-->
@mustardness
I don't think he believes it... i'm not sure. I got the impression he thinks it lacks evidence from reading this thread.Creator is incorrect. You and him both reference an inferred cosmic "source" ergo a "creator".
Theism vs. Atheism debate
Posts
Total:
540
-->
@Outplayz
I've gone into a bit more of the specifics behind what I mean by "Supreme Being" (prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe.)
If his "Supreme being" is an occupied space, --ex human beings occupy space--- he certainly has no given no evidence much less any rational, logical common sense.
If his "Supreme being" is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept, then I'm ok with that as that is pretty much all any of these God believing types have in way of rational, logical common sense, however, occupied space something is not created ergo the finite and eternally existent, occupied space Universe something does not come from;
1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts, nor,
2} does Universe come from the macro-infinite non-occupied SPACE.
So those religious and philosopher types who keep espousing this type of irrationally illogical lack of common sense are playing mind games and not interested in truth
-->
@secularmerlin
Are my behaviors the same thing as my consciousness? You have observable evidence of people's behaviors but do you have observable evidence of their consciousness?
-->
@Outplayz
Feel free to argue for your own definition of God. God to me is a creative consciousness so I do believe God is a being.
-->
@Fallaneze
Are my behaviors the same thing as my consciousness? You have observable evidence of people's behaviors but do you have observable evidence of their consciousness?
I have observed people behave very much as I do myself. i know i am conscious (if anything is!) so it's natural to assume other people are conscious too.
-->
@Fallaneze
Okay, so i think there is enough evidence to at least suspect there is a transcendent reality (dimensions beyond ours). Ask me to define anything you want by the way. I'll try my best to be aware of defining what i define differently. For instance when i say i believe... i mean i think this outcome is the most probable over others that i've heard. I'm not particularly iron clad on it, but i'm confident it's one that makes sense.
I believe in an infinite consciousness. Now, i'm in no way smart when it comes to science... i'm quite ignorant overall, but i listen to scientists and pay attention to what they say. I think there are some things that what we know scientifically that make sense in such a platform. For instance, everything observable in our universe is made of one thing. I say observable bc there are things like dark matter, energy, etc. But since we don't know what those are, i'll stick to the observable. Then there is the wave function i've heard when particles are measured would fit in a source platform and also quantum entanglement also fits. Another interesting one is infinite regress paradox. Now i might not be getting this one right, or any of these so correct me, but it's a paradox bc it's thinking in linear time. How can we get to our big bang if there are infinite big bangs before it. However, if you add the source to this, there is no paradox. Bc this sort of mind would not travel linear... if the source is a platform that is infinitely everything, and can manifest as finite corporeal experiences, then it can manifest in any reality instantaneously. There could be infinite realities playing out but all that matters is a choice to be in "x" reality and you're there.
For now those are some interesting things i've heard scientists talk about that i can correlate to such a platform. There are also other things in humans/our reality that can correlate to this platform, but i'm interested to get passed this part first (to see if some of our science can point towards a platform). But like i said, i'm ignorant of science so please correct me wherever i'm wrong if i am.
I'll shortly explain the source through an analogy i've heard, but ask me if you have further questions. So, everything is this source. It's like if you imagine everything was infinite sand. Everything exists in this sand. What we are is correlative to a sandcastle. But once that sandcastle collapses, it becomes one with the infinite sand again. It doesn't mean it's gone, it's just becomes everything again. So the source "god" is everything. It is no one thing, or person... it's like an infinite unbound incorporeal mind. It knows all stories, endings, people, universes, everything basically. It gets more complicated once i add in who we are to this source, but that's the sum of what i think the source platform is.
-->
@Outplayz
I'll shortly explain the source through an analogy i've heard, but ask me if you have further questions. So, everything is this source. It's like if you imagine everything was infinite sand. Everything exists in this sand. What we are is correlative to a sandcastle. But once that sandcastle collapses, it becomes one with the infinite sand again. It doesn't mean it's gone, it's just becomes everything again. So the source "god" is everything. It is no one thing, or person... it's like an infinite unbound incorporeal mind. It knows all stories, endings, people, universes, everything basically. It gets more complicated once i add in who we are to this source, but that's the sum of what i think the source platform is.
Well stated.
-->
@Fallaneze
Are my behaviors the same thing as my consciousness? You have observable evidence of people's behaviors but do you have observable evidence of their consciousness?
Are the movements of planets the same thing as gravity? The answer is no. Are the movements of planets observable evidence for gravity? The answer is yes.
Therefore unless conciousness is an illusion your behaviors lead me to believe that you possess a conciousness similar to mine and if conciousness is an illusion you would appear to be experiencing the same illusion.
-->
@secularmerlin
So you do have independently verifiable observable evidence of consciousness?
-->
@Fallaneze
Yeah, flip the refridgartor over on our toe. Oh but your wearing steel toes so you feel nothing.So you do have independently verifiable observable evidence of consciousness?
Well some people have rare genetic conditions where they feel something going on but they do not feel pain. and they do not have anxiety.
Are they conscious. Well, I saw the interview with this lady and she seem to speaking clearly about her condition, her experience of birthing two babies etc.
Most people would say her talking in a rational, logical way in that intervew is evidence that she is conscious.
Do we have any doctors in this thread who can verify if any humans are conscious or not.
Philosophy 101, ...M-Tard---does this message by me exist? Philosopher reply---what message?
-->
@Fallaneze
Because we are stupid, child abusers with mental illness.
-->
@Outplayz
It gets more complicated once i add in who we are to this source, but that's the sum of what i think the source platform is.
You havent made any rational sense with sand, sand castles, mind, infinite source so you and we are certainly not ready for a more complicated Philosphy 101 from Outplayz.
Occupied space Universe is eternally existent, ergo, at best, what we have with the big bang phenomena, is an initiating set of circumstances that may eternally recycle//regurgitate//re-ignite every so often as the next WOW! ....SHAZAM!..... HOLY MACKERAL!........KA-BOOM!........YOUSER!
Non-occupied SPACE is eternally existent and macro-micro infinite ergo lack of integrity.
Occupied space { Universe//God } is finite ergo an integrity.
SPACE > Space ( )( ) > space of Observed { quantised } Time /\/\/\/\ or as ^v^v^
SPACE( /\/\/)( /\/\/ )SPACE
SPACE( * ) i ( * )SPACE
i = baby ego { metaphysical-1 earliest access } --its all about me--
i = teen ego { tainted//skewed by hormones }
i = mature adult ego { tainted//skewed by experience }
I = immature narccist ego { tainted//skewed by greed } --its all about me--
-->
@Fallaneze
If conciousness is more than an illusion then human behavior is the verifiable observable evidence. I'm pretty sure I already said this.
-->
@3RU7AL
Thanks man. How have you been? I've gotten some free time from work so i've been trying to get as much time on here as i can.
-->
@secularmerlin
Why would I need to grant you assumptions if the thing has independently verifiable perceivable observable evidence for it?
-->
@Fallaneze
Why would I need to grant you assumptions if the thing has independently verifiable perceivable observable evidence for it?
I do not recall asking you to grant anything.
-->
@secularmerlin
You said IF consciousness isn't an illusion then you consider yourself to have observable evidence of it. What if I don't grant that automatically?
-->
@Fallaneze
You mean if you don't grant that conciousness is more than an illusion? Then you would finally be admitting the limits of human epistemology. I would be proud of you for making such a big step.
-->
@nagisa3
Is that because you reject 'i know...' statements in general or do you dispute 'i know i am conscious' specifically?But I would argue that we don't know we ourselves are conscious.
-->
@nagisa3
I think 'i know i am conscious' is fine!
There is something going on inside my head that produes a 'self' and 'awareness' and 'self-awareness' with that self. Whatever that process is, it doesnt ever happen in rocks nor in any computer i have programmed! It wasn't even happening in my head while I was asleep.
-->
@nagisa3
I mean, you can't confirm or deny my subjective experience, nor I yours
I agree we can't know each other's subjetive eperience, but
But I would argue that we don't know we ourselves are conscious.
implied we don't know our own.
-->
@nagisa3
Following on from the cogito, my consciousness is self-confirming. The problem is confirming there is anything else....you can't confirm you're conscious
-->
@nagisa3
Descartes' statements i find unconvincing. I don't see how yelling "I think!" In Latin is a valid proof of anything.
I think about something { an occupied space } ergo I exist as a something { an occupied space } that has access to the following;
1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and ego ex concepts of Ego, Mind, God, Universe, Space, Time, Dogs, Toyota' etc.
------------------------conceptual line-of-demarcation-----------------
2} macro-infinite, non-occupied SPACE, that embraces/surrounds the following,
3} Spirit-2, Occupied SPACE Universe/God via fermions bosons --and any aggregate collection thereof as quantised and quantifiable physical/energy aka Observed Time that is associated directly with a sine-wave topology /\/\/\/ or as ^v^v
...3a} Spirit-3, gravity ( ) positive shaped geodesic occupied Space,
...3b} Spirit-4, dark energy )( is negative shaped geodesic occupied Space
......"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education"....A Einstein....
-->
@keithprosser
Lol, man you guys are going down the rabbit hole. The best thing i ever heard about consciousness was on the show Legion. It's a cool show if you haven't seen it. One of the characters starts going insane (the bad guys can warp realities). She starts doubting reality and tells one of the other characters how does she know any of this is real... the girl answered, "Bc when i punch people they fall down." Love that line.Following on from the cogito, my consciousness is self-confirming. The problem is confirming there is anything else.
-->
@nagisa3
Descartes may be overrated, but the world is divided into things that can have the thought 'I think therefore I am' and things that can't. I think that is enough to show that consciousness is 'something rather than nothing'. Consciousness is what I have and rocks don't so i can think like descartes. what consciousness is in detail...I dunno.
-->
@Fallaneze
Why is this the definition prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe, the god you wish to discuss? When was this god first posited to exist? Why can't the discussion concern a god who creates thunder? There are many gods posited to have existed before the one you wish to discuss. The god you have chosen is very much a Johnny cum lately god.
Is thunder sufficient evidence for a god of thunder?
-->
@Outplayz
You set a very low bar since no such evidence exists.Okay, so i think there is enough evidence to at least suspect there is a transcendent reality (dimensions beyond ours).
-->
@disgusted
You're wrong... there is plenty of personal evidence. It just doesn't happen to you, and you don't want to listen to others. You are the definition of who you are. I honestly could care less... or, waste my time trying to convince you of something you've already made your mind up on. I personally don't think personal evidence is frivolous... you do, so cool. All i can say is listen to those that are for real... they are hard to find, but they're there. Obviously, even personal experience is muddied by greedy people trying to make money... and there are a lot more of them than the latter.You set a very low bar since no such evidence exists.