zedvictor4

Well that's the unanswerable, age old question.

How do we explain nothing to something?

It's possible to explain a something to nothing to something, sequential scenario. Thus establishing a zero state.

But not that original 0 to 1.

Neither Gods nor big bangs explain 0 to 1.

What is a scholarly book other than an assumption.

There was nothing particularly scholarly about fanciful, archaic hypotheses, other than the ability to read and write.

And all that you two do is contradict, without logical argument.

God and Krishna same old same old, but one has a prettier dress and plays the flute.

Brain infused imagery, that lacks any verifiable external evidence.

 

No one knows.

Though it would be more appropriate to ask how rather than what.

Your response to logic is to label with whore and street dog. Is that sense and explanation?.....No it's simply ranting.

You think you are, what you think you are.

And what you are, is just another Godist with a head full of fanciful data.

It's simply how we are conditioned. 

We are all subject to conditioning, especially formatively.

If God was an inherent reality, then we would all be aware of it.

But we are not, so God was obviously put there at a later date.

How fervently or apathetically we react to God data, will be relevant to when, where and how we were conditioned.

The Jesus character may or may not have been based on a real person. 

It's all the associated, freethinking, supernatural stuff that logical thinkers find a tad hard to swallow.

Stuff like Gods.

You assume and label readily.

And rant.

Which is absolutely fine.

We store similar data, but output data varyingly. 

And neither of us has the true answer to the big question.

And we're as sure as we can be that sensory perception is accurate.

Teach your kids nonsense and they will grow up believing in nonsense.

All religions are the same.

A futile hope that there is some sort of supernatural alternative.

Definitely the 1960's.

Yep.

That's what is regarded as poetic licence.

In short, language used for effect. Which is what you attempted to do in your opening statement. Which is absolutely fine.

But that doesn't alter the fact that you weren't actually created by the universe, but rather you evolved within the universe from the matter of creation.

People use poetic licence and say all manner of inaccurate and illogical things. 

Firstly: Reasonable scientific theory suggests that we evolved from matter. 

Secondly: The universe also evolved from the same matter.

A reasonable scientific assumption also suggests that matter and consequent evolutionary processes were initiated in some sort of creation event.

Based on this widely accepted scientific theory, it would therefore be inaccurate to suggest that we were created by the universe.

As both the universe and ourselves came into existence post creation.

And all this notwithstanding unsupported God hypotheses.

Sight and appearance are internal data processing and not external reality.

Sight and appearance are assumptions or imagination.

What you imagine is not proof of anything.

 Also @ Pinkfreud08. Who has blocked me for some unknown reason. Which absolutely their prerogative.

Why all the bullying?

Why not just be tolerant and polite.

Ignorance is bliss.

Here we are. 

Same old assumed God/Ultimate Reality stuff.

Assumption isn't certainty.

Some would say that we evolved from universal matter. 

Yep. That's a logical enough assumption.

But a greater external reality, is just that. 

And any further fanciful assumptions would be illogical guesswork.

Yes Social structure and order relies on disparity. All ideological systems are inevitably the same.

Though poverty is simply oppression and some systems are more oppressive than others.

And I'm not sure where you get your definition of society from.

And we elect representatives and spend the next four years trying to knock them down. Bizarre!

Though for the record, I never vote. But that's another debate.

Ok. let's leave it at that for now.

It'd bedtime here in the U.K.

So goodnight.

Ok. Last try at explaining before I retire to bed here in the U.K.

You explicitly stated; "Your true creator is the universe".

I simply tried to point out that the universe and humanity are both products of the same creation.

The exponential rate of technological progress makes all of those options dead certs.

Though a downloaded consciousness would be enforced awareness without life, and the on/off switch would be recurrent awareness and death, at the mercy of those in control.

Perhaps that would be Hell.

We are part of the universe. Rather than a creation of the universe.

We surmise that the universe was created and that we are a consequence of the same creation.

So what is society?

And how is it supposed to function?

What would the fat cats do if there was no one to wipe their arses for them?

And who would buy all the crap, that no one really needs?

You have to protect those at the bottom, otherwise fuck all, would get done.

"Your true creator is the universe".

We are made of the same stuff as the universe. So we are therefore both resultant of the same creation. Whatever that may be.

Your eulogy was very nice and poetic, but ill founded.

I think that it's fair to say, that most would agree with the notion that people with common sense are less likely to start wars.

But yes. Perhaps social stability and social progress are mutually beneficial.

Therefore, that would suggest that common sense and intelligence are equally important.

So, what is my general outlook?

It's just something we flick in and out of occasionally for a bit of mental stimulation, when we have the time available to do so.

As such we leave regularly and return when it suits us.

Nothing to get hung up about.

Well it depends largely upon the context.

Intelligence is perhaps necessary for social progress.

Common sense is perhaps necessary for social stability.

So let me ask you. Which is the most important, social progress or social stability?

As you are attempting to ascertain likelihood.

Then surely the weight of evidence implies that Shakespeare was "most likely", not a fraud.

I would suggest that the insertion of the phrase "most likely" was somewhat counter-intuitive to the proposition.

Mr Madmans comments were in the main,  in agreement with my own comments, I think.

Though:

1. "Common sense is reserved for people of common intelligence"...… What does this mean?....What is common intelligence?

2. "There's nothing about it that implies only the dumb should lack it"....Which? Common sense or common intelligence. If R.M. means common sense,       then we are probably in agreement.

3. "Many geniuses lacked common sense"......We are in full agreement here.

If you are asking a question then use a question mark. Otherwise your post is in full agreement with my previous post.

Nonetheless it's true to say that murderers can only harm their victims.

Society is our perception of a collective. Whether that be the whole of human society or sub-society therein, or any other species group.

You don't quite understand how the brain functions.

Nor do you quite understand language and definition.

I won't try and explain further.

Because I expect that you won't quite get it.

Maybe.

But you can only assume, that externally there is something greater.

And let's face it, assumptions are ten a penny. 

Gobbledygook!

I estimate my I.Q. to be 700, give or take.

Though, intelligence is no substitute for common sense.

For us, reality is the existence of matter.....1

Though the ultimate reality is the non-existence of matter....0

A superior intelligence if there is such a thing, call it a god if you like, is nonetheless.....1

And what goes on inside our head's, is simply self contained data processing.

So the status quo will remain unalterable, no matter how many times you might state that "God is the ultimate reality". 

What exactly is beauty?

Isn't beauty just a variable human concept/assumption, relative to sensory perception and acquired data?

Assuming that there is a purpose.

I would suggest that, organic intelligence is one phase of a greater evolutionary process. (Material evolution).

The real purpose of the greater process would be to facilitate the re-initiation of matter when this universe finally collapses.

We are probably already developing our successors. (Non-organic intelligence)

One could be fanciful and suggest that the ultimate evolutionary phase is the creation of an all intelligent God.

This might infer an infinite sequentiality.

God enables matter and reinitiates evolution and consequently organic intelligence. Which in turn assists in the eventual recreation of God.

Society is what society is at the time.

As such, society cannot be harmed.

1400 square miles (Not much bigger than Rhode Island). Hardly room to swing a cat, considering all the payed up post-Jesus Christians.

And just out of interest. Where did all the good people go pre-Jesus?

And perhaps there's a separate heaven for Elephants, that God/Jesus wanted to keep a secret.

And why the 65 foot walls. Sounds more like a Prison than a heaven.

But what made God?

Evolution, Big Bangs and God all have the same problem.

Uranus excepted. Roman Gods and Goddesses is the norm.

So which one would you choose?

Cybele would be my choice.

True.

That would be about the same as the chance of a God existing.

That aside.  It's possible that a God initiated evolution.

But that still doesn't account for the God.

So remove a plant from it's growing medium and leave it exposed to the Sun and without water, and see how long it can survive for.

And read up on the limiting factors of photosynthesis.

Yep. But the Bible was written by men not God, and not that long ago.

And the something from nothing principle is where all hypotheses fall down.

And your level of horticultural knowledge is somewhat exemplified by the word "dirt".

So God was a magician then?

And I think that plants need a whole lot of nutrients, water and sunlight. 

And by the way, where did God come from?

Let's be honest.

The Earth needs a good catastrophe.

To get rid of a few billion selfish human beings.

The offended chooses to be offended.

Data can easily be ignored or disregarded.

Though I live in the U.K. Where we have the Monarchy whether we like it or not.

How's that for non-democracy.