- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 03 2010,14:55) 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.
Provide a viable alternative.Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 03 2010,21:36) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 03 2010,14:55) 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.
Provide a viable alternative.
Are you insane?My whole reason for posting to this topic was to provide a “viable alternative”. T8 acknowledged my contribution as a “legitimate option”. Only you dispute it. You deny it based on an assertion that you refuse to substantiate.
Again, get back to me when you can back up your statement.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 04 2010,08:33) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 03 2010,21:36) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 03 2010,14:55) 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.
Provide a viable alternative.
Are you insane?My whole reason for posting to this topic was to provide a “viable alternative”. T8 acknowledged my contribution as a “legitimate option”. Only you dispute it. You deny it based on an assertion that you refuse to substantiate.
Again, get back to me when you can back up your statement.
You didn't provide a viable option pertaining to Objectivity and Subjectivity having meaning without “Mind”.Hence, you discontinue talking because you have viable option.
You won't answer any of my questions as it would become obvious that you lack understanding of your own theory, for example: Can objects form without forces?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 04 2010,09:31) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 04 2010,08:33) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 03 2010,21:36) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 03 2010,14:55) 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.
Provide a viable alternative.
Are you insane?My whole reason for posting to this topic was to provide a “viable alternative”. T8 acknowledged my contribution as a “legitimate option”. Only you dispute it. You deny it based on an assertion that you refuse to substantiate.
Again, get back to me when you can back up your statement.
You didn't provide a viable option pertaining to Objectivity and Subjectivity having meaning without “Mind”.You won't answer any of my questions as it would become obvious that you lack understanding of your own theory, for example: Can objects form without forces?
Hence, you discontinue talking because you have no viable option.bodhitharta,
OK. Let me explain how this tennis match is shaping up.
I provided an additional option to the three that T8 supplied. Ball was in his (and apparently your) court.
You disputed the option by claiming, “Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity … .“. Ball was in my court.
I asked you to substantiate your claim by showing that it is an undisputed universal law as you previously implied. Ball was in your court.
You asked me to prove that your claim wasn't valid, but the ball was still in your court. No matter how much you flail your arms and pretend to have answered the volley, it doesn't change the fact that you have yet to substantiate your claim.
The tennis match will not continue until you do.
This is the last time that I will explain this to you.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 04 2010,14:13) bodhitharta, OK. Let me explain how this tennis match is shaping up.
I provided an additional option to the three that T8 supplied. Ball was in his (and apparently your) court.
You disputed the option by claiming, “Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity … .“. Ball was in my court.
I asked you to substantiate your claim by showing that it is an undisputed universal law as you previously implied. Ball was in your court.
You asked me to prove that your claim wasn't valid, but the ball was still in your court. No matter how much you flail your arms and pretend to have answered the volley, it doesn't change the fact that you have yet to substantiate your claim.
The tennis match will not continue until you do.
This is the last time that I will explain this to you.
You have never substantiated your original so called 4th option, you simply claimed it valid because T8 accepted your claim, I never accepted your 4th option with the explanation of why it was unacceptable.Now I will venture back to the link you gave and explain even more to you.
WhatIsTrue,
Think about one thing can you question or or inquire anything at all without Consciousness?
If you could just simply answer some of these questions you can think outside of the box and understand that the box doesn't think
The point is Whatistrue, now that we have four options, it is now time for testing the four view points. Obviously, one of them has to be correct and the others wrong, or a fifth option if it exists. I think bod is giving you reasons as to why the option that the universe never had a beginning is not viable. To defend that, you need to argue to the contrary or concede that you do not have facts to back this up.
At the moment scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. Simplistically speaking, they determine this by saying that the universe is expanding like an explosion and it is speeding up. So if you reverse the explosion, then there had to be a point in which it began because the reverse path is not eternal and an explosion that didn't explode seems contradictory.
Also, it does seem quite weird that the universe has always existed. It is the same weirdness that you would feel if you were told that the pyramids have always existed. When you see them, common sense says “who built that”?
T8,
I should have known that our brief moment of agreement would not last. I have been repeating myself enough to Bodhitharta. Apparently, now I have to repeat myself to you as well.
From my original post:
Perhaps the universe is part of a larger N-dimensional system that has multiple universes that expand and collapse continuously, without beginning or end.Within the context of the option that I presented, the expanding universe is the result of a beginning not the beginning.
In other words, the composite of all universes could still be an eternal, (i.e. timeless), entity. Iin fact, if you refer back to the video about 10 dimensional existence, time inhabits dimensions 4, 5, and 6, so by definition the entire 10 dimensional “multi-verse” encompasses time and is not subject to it.
Again, I have no dog in this fight. My only point is that it is a possibility, and that there could be many others.
T8,
Further, do you really think that Bodhitharta has met the following request:
Quote You disputed the option by claiming, “Consciousness must proceed Objectivity and Subjectivity … .“. I asked you to substantiate your claim by showing that it is an undisputed universal law as you previously implied.
If so, can you point out where?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 05 2010,10:36) T8, I should have known that our brief moment of agreement would not last. I have been repeating myself enough to Bodhitharta. Apparently, now I have to repeat myself to you as well.
From my original post:
Perhaps the universe is part of a larger N-dimensional system that has multiple universes that expand and collapse continuously, without beginning or end.Within the context of the option that I presented, the expanding universe is the result of a beginning not the beginning.
In other words, the composite of all universes could still be an eternal, (i.e. timeless), entity. Iin fact, if you refer back to the video about 10 dimensional existence, time inhabits dimensions 4, 5, and 6, so by definition the entire 10 dimensional “multi-verse” encompasses time and is not subject to it.
Again, I have no dog in this fight. My only point is that it is a possibility, and that there could be many others.
I'm sorry but you simply don't get it, What would Cause these universes to expand and collapse? Would't they be subject to predetermined LAWS that cause these universes to collapse and expand?If these universes are subject to Laws then the forces that apply those Laws must proceed the objects.
Can you perform math without the laws of Math already being present? Before anyone knew anything about Math wasn't the laws and formulas already existing? In otherwords knowing 1+1 is a discovery not an invention.
Hi WhatIsTrue.
Objectively speaking, if we take all possibilities into consideration, the universe not having a beginning is one of them to be sure. Personally speaking, I think that something has to be eternal (infinite) in order to produce finite, but whether that thing is a complete systematic universe as opposed to a creator is the real question.
It is sort of obvious that anything that shows design or engineering usually comes from a designer or an engineer. I don't see that as being any different on a universal scale, an atomic scale, or in a man-made world. The concept that design comes from a designer, engines come from an engineer, and laws come from a law maker is a sound concept.
Of course you are truly allowed to believe that the universe is the eternal thing that predates all and is the original and first, or source. But then to believe that requires a leap of faith and is somehow contrary to how we perceive logic. Why is there an infinite systematic universe? Why has it always been there. To be fair, you can ask the same questions regarding God, but it seems more feasible that there is a God than no designer or engineer. Especially when you consider consciousness. Why is there no conscious designer of the universe if the universe contains life?
What are the chances of a universal systematic universe just being there and always being there, with no thought or creative force before it? I would say the chances are absolute zero.
Sure you can argue that “Why” is irrelevant if the universe wasn't created, but it seems way more feasible that there is a creator of the universe and that the universe has limitations and the creator – no limitations.
T8,
Again, I don't begrudge you having a preference for one option over another. Obviously, you don't subscribe to what I proposed, but I was only trying to show that there were more than the three options that you originally provided. I don't think that we have a disagreement here.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 05 2010,14:12) T8, Again, I don't begrudge you having a preference for one option over another. Obviously, you don't subscribe to what I proposed, but I was only trying to show that there were more than the three options that you originally provided. I don't think that we have a disagreement here.
But there were never 3 options to begin with. Nothing didn't create anything so it was never an option because if something came out of nothing then there was something to begin with.There is really only two options possible
1. God created
2. Consciousness but not necessarily “God” caused things to come into existence.How ever ludicrous, I was simply covering all possible options and then using that as a base to show why not believing in God is unreasonable. And that even without personal experience with God, that God is still the best option and the option whereby all is answered. In light of this, I also describe why the other options are weak and impossible.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 05 2010,15:06) How ever ludicrous, I was simply covering all possible options and then using that as a base to show why not believing in God is unreasonable. And that even without personal experience with God, that God is still the best option and the option whereby all is answered. In light of this, I also describe why the other options are weak and impossible.
God is still the best option and the option whereby all is answered.
Nothing is an option because it is a choice that people choose to believe. Yes nothing is the craziest option of all because some how nothing did something, thereby rendering nothing to be falsely identified. It is really something in disguise. The something can be conscious or not. And yes in the end, I think that these are the 2 options left after reasoning the other one away. Further reasoning makes the something option go away too.
Yeah, the weird part is that many people believe that, even some reputable scientists. They believe the universe came out of absolutely nothing.
Inflationary theory suggests that positive energy is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero, so it consists of essentially nothing. The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous though. What is nothing may be a vacuum or something else. In other words 'something'.
Quantum theory, and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle provides an explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. It has to do with “quantum fluctuations”, particles and antiparticles spontaneously forming and quickly annihilating each other. One idea is that one fluctuation lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation leading to our universe.
Of course if you delve deeper into such speculation, you have to see that in order for this to happen, there has to be laws and particle pairs to begin with. That is not nothing, but it doesn't stop them from saying it is nothing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
