My Argument For God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-01-2015, 03:50 PM
RE: My Argument For God
Well, I read a couple of lines of the OP... then I read a couple of lines of some other responses on the first page and ... uh ... ok.

I've decided I really don't need to devote the kind of time it's going to take to get through even the first post.

So Mmhm1234, welcome to the forum. Smile

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
14-01-2015, 03:51 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 03:49 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 03:23 PM)gofish! Wrote:  He's a cunt.

Anger, always a sign your fragile belief system is being threatened, or that you don't even have a understanding of the science that your beliefs hang on..but wait i thought atheists have no beliefs…so does this mean you don't even believe in science?

You keep accusing others here of not being educated enough to counter your arguments, but you don't even know what an atheist is...

...therefore, you might be a cunt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
14-01-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 03:31 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  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.

This 'Wave Function' that is composed of nothing truly comprehendible exists in an infinite, or very nearly infinite, number of states spread out throughout all space-time (potentially including time all the way back to the big bang and as forward as infinity). Somehow, this wave function of infinite states throughout space-time becomes (for lack of a better word) one real thing. Going from that infinite state to one real thing in the school of thought of the scientists of the early 20th century is called Wave Function Collapse. The Wave Function 'Collapses' from an infinite number of states to one real thing. The hypothesis, which seemed fairly solid at the time, was that the conscious observer was responsible for this transition from infinite states to one real thing-Wave Function Collapse is the interdependence on a conscious observer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 03:59 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 03:31 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  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.

WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION FOR WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE:
With these definitions it is easy to describe the process of collapse. For any observable, the wave function is initially some linear combination of the eigenbasis \{ |\phi_i\rangle \} of that observable. When an external agency (an observer, experimenter) measures the observable associated with the eigenbasis \{| \phi_i \rangle\}, the wave function collapses from the full | \psi \rangle to just one of the basis eigenstates, | \phi_i \rangle, that is:
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 03:59 PM
RE: My Argument For God
Okay... here's my attempt at a reply to the OP. A sad attempt it is after reading those from better and far more erudite posters than myself.

*Also, I loath the "Open office' word program. (Says some one a little too slow to work out all the bells and whistles Tongue )

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I have been browsing these forums for a couple days,

Hello and welcome to the forums! Big Grin

This is a HUGE post and I'm going to break it up into smaller bits as I reply to them, okay? I'll be tying very hard to NOT change any meanings you've posted.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  ... And have yet to see any compelling evidence that supports any of your atheistic beliefs,

That might be because you're putting the cart before the horse. Atheists (And agnostic atheists etc, feel free to run through the whole gamut of the different 'flavors' of non belief) are essentially a 'Non' position. An atheist is not asserting anything. They are more passivly sitting back and waiting for good, solid, unclassifiable evidence.

(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."

Here, I would have to agree with you. Smile

(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!!!"

While I kind of do relate to most of the works of pretty much all of the holy books in just such a way. (I'm not picky, Koran, the Hinud Vedas etc all read like the best of Nordic and Greek tales). However, throwing the last bit on there.... seems a tad 'baiting'. Just because the religious tales strike me as just that.. it in no way makes me think of Professor Dawkins.


(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.

Congratulations upon your hard won education and knowledge. Big Grin Sadly, as a person with but a Trade level of qualification, I'll be putting the waders on and swimming hard to get a gist of the harder, physics, type stuff.

(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.

Citation actually needed here. I've seen folks on these very forums putting up links and quotes to stuff about consciousness....... SO, people are definitely trying to address the thing called 'Consciousness'....

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  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.....

Except... we can and people have posted various way in which conscious IS measured and tested etc. The quickest one I can think of are those poor unfortunates who've suffered head/brain trauma and had their cognitive functions changed/damaged/reduced. So there is that.

Consciousness can also, in a way, be 'Seen' by the use of MRI machines on living brains. So there is that.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  ... And yet it has the ability to manipulate the four known forces of nature at will,

First, a citation would be nice.

Second, here's a little film clip about pushing clouds with one's mind please enjoy.





The point of the story being THAT people can not actually push clouds with their minds. (But it would make a wonderful story if they could)

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  ... Devise insanely complex machines such as the LHC and yet,

Indeed and I agree with yourself that it is a wonderful and amazing thing. Big Grin

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Modern science has the curious habit of dismissing it as some mundane thing that is created somehow by this purely mechanistic universe.

Again, citation needed. What/which dismissal of mundane thing(s) are you talking of? I am unsure of what you might mean by such words.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  (This is going to be a long post, but before you pass judgment read it).

I am endeavoring to. Smile


(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 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. 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. 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, but not achieving that final result.

Okay, huge chunk of text there.

First (And not really knowing anything abut QM etc) I am unsure actually if it was put forwards as a way of doing things such as you describe. I thought it was a method of explaining the weirdness of atomic events which were observed?

I agree that there are seeming many facets /aspects of QM and perhaps they don't all create a whole picture but I do beilieve they are all quite useful and correct in the predictions that they can and do make. Or... I again might be wrong.

Of note is your comment: "It is as if we are peering into a realm beyond the human frame of reference, beyond human experience."

I believe that is because we are exactly looking into such a realm that our normal thought processes can't reasonably relate to the experiences found there and things are thence turned into phrases such as "Schrodinger's cat" etc.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  My per-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.

Well... I've read many 'layman's articals' which have proposed many ideas to try and give a good explanation for that which is happening in the double slit experiment....

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

And that above, right there? Is a nice piece of 'Woo' artfully slid into an other wise coherent post.

Your idea/'Solution' is, at the current reading, thence no more than an 'Hypothesis'. One of which has a problem in that time can and has been measured. Right down to its most finite part (Hence 'Plank' time)

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  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. 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'.

A wonderful amount of posting and text. Unfortunately the hypothesis doesn't make it 'Out of the starting box' as it were because some of the premisses seem to be a tad erroneous.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Many NDE accounts report 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.

Studies have also shown that NDE's are also culturally related. As in a European will experience a culturally specific NDE that is different to that of some one having such an event in Asia, or the sub continent etc. So, there's counter information/evidence.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  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

So.... large chunks of 'Anecdotal' information. Nothing about possible brain scans etc. Just simple 'Word of mouth' stuff...... (See my previous comment about such reported and collated NDE's being 'Culturally' related. As in all the names given above would seem to be from a similar culture. No NDE comments seem to have been posted by some one with the name "Anilaja G" or "Feng C".

(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’. 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.

Again, a great amount of text..... though I actually fail to see how the concepts presented are working other than Waves hands "It's magic". You're proposing something such as "We can see outside the box." which is based upon nothing more than anecdotal evidence and not even proposing a mechanism for how oone can some how 'See out side the box'.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Our perception and comprehension can easily step outside of the box,

Again, the how of the doing is the crux of the matter. Not the claim that the doing is being done.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  .... For instance. There is no known mechanism that can function outside of space-time.

This would seem to be a true and unambiguois statement. Since one would have to even define terms etc as "What is outside/beyond space/time" etc.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  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'.

Again... "People reporting" is 'Anecdotal' evidence. Knowledge is gained only (And rarely and poorly) sparingly thourhg such methods. For all else there are tools and such to actually measure things.

*(I may not be explaining myself clearly here and for such I apologize)

(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. 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'.

Gee... pretty much what I've been mentioning without the information of those scientist who have been suing scientific methods to collate and correlate such things. Also, evidence of 'Cherry picking' information to bolster the posters position by only including one person who's investigations support their views, thence running back off to "These other reliable witnesses have reported strange things and been dismissed."

Not very encouraging.

(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.

You've still yet to show a mechanism for the whole 'Out side the box' thing.

(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.

Again, not true as previously mentioned with the many studies of brain/head trauma studes etc. People who see/experaince strange things are not actually just dismissed. Medical science does an awful lot to try and understand/help with what is happening to said people.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  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.

Except... you exist regardless of math.

Also... a universe without you can, however, be theorized/hypothesized about. Sine you can, in effect, do the experiment backwards and think about the time the universe existed before you came along. Funny how that 'Time' thing works. Wink


(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I know many of you still believe that consciousness is an artifact of this Universe.

I think you wll find most eople hold to this because nothing else of substance hass been proposed.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  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.

Okay, another long post (I appologize for brealing it into 'points', but it make an answer fomr myself much easier) Also, what you've posted is in no way, shape or form a 'Model'. It's just a series of ideas.

So, by the numbers.

*This is just an assertion with nothing previously posted for it to actually stand on.
*Again, a strange assertion. About which I'm not quite sure of its meaning... perhaps other than to edge in 'Information theory' some how?
*I am, sadly, not 'Dust on the wind' or I would be a lot thinner and healthier. Tongue
*As previously, stated, there are many explanations for 'Me'. Quite depending on whether one is talking about a person's genesis (When a man and a woman love each other very much and rub themselves together in a very special way) to "I think... there-fore that sword just missed." kind of thing.
*Citation please. I certainly do not feel as inert as dirt (Though, on a bad day.... )

(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.

Ah.. an appeal to and a misunderstanding of 'Probability'. Seen this done many times here before. I'll let some one else post the thread links to the answer for that. Much cheers.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  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?

Um... no. Posting all that you have would seem to me (And I apologize if I am wrong) to be nothing more than a great effort in dressing up a 'Straw man' in a top hat and coat and trying to pass it off as something else. But please, prove me worng.

(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.

The above has nothing to do with Quantum mechanics, you know? Even myself, the lay-person, can see that.

(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.

Citations and better explanations for/from the above would be nice.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  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.

First, your opinion, while valued, is no better than the next persons. Secondly 'Carnal'? What the Flying Fornication is adding such a pejorative in there supposed to do/mean? Really?

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  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.

No... it does not work that way. The error for yourself not being clear and obfuscating
rests entirely with yourself. It is up to you to make yourself clear and uderstood. Not for we, the reader, to parse through your words and try and glean the meanings. The truth should easily shine through. Not be obscured by jargon and remblings.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  The core of what I am alluding to is that this ENTIRE UNIVERSE…EVERYTHING, is just a construct of consciousness.

You're back to pushing clouds with your mind again. Not a good sign.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  You are not who or what you think you are,

If I'm not who I think I am... then who am I?

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  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.

Again, simple assertions. More information etc would be nice.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  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....

We don't really need the quotes. Also Christianity, Judaism and Islam are not 'Eastern' faiths. Interesting that you slid them in along with Hinduism, yet quoted no Tao, Zen or Buddhism. And again, this reverts back to nothing more than 'Anecdotal' evidence. So, you can see the problem with suing it.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  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 Hinduism 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 plenitude 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):


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 I'm 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... that you've since posted that you've experienced a couple of very traumatic events I empathize and offer Hug to yourself.

Though, pretty much most of what you've posted would (And has here) been counted as 'Woo'.

Basically my question back to yourself is:

"How does experiencing 'Out side the box' actually work?


Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
14-01-2015, 03:59 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 03:47 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 03:30 PM)Free Wrote:  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?

Ok. Well it is currently by far the leading theory

Tthat a Big Bang occurred is indeed the leading theory, but whether or not it alone is responsible for all that exists, and whether or not the universe is finite is still hotly debated.

Particularly in regards to whether or not the universe is finite, there is no actual consensus either way.

Hence, your Argument for God is invalidated due to no evidence to support the belief that the universe is finite.

Thank you. That will be all.

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 04:00 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 03:49 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 03:23 PM)gofish! Wrote:  He's a cunt.

Anger, always a sign your fragile belief system is being threatened, or that you don't even have a understanding of the science that your beliefs hang on..but wait i thought atheists have no beliefs…so does this mean you don't even believe in science?

Don't worry, I'm not angry.

Far from it... Big Grin

"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
14-01-2015, 04:02 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 03:44 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 02:58 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Lmao, what do you guys want me to disclose personal information on here. it doesn't matter if i did or didn't work there, that doesn't effect the validity of my argument. And I'm still waiting for any one of you to refute what I'm saying, but you can't. You are refuting by saying you don't understand, therefore it must not be true, there must be deception. But there is none

Not at all. I'm just saying that I've worked for those companies too. Seriously. No sarcasm intended.

I have pointed out your non sequitur. You haven't responded to that.

Dodgy

what specifically is non-sequitur?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 04:02 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(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.

Nope. Here's a little actual math for you: any number divided by zero is undefined.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-01-2015, 04:03 PM
RE: My Argument For God
*Does quiet happy dance that their huge, long post actually got all the fiddly quote-y bits right first time* Banana_zorro
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Peebothuhul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: