For God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-01-2015, 03:09 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 02:54 PM)Free Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 01:15 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Heres a little math regarding limits at infinity that might clear up why I'm saying consciousness must be infinite. SO, any number 'n' divided by infinity equals zero.
and infinity divided by any number equals infinity.

If you don't exist for infinity you don't even exist…not even know. But if you are real, if you existence, then you exist for infinity.

As seemingly bizarre as the description is, the argument involves basic mathematical axiom regarding limits at infinity, the certainty of ones own existence, the fact the observable universe is finite, and nothing more.

When applied to the seeming paradoxes in physics the paradoxes don't exist. Resolving all paradoxes in one definition with three symbols is a symptom of a definition that is correct:

N/infinity=0
infinity/N=infinity

When this definition of consciousness is applied to on 'self', and the nature of one's origin, fate, and state of being, that paradox is also dismissed. We reside in an infinite domain, and we observe events (perception only) we selectively regard as progressing in a linear fashion in a non-infinite domain. The seemingly asymmetric forward progression of linear time is an artifact of the selection, not an inherent property of space-time.

Well, let me take you right back to your OP with a single statement i will quote:

Quote:This universe is finite it has a defined beginning i.e. the big bang and it therefore is bound and is not infinite.

Everything you are proposing in relation to your argument for a god must necessarily depend on the above quote being true. Therefore ...

Here are just two questions:

1. Can you conclusively demonstrate that the Big Bang is the origin of existence?

2. Can you conclusively demonstrate that the universe is finite?

Well according to modern science the big bang did occur…it was the beginning of this universe. If something had a beginning it is bound, and is therefore non-infinite
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 03:10 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 02:51 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 02:35 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Please enlighten us. What is your extensive background in physics?
Doc

I have been working as a physicist and pharmaceutical research chemist for about a decade. I have worked for organizations such as SmithKline Beecham, Merck Research Labs and Johnson&Johnson R&D

So, its safe to say that you are a chemist. How do you work as a physicist for drug companies?

Also, please clarify your educational qualifications to call yourself a physicist beyond college physics.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
14-01-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 03:05 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 02:56 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I'd say it is because mainstream science is suspending judgement while looking for ways to test conjectures in order to find evidence. You are leaping over that to assume that what sounds good to you is true. That is not a reasonable path to understanding.


Which is your belief. My belief is that your belief is an assertion without sufficient grounds to accept. As I said before, even if everything you claim is true it doesn't imply that "I" have an eternal nature in any meaningful sense, nor that this "consciousness" that you think exists "outside the box" is actually conscious in any way comparable to the consciousness that I experience.

You've gone past what science has demonstrated with a lot of wishful thinking and wrapped it up in technobabble to disguise the fact that you have nothing of substance to support your claims.

Ok, and you and your science (which laughably you don't even understand) has nothing to say on the matter.

Our minuscule human perception blinds us to the fact of how little we know. Heres an example: in the 1400s all of the people on earth were intent that the earth was the center of the universe, they all BELIEVED it, they all knew it--but it did not alter the structure of the universe in any way. They did not doubt it, there was not even an alternative model to doubt. The universe not being the center of the universe was completely beyond the human experience. Still, the structure of the universe did no change.

I don't care if you don't believe what I am saying, that has no effect whatsoever on it not being true. What I have presented is axiom. And all of you have yet to refute it, or don't even understand that i am using YOUR science you love and cherish and yet you don't even know what I'm talking about…sad really.

You really believe you've come up with something original don't you?
You don't care if we believe you, yet here you are trying to convince.
Drop the Choprasese and dumb it down for me, make my feeble mind understand your wisdom.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 03:13 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 03:09 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 02:54 PM)Free Wrote:  Well, let me take you right back to your OP with a single statement i will quote:


Everything you are proposing in relation to your argument for a god must necessarily depend on the above quote being true. Therefore ...

Here are just two questions:

1. Can you conclusively demonstrate that the Big Bang is the origin of existence?

2. Can you conclusively demonstrate that the universe is finite?

Well according to modern science the big bang did occur…it was the beginning of this universe. If something had a beginning it is bound, and is therefore non-infinite

How does something that is infinite exist inside something that is non-infinite?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 03:17 PM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2015 03:28 AM by gofish!.)
RE: My Argument For God
OK, I don't normally do this, but this time I'll bite, simply because you are looking to me like a "sciency" version of AlephBet and falling back on claims of "you haven't read what I wrote" when people refute your claims.

And also because I think I need only to apply some undergraduate critical thinking to demolish your point here (yes, correct, I have already arrived at a conclusion)...

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I have been browsing these forums for a couple days and have yet to see any compelling evidence that supports any of your atheistic beliefs...

OK, showing your colours too soon there, as has already been pointed out (Free, 2015).

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  ...and also, on the contrary no evidence presented by any theist that is even remotely compelling, except for "well i guess I'd rather just cling to my fragile belief system which is based solely off the bible."

Is this serious or a platitude? Let's see...

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Or the typical atheist who literally interprets every biblical passage and is like "HA THESE ARE A BUNCH OF FAIRY TALES, DAWKINS MUST BE RIGHT!!!"

OK, definitely showing your biases here, however carefully you thought you were covering your tracks. If you truly read these forums and understood atheism, you would not judge it by your own standards (i.e. cultish following of a person/deity). There's some intellectual laziness (at best) by your branding of "typical atheists": do you also have opinions about "typical African Americans", or "typical Gay people" too, I wonder? Anyway, let's continue...

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Because I have a somewhat extensive background in physics I will propose certain thoughts regarding consciousness and some of the physics behind this view.

Anyone can say this, so state your qualifications and where you got them. Otherwise I have to discount this as hubris and a device to project authority (often the telltale sign of someone who has little authority). Or you can never mention this again: your points should stand on their own.

Indeed given your clear biases demonstrated earlier, I now doubt your credibility even as a scientist.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  In my opinion the so-called enigma of consciousness is something that for some odd reason scientists have a hard time addressing. Well, what is it? We all have it, but its nature is very elusive. It has no known mass, and in fact we have nothing to measure it, quantify it and yet it has the ability to manipulate the four known forces of nature at will, devise insanely complex machines such as the LHC and yet, modern science has the curious habit of dismissing it as some mundane thing that is created somehow by this purely mechanistic universe. (This is going to be a long post, but before you pass judgment read it).

OK, suspension of disbelief "on"....

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  THE DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT IN QUANTUM PHYSICS and NDES
The big argument and the reason for so many 'models' and hypothesis...

Whoa there, what hypotheses? Is this some sneaky conflation here...all of a sudden I'm looking at "Quantum Physics and NDEs" as if they are related or connected? Are you saying these are related? If so, either provide a citation or tell me how before you proceed.

This belies the lack of a decent college education, as a paper written this way would not pass. Your credibility, already shakey, just took another big knock at your own hands...

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  ...is that the original intent of the founders of Quantum Physics was to describe the interrelationship between the system being observed and the observer; all of the data indicated that.

Citation please! If not, can you explain in your own words why your view of Quantum mechanics differs from the generally held view that it was developed to provide a better explanation and description of the atom, especially the differences in the spectra of light emitted by different isotopes of the same element, as well as subatomic particles, where classical mechanics and electromagnetism had failed.

Or perhaps you are confusing Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle with the Observer Effect (Furuta 2012) perchance? Surely not?

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  The later generations of scientists could not define or agree upon a working definition for consciousness and therefore attempted alternative explanations where consciousness played no role.

STOP RIGHT THERE! So, without a single citation or explanation, just a simple conflation of two phrases ("NDEs" and "Quantum Physics") into the title of this section, I'm supposed to swallow that hook, line and sinker? Hmm, intellectual dishonesty perhaps? Let's see....

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  In any case, there is no solid finalized hypothesis in Quantum Theory that is universally agreed upon. The interpretation of the hard data is difficult. It is as if we are peering into a realm beyond the human frame of reference, beyond human experience. The solidification of a final model has not occurred. We have to examine each model; each model has its merits and failing points and represents brilliant thinking as steps toward, bot not achieving that final result.

OK, no citation, but it is generally true that there are scientists who state there is little true understanding of this topic, although you fail to acknowledge that there exists a view - that of Niels Bohr - that is the most widely accepted model....

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  My pre-requisite for any theory to hold any water whatsoever is to explain the Double Slit Experiment and/or observed and measured entangled particles. This real experiment has been performed under ever increasingly meticulous conditions. There is real data; you can hold the data in your hand. Moreover, most of the modern 'interpretations' of Quantum Physics cannot explain both the Double Slit Experiment and entangled particles and the data and the outcome.

So? What's your point here? It is commonly known that there are multiple interpretations. What are you proposing?

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  My solution to the problem is that time and space both do and do not exist; space-time in this physical cosmos is a mere perception. In short what I'm saying is consciousness is infinite, and therefore exists in some infinite domain.

OK, having pulled off the earlier sleight-of-hand by bringing "consciousness" into the debate, without explanation or even a simple citation, we are to accept this conflation of differing models of quantum mechanics with consciousness.

Really? And by the way, what is the basis and evidence for this assertion, even if we remove "consciousness" from the equation? Are you intuiting this? Right now, it looks that way, but perhaps you explain further on...

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  This universe is finite it has a defined beginning i.e. the big bang and it therefore is bound and is not infinite. If what I am saying is correct and consciousness is infinite, an infinite thing cannot fit inside of a finite box, meaning your consciousness is currently perceiving events in a finite system, but does not actually exist 'in' it.

OK, looks like you're not going to back up this assertion and your conflation, because what follows is this...

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I am going to refer to this universe as 'inside the box' and the infinite domain in which our consciousness resides as 'outside the box'. Many NDE accounts report....

Stop! You obviously think by now that nobody has spotted this sleight-of-hand, but it is a rudimentary skill to acquire. Now, even if we are to accept this (which I will not, because of its dishonesty or, at best, naivity), let's see what evidence you have to support your claims.

Oh, and this "box" business....I'll come onto that later....

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  ...that upon death they travel through a 'tunnel' and emerge into some 'blasting' white light and that the light is inundating then with love and many interpret this as God, another thing that is extremely common is that these people report that space and time ceased to exist and that the place that they were in was infinite and eternal. Many people also have a profound sense of being home. Now while I know NDE accounts are subject to personal belief systems and are by no means hard evidence, the thousand of such accounts are nonetheless quite interesting and are in line with what I am saying. Here are some excerpts from nderf.com to give you an idea of what these people are describing,

"the life I'd been living on planet Earth was an insignificant second of an experiment, which I'd volunteered for. The ME, the I wasn't Anna the lady who'd just given birth, but it was a light being - "LIGHT" in every sense. i was made of the same light as the one the pool was filled with. It sensed everything, felt everything beautiful as there can ever be, thought and understood everything and was floating around inside the pool happily, FINALLY back HOME!!"-Anna A

"The complete expansiveness of sheer JOY I felt at that moment cannot be put to words! Carlos was "dead" but I was more alive than ever!! Carlos never existed! the earth and the universe never existed! People and things are just baseless illusions! If they do not exist eternally, they are not real.. but I AM! I am Innocent!! I cannot die!
I felt the unspeakable, all encompassing, unconditional Love of God for me"- Carlos K

"Everywhere around me was light. There was nowhere that was not light. Light as far as I could see. Light, I knew, further than I could see. This light was very bright but in no way at all did it hurt my sight. This light had a singular property that is utterly indescribable in the extent and scope of its sheer magnitude. The singular property of this light was one of absolute love. This love was utterly unreserved, completely unbounded, and utterly infinite in its scope." -Peter N


For this "evidence" to be acceptable, it would have to be more than the subjective observations that it is, and would have to sustain critical analysis. For example, billions of people dream, but are their dreams "evidence" of anything more than the residual activity of our neurons, deprived of sensory input through sleep? After all, "dreaming" has already been demonstrated in neural networks (Tadeusiewicz et al), so there appears to be more evidence that these observations are nothing more than dreams based on cultural influences. You have been careless not to discount this...

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  So what I am proposing is that these NDErs have caught a glimpse outside of the box and that their consciousness exists in the domain being described. This is why we can’t ‘see’ God, our current human perception is focused on this domain, but we’re not actually ‘in’ it we are at this second in the presence of God…however we think we are alone and God is somewhere hiding ‘out there’.

Why? What is the evidence? At this point you seem so confident of your idea, you feel it is no longer necessary to support this with evidence.

Or perhaps this comes later?

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  We can perceive events from both within and outside of 'the box' so to speak, because we, not our instruments, are capable of stepping both inside and outside of the box.

It sounds suspiciously like you are describing "imagination" here. If not, what does "out of the box" mean here? Ah yes, consciousness!

But...er....what does that have to do with Quantum mechanics again? Sorry, you did not explain that....

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Our perception and comprehension can easily step outside of the box, for instance. There is no known mechanism that can function outside of space-time. We therefore can only measure phenomenon with tools and methods that are inside the box, so there is no data taken from a perspective outside the box. However, that answer is certainly not universally agreed upon in mainstream thinking. In general, the physical cosmos is regarded as 'real' and not a mere perception to the extent that you and I are artifacts of the physical cosmos, not the other way around, that is, I regard the physical cosmos as an artifact of you and I. This is the result of using tools that can only measure and detect things from 'inside the box.' However, people report perceptions from 'outside the box'.

OK "tools" "outside the box" = consciousness, right? So, by pure will of consciousness, we can measure stuff "outside of the box".

Well, I can agree that being out of your box allows you to do a lot of things normal people or measuring instruments cannot do...

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  People have been reporting NDEs throughout the ages, and these were dismissed according to the listener's argument; hallucinations, dreams, and so on. Raymond Moody took notice of the pattern in the late 20th century and it has been almost half a century in the validating stage that 'it does happen.' Perception to an extent has never been regarded as 'proof', and today isn't even regarded as evidence regardless of the source.

Oooooh, now I can see you are being very sneaky and I'm giving you considerable credit here (other less charitable people might say you're being a cunt; I couldn't possibly comment).

You fail to state why these NDEs were reuted (don't worry, I fixed that earlier), but then you assert that "they happen" as if simply restating this makes your interpretation true. Tsk tsk....very poor, must try harder...

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  For example, trained pilots and even astronauts both U.S. and Russian have witnessed UFO activity and even THEIR visual evidence is dismissed. The number of people reporting perceptions from 'outside the box' either in Near Death Experiences or some other state number in the tens of thousands. However, since we have no means to measure or detect things 'outside the box' many scientists still dismiss these without even considering that the tools in their hands cannot measure or detect anything outside the box and thus regard any information other than these primitive tools deliver as 'anecdotal'.

OK, I guess it was inevitable that UFO's and other "paranormal" evidence might make its appearance here, but just like any other refutable "evidence" you've brought up here, you press gang it into service. What is lazy here is that you don't even try to prove UFOs real.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  On the other hand, we take a piece of Kodak film and perform the classic 'Double Slit Experiment,' see the overlapping wave functions and the result, which is in fact, 'outside the box' renders an argument that has been raging for a century. This is regarded as INTERPRETATION of the data. The reason it is stuck in limbo is because no one is accustomed or knows how to look at data that takes a 'snapshot' from outside the box.

At best, all you've usefully(?) stated here is that there is still some differences of opinion in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Yep, they hide that information in "books"....

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  In regards to mechanistic approaches that dismiss 'you' as some mundane electrochemical processes in the brain such an approach or theory is quite shallow and has absolutely no evidence whatsoever. In no uncertain terms, a Universe without me is a thing that I cannot be Certain about. In which case, why study it? A theory that does not explain me yet ironically is an attempt to explain everything is obviously wrong. I need a theory that explains me. If your theory and math exclude me then there is an obvious hole in the math and lucid comprehension.

OK, so you're getting tired here and reverting to type: the theist who needs purpose. How sad for you...

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I know many of you still believe that consciousness is an artifact of this Universe. This type of a model usually holds the following beliefs: there is actually no observer, the information around you is going nowhere, you are truly dust in the wind. There is no explanation for YOU. Current models suggest that you are ultimately as inert as interstellar dust; made of stardust. I find that explanation unsatisfactory. Stardust cannot examine itself and its nature and reason for being. There is no level of complexity you can raise stardust to in order to achieve this level of consciousness.


No citation offered to understand where this comes from, other than your own opinion, but again, the lament of the theist is plain here. It is ironic, considering that you talk so much about being "outside the box" and yet you cannot for even one moment consider a world where you had no reason to exist, other than as the consequence of a string of events.

I'm not sure you'll make it far as a scientist buddy...or...what's this....

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  If you actually do the math or physics that dictates your physical existence as a a result of this seemingly accurate Big Bang to nearly a trillion decimal places, just to establish that the Universe still exists at all, and the countless trillions of variables progressing with precisions of googols of decimal places, and so on and on, you see how preposterous even suggesting that idea is: the saving grace of that argument is supposedly that a trillion, trillion universes have already formed and failed.

The absurdity of such profoundly impossible suggestions establishes the simplest explanation that every person knows deep down is true and correct, consciousness is fundamental to the universe and I would even say it ‘paints it into being’. This explanation is consistent with every religion of man. You know it inherently within yourself. You are not an artifact of this physical cosmos. You have an eternal nature that demands an explanation; why are you here, what are you, what ‘here’ is?

Oops, I thought you had it there, but again, there you are, bringing the entire universe down to the level of the existence of one mammal (you) on one planet.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  PINNING CONSCIOUSNESS TO THE BRAIN
Electromagnetic explanations of brain function suggest that from the QED vacuum that will communicate with two real points in space, such as two atoms in your physical brain, provided there is time symmetry, going both forward and backward in time, so as not to engage in casually prohibited phenomenon via virtual photon exchange. The phenomenon is otherwise frozen in time altogether-that this alters real space-time, matter,mass, and events- ultimately,outcomes, such as a thought that are considered going only forward in time such as you and I experience the flow of time.

A real thought coming into being out of absolute pure nothingness, from a Virtual Photon who is either frozen in time or otherwise going forward and backward in time simultaneously, unwrapping itself into only forward linear time as we experience it, and disappear back into absolute pure nothingness from which it came.

this description is supposed to explain thought, according to brain biologists who suggest electrochemical processes are somehow responsible for consciousness. In addition the entire idea came about because the biologists were given a mechanism they didn't understand; which became a magic ‘black box.’ That is, they don't know the definitions of electromagnetic phenomenon, so assign it any arbitrary meaning, unwittingly but nonetheless regardless of how absurd it is when the formal definitions are applied correctly. Their new toy was the EEG monitor, and nowhere in any operator’s manual does any manufacturer of such equipment suggest that the device detects or measures consciousness.

Says who? Citation needed please. There appears again no attempt to either explain and back up explanations with evidence, or to cite. What is interesting here is that your putting yourself up against the likes of Olaf Blanke (Multisensory brain mechanisms of bodily self-consciousness), for example, you better have some pretty hardcore arguments to hand. After all, he has hard evidence...

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  What then is the brain? Does it produce consciousness. No, there is no brain. The brain is just a myriad of wave functions. The only known property that qualifies it as matter at all is the quantum mechanical spin characteristic, the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

The general idea is that matter, which makes up the physical brain, is nothing more than a large number of probability waves (potentiality) that REQUIRE consciousness in order to be MATTER. Furthermore the ‘electromagnetic activity’ prized by researchers in consciousness is nothing more than virtual photons, which literally pop into existence out of absolute pure nothingness, exists in a state infinitely dilated in time and therefore symmetrically both progressing forward and backward in time and space simultaneously, then disappear into this pure absolute nothingness again. Moreover, all of these processes REQUIRE CONSCIOUSNESS in order to occur-they therefore cannot be the source of Consciousness.

Carnal thinking scientists are, in my opinion, trying pointlessly and hopelessly to pin consciousness down to a physical brain with electromagnetic phenomenon, neither of which are there.

If you don't understand my argument, the error is not on my part, the error is on your lack of understanding of the science. The core of what I am alluding to is that this ENTIRE UNIVERSE…EVERYTHING, is just a construct of consciousness. You are not who or what you think you are, YOU are at the very core of reality. Just think about it, how can something be ‘known’ or certain unless it is ‘illuminated’ by consciousness? Your consciousness prevents multiple unobservable universes with an infinite number of ‘yous’ from occurring, YOU cause the wave function collapse, YOU select the outcome. This definition extends to all life, not just humans, even the slightest bug. Eastern religions have eluded to the true self (soul) and have known for thousands of years that consciousness is the thing that truly exists. Here are some quotes from different religions that back up what I am saying.

OK, this is the beginning of the crazy shit right here. You believe you've "proved" your point and are proselytising now. Lazy. And not at all scientific...

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  HINDUISM
“My dear brothers! Remember that you are not this perishable body of flesh and bones. You are the immortal, all pervading, Sat-Chit-Ananda Atman. Thou art Atman. Thou art living truth. Thou art Brahman. Thou art absolute consciousness.” -Sri Swami Sivananda

“The soul never takes birth and never dies at any time nor does it come into being again when the body is created. The soul is birthless, eternal, imperishable and timeless and is never terminated when the body is terminated.” -the Bhagavad Gita

ISLAM
“Allah is all in all. Allah sees you, and is with you, wherever you are, whatever you do.” -Quran

CHRISTIANITY
“And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.”-
Ecclesiastes 12:7

“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”-John 10:34

It seems that these quotes are alluding to the fact that you, your soul or consciousness, whatever you want to call it, is actually of the most high, God, especially Hinduism alludes to this fact. Brahman in Hindusism is essentially God or the supreme infinite from which all things originated. Atman in Hinduism means ‘inner-self’ or ‘soul’. Hinduisms goal is to realize that one’s true self (Atman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman: If atman is brahman in a pot (the body), then one need merely break the pot to fully realize the primordial unity of the individual soul with the plentitude of being that was the absolute. These views are strikingly similar with what NDErs report. Here is one last experience I found noteworthy from nderf (its a great site if you're interested):

And so we resolve to the only real "evidence" you're able to rely on: scripture.

But alas, this is not evidence.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Regarding the level of consciousness in the ‘LIght’: “There is no way to compare my consciousness when I was in the Light with my consciousness here on planet Earth.  It's like asking someone to compare the difference between the light from a thousand suns exploding at the same time and the light from a match stick.  Yes, they are both light, but beyond that, there is no comparison.  I can only say that I was in a complete state of love and knowing.  The love of a billion home-comings all rolled up into one instant, and the knowing of every aspect of the complete universe, to become one with God.” -Andrew P

Now while Im not going to say hell does or doesn't exist (its entirely possible that there are ‘hellish’ realms or realities manifested by consciousness), these accounts don't allude to any judgment or condemnation, much of that is the result of humans condemning other humans. And in regards to the bible, I believe there has been lots of cultural contamination, and while it is a good spiritual guide in life it should not be taken verbatim..at least thats my opinion.

Comment with any questions/counter arguments, id like to hear them.

So, for anyone who has got this far, thanks for taking this journey with me. For those of you who cut straight to the end, there really isn't anything to see here.

Now, I have far more important things to do than to have an non-argument with a person who couldn't write a standard college thesis if his life depended on it....

Eating curry, and watching South Park with the family....

(P.S: For all TTA, I do this in homage to you, to all the countless hours you put in, countering the mindless cunts who come on here. This is my tribute. Just don't expect me to do this again, as I do have other priorities and preferences in my life).

Edit: my original coda ("Just don't expect me to do this again, as I do have a life") didn't properly reflect why I usually avoid sparring with fundies and risked unintentionally implying that others who do "have no life". This is far from what I intended so I have amended the text accordingly.

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like gofish!'s post
14-01-2015, 03:22 PM
RE: My Argument For God
tl-dr

Can you just give me the short version please?


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 03:23 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 03:22 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  tl-dr

Can you just give me the short version please?

He's a cunt.

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like gofish!'s post
14-01-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 03:08 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I have been browsing these forums for a couple days and have yet to see any compelling evidence that supports any of your atheistic beliefs, and also, on the contrary no evidence presented by any theist that is even remotely compelling, except for "well i guess I'd rather just cling to my fragile belief system which is based solely off the bible." Or the typical atheist who literally interprets every biblical passage and is like "HA THESE ARE A BUNCH OF FAIRY TALES, DAWKINS MUST BE RIGHT!!!"

You've spent a couple of days here and you still think there are "atheistic beliefs"? Consider

And frankly, your representation of what the "typical atheist" says sounds more like a guess based upon stereotypes than on perusing this site.

Regarding NDE's, you admit that they are subjective and try to justify their importance by pointing out their frequency. Numerous NDE's are proof or evidence of nothing except that there is a commonality in the way that our brains function.

If I understand the gist of your argument (and I'm admittedly not sure that I do), you're saying that all existence is part of one large consciousness of which we are all therefore a part. And that consciousness is "God". Even if I were to buy that line of thought, "God" then only seems like the word assigned to that definition and is so far removed from what people normally mean by it, then why use that particular word at all? This has nothing to do with creation, super powers, interaction with humans, etc. So why do you think any of it is evidence of a god?

And, by the way, it would be nice to know which god you believe in.

I don't align myself with any one 'God' or religion, that is human folly.

We are not necessarily 'God' or we are not necessarily 'all one'. The best way that I can describe this is that there is a little 'you', finite, seemingly separate from God, limited, perhaps even powerless, a construct that will in fact cease to exist upon death. Then there is a BIG YOU, an infinite being, made of the same 'stuff' as God, hand crafted by God - no man could differentiate BIG YOU from God. your current personality, body, memories, etc. are ALL finite constructs of BIG YOU, who is infinite in scope.

How do I know this? I have had 2 ndes in my life, and while i know that such evidence is nothing to any atheist, and i don't blame you, the above paragraph is the best way i can describe our true nature.

This current human life is just a momentary perception, like looking down through a microscope. This is a tiny fraction of the focus of the awareness of your true self.

When you agree to be born as a human you agree upon a set of rules suitable for your purpose in 'the game'.

Some of these i can think of are
-you exist seemingly separate from God
-space and time are real
-the physical carnal world is real
-you have no immediate perception of your true infinite nature
-you are required to burry yourself in the role--the willful suspension of disbelief--as though hit were real.

You, we, are currently in a dream…but not a lucid one

Many other NDErs say similar things to what I am saying. It was as if they 'woke up' and were surrounded by beings who they have known since before this universe even existed.

It sounds ludicrous to you, but when you wake up from this dream (dye) there will be no amazement, you will have known all along that this life was a dream you agreed to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 03:30 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 03:09 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 02:54 PM)Free Wrote:  Well, let me take you right back to your OP with a single statement i will quote:


Everything you are proposing in relation to your argument for a god must necessarily depend on the above quote being true. Therefore ...

Here are just two questions:

1. Can you conclusively demonstrate that the Big Bang is the origin of existence?

2. Can you conclusively demonstrate that the universe is finite?

Well according to modern science the big bang did occur…it was the beginning of this universe. If something had a beginning it is bound, and is therefore non-infinite

According to scientific theory, it may have occurred.

But let us assume it did occur. So once again ....

1. Can you conclusively demonstrate that the Big Bang is the origin of existence?

2. Can you conclusively demonstrate that the universe is finite?


Regardless if the Big Bang occurred or not, it does not provide answers to these two questions.

So now, can you answer those questions?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 03:31 PM
RE: My Argument For God
Quantum wave forms do not require an observer to collapse. They'll do so whether someone is watching or not. The usual get out of jail on this is to say that's because god is always watching, but then the original idea that the wave form would collapse only if observed make no sense in the first place as it was already being observed.

The big bang is an event. We don't know what happened before it, or if 'before the big bang' is even coherent. If it isn't (that is there is no time prior to the BB), then time may well be finite. It the universe is cyclical, time may _also_ be finite. Thus your finite existance divide by finite time is finite. If not, then your equation applies to the universe and us. That is, we are no more real, have no more existence than the universe.

At one point you mention a lack of maths and models to explain consciousness and are unsatisfied with the current answers. May I suggest reading up on Langton's Ant and the concept of 'emergence', which shows that it is entirely possible, even likely, that there are many complex arrangements possible from simple beginnings which can never be calculated, reduced, or 'understood'. No one can tell you why Langton's Ant makes the pattern it does, or even if it always will via any mathematical proof. The ant (and the processes in a living brain tha produce consciousness) don't care what you can and cannot model in your head.

Sorry if I've made mistakes here. I'm on my cell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: