- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 27 2010,06:41) Let's clarify this once and for all. Is it or is it not ludicrous to believe that god created the universe without any other evidence including personal experience?
I think that God is the most likely cause even after you remove all personal experience etc. Because the existence of God explains everything easily. Nothing is without explanation. It is easy for anyone to comprehend that design results from intelligence one way or another. Sure chance happens, but not on the scale of a universe.But yes I can agree that belief in God with no true faith (evidence) is a blind faith and is therefore ludicrous. There exists many people who's faith in God is the results of hedging their bets.
Such people often deny God when hard times come such as persecution or dying for ones faith. They then reason that their bet is not worth this price, so they change their mind or easily deny God to save their skin.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 27 2010,06:41) Alrighty then, why can't the “multi-verse” be eternal?
It is a legitimate option.That there has always been a universe. And it spawned life.
Another ludicrous option for sure. I think I should add it in. Thanks.
So we have three possible ludicrous options if the universe had a beginning. We have a fourth possible ludicrous option if the universe is eternal (has always been).
I think that sums it up.
So my faith believes in a creator. I have had more proof of the creator by personal relationship than by deducing that God is the most likely cause of which he is. All other options by reason of their nature are blind beliefs, (blind faiths). You cannot personally know the other options, so all you have is a ludicrous belief that it happened that way.
T8,
I appreciate your response.
I certainly don't believe that you should ignore whatever personal evidence you believe that you have, but I did want to make clear that many people don't have such evidence and are therefore perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of god(s).
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 27 2010,06:25) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 26 2010,11:14) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 26 2010,15:48) O ye of limited imagination. What if consciousness is a fundamental property of this “multi-verse”? What if our universe is consciously evolving?
Before you dismiss the idea out of hand, read the following and report back to the class:
Once again Consciousness would not be subject to the multi-verse as it would be the other way around. What I mean is we find that life substatiates a substance not the substance itself.As I said forces would control this “Multi-verse” therefore is could not be conscious itself. Also it must be understood that Consciousness itself does not evolve it is simply “discovered” you know what I mean? Uncovered. Consider that in ignorance consciousness seems far away(knowledge seems far away) Knowledge feels like an evolution but in reality there is no increased data just an increased awareness of the data.
Biblically speaking consider someone immersed in God that can say perform Miracles. Now Jesus said that those he was talking to could do the Miracles he did and even more but the fact is they were ignorant of what they could do. He told them to apply FAITH to “discover” what is already true.
Did you do your homework, or are you commenting out of ignorance?Let me help you out.
Quote Physics is in the business of modeling reality. General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and currently String Theory have all unsuccessfully tried to produce an overarching model of our objective reality. In the physics community, these one-theory-explains-all reality models are called TOEs. This particular TOE is “Big” because it successfully integrates metaphysics and physics into a single unified big-picture view of our larger reality. The My Big TOE trilogy provides a rational, logically consistent Theory Of Everything, develops the required new paradigms to support that theory, constructs a solid scientific foundation for future explorations to be built upon, and explains the interfaces and connections between newly derived knowledge and the existing database of scientific and personal experience. It subsumes physics, redeems philosophy, and explains many objective as well as subjective phenomena. Within My Big TOE, the physical universe and consciousness are fully integrated into a single scientific, tightly logical exposition that encompasses the subjective as well as the objective, the normal as well as the paranormal, the whole of your experience – body, mind, and spirit. The My Big TOE reality model will help you understand your life, your purpose, all of the reality you experience, how that reality works, and how you might interact most profitably with it. It doesn't have to be true to be a possibility, but you can't just make things up about it and pretend that it doesn't offer an alternate explanation.
The Unified field theory is not new neither is the Theory of Everything but you still miss the point as well as not understanding physics thoroughly. I n regards as to encompassing the subjective as well the objective, you are not being very objective at all looking at the issue from a purely subjective way.Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity and all objects are subjected to forces. You are simply trying to envelop God with His Creation instead of accepting that the creation is not The Creator.
The best way to interact profitably with reality is to be aware of reality and in reagrds to nature Dominate it as God commanded us to do and as far as God submit to HIM.
Now if you want to get into or talk about physics please do because I don't believe you understand physics properly.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 01 2010,07:28) T8, I appreciate your response.
I certainly don't believe that you should ignore whatever personal evidence you believe that you have, but I did want to make clear that many people don't have such evidence and are therefore perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of god(s).
Agreed.I still think it is foolish however to discount God because of bias and a lack of evidence in one's life.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 01 2010,08:25) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 01 2010,07:28) T8, I appreciate your response.
I certainly don't believe that you should ignore whatever personal evidence you believe that you have, but I did want to make clear that many people don't have such evidence and are therefore perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of god(s).
Agreed.I still think it is foolish however to discount God because of bias and a lack of evidence in one's life.
Everyone has evidence of God in their life, they just choose to not see it, Man is ever ungrateful.Yes, the universe is testimony of his works. But as it is written:
Romans 1:28-32 (The Message)
Since they didn’t bother to acknowledge God, God quit bothering them and let them run loose. And then all hell broke loose: rampant evil, grabbing and grasping, vicious backstabbing. They made life hell on earth with their envy, wanton killing, bickering, and cheating. Look at them: mean-spirited, venomous, fork-tongued God-bashers. Bullies, swaggerers, insufferable windbags! They keep inventing new ways of wrecking lives. They ditch their parents when they get in the way. Stupid, slimy, cruel, cold-blooded. And it’s not as if they don’t know better. They know perfectly well they’re spitting in God’s face. And they don’t care—worse, they hand out prizes to those who do the worst things best!Romans 1:28-32 (New International Version)
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29) They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30) slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31) they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32) Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.bodhitharta wrote:
Quote Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity and all objects are subjected to forces. According to what, or more likely, whom?
(Hint: T8, whom I think we can agree is the furthest thing from an atheist, has acknowledged my proposition as a legitimate option. What are you missing that he understands?)
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 02 2010,10:29) bodhitharta wrote: Quote Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity and all objects are subjected to forces. According to what, or more likely, whom?
(Hint: T8, whom I think we can agree is the furthest thing from an atheist, has acknowledged my proposition as a legitimate option. What are you missing that he understands?)
I think you misunderstood what T8 was calling viable, He was saying that it was viable that the Universe may have been eternal but it isn't viable as the Universe is a sytem of objects that are manuevered by forces and therefore the capacity of the forces must proceed the system itself.Now you must consider the fact that for instance Gravity does not exist without objects but the Law of Gravity has to proceed the Objects, do you understand what I'm saying?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 02 2010,06:37) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 02 2010,10:29) bodhitharta wrote: Quote Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity and all objects are subjected to forces. According to what, or more likely, whom?
(Hint: T8, whom I think we can agree is the furthest thing from an atheist, has acknowledged my proposition as a legitimate option. What are you missing that he understands?)
I think you misunderstood what T8 was calling viable, He was saying that it was viable that the Universe may have been eternal but it isn't viable as the Universe is a sytem of objects that are manuevered by forces and therefore the capacity of the forces must proceed the system itself.Now you must consider the fact that for instance Gravity does not exist without objects but the Law of Gravity has to proceed the Objects, do you understand what I'm saying?
I believe the question was:Quote Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity and all objects are subjected to forces. According to what, or more likely, whom?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 02 2010,14:12) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 02 2010,06:37) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 02 2010,10:29) bodhitharta wrote: Quote Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity and all objects are subjected to forces. According to what, or more likely, whom?
(Hint: T8, whom I think we can agree is the furthest thing from an atheist, has acknowledged my proposition as a legitimate option. What are you missing that he understands?)
I think you misunderstood what T8 was calling viable, He was saying that it was viable that the Universe may have been eternal but it isn't viable as the Universe is a sytem of objects that are manuevered by forces and therefore the capacity of the forces must proceed the system itself.Now you must consider the fact that for instance Gravity does not exist without objects but the Law of Gravity has to proceed the Objects, do you understand what I'm saying?
I believe the question was:Quote Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity and all objects are subjected to forces. According to what, or more likely, whom?
First of all subjectivity is a function of Consciousness, right?
Objectivity is also a function of Consciousness, right?Objects have form from the forces imposed upon them, correct?
In other words, the answer to my question is : according to you.
There is no universal law such as the one you suggested, and your conjecture on the subject does not equate to the same thing.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 03 2010,01:59) In other words, the answer to my question is : according to you. There is no universal law such as the one you suggested, and your conjecture on the subject does not equate to the same thing.
What do you mean “according to you”?Does Gravity have meaning without objects?
What conjecture?
Are you saying that subjectivity and objectivity can exist without a mind?
Conjecture:
a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disprovedI think that all three definitions fit nicely with what you are trying to do.
I asked you to cite the source of your claim:
Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity … .
Until you do so, I don't think that we have much to discuss.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 03 2010,07:12)
Conjecture:
a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disprovedQuote I think that all three definitions fit nicely with what you are trying to do. I asked you to cite the source of your claim:
Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity … .
How is a statement of fact conjecture? Besides isn't your entire theory presumptive?
Objectitivity and subjectivity are states of mind.
Objectivity=The state or quality of being objective
Subjectivity=Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world:
Quote Until you do so, I don't think that we have much to discuss. The fact is you may shy away from discussing the facts as they may throw a wrench in your system of belief. The facts are that objects are Created/formed by forces. So, no the universe could not be eternal nor conscious itself.
Hi
I dont know who this guy (below) is, but I found his sites interesting years ago, hes a Muslim.
Im not interested in evolution or science at all,
But maybe he could have some input into your discussions- or not?- I dont know!Subjects on creation etc are to the right.
bodhitharta,
Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity … .
If the above is a fact, then you should be able to easily find it stated in a reputable resource on the internet. Go find a reference and post the link.
Quote (karmarie @ Mar. 03 2010,09:44) Hi I dont know who this guy (below) is, but I found his sites interesting years ago, hes a Muslim.
Im not interested in evolution or science at all,
But maybe he could have some input into your discussions- or not?- I dont know!Subjects on creation etc are to the right.
Yes, he is very informative, I love his workQuote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 03 2010,10:25) bodhitharta, Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity … .
If the above is a fact, then you should be able to easily find it stated in a reputable resource on the internet. Go find a reference and post the link.
What do you mean? Why would that even be necessary when it is self-evident? Would you ask me to cite a source on the axiom “Existence Exists”?Can you “Know” something without Consciousness?
You don't need for me to give you a resource and if I did how would that alter the basic facts of the matter?
Argue on your own merits from your own data, the truth is you cannot argue against what I am saying because it is correct, if not provide a viable alternative.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 03 2010,07:25) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 03 2010,10:25) bodhitharta, Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity … .
If the above is a fact, then you should be able to easily find it stated in a reputable resource on the internet. Go find a reference and post the link.
What do you mean? Why would that even be necessary when it is self-evident? Would you ask me to cite a source on the axiom “Existence Exists”?Can you “Know” something without Consciousness?
You don't need for me to give you a resource and if I did how would that alter the basic facts of the matter?
Argue on your own merits from your own data, the truth is you cannot argue against what I am saying because it is correct, if not provide a viable alternative.
In other words, you have no reference because you made that “fact” up.Get back to me when you can show otherwise.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
