Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Back to forum list |
Back to The Lounge |
Jump to newest |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I don't know..... But one thing I do know is that no-one else knows either,,,,,,,, no matter how longwinded a response they care to offer attempting to impose some kind greater understanding than those of us who readily accept we don't know .... " this.. maybe long ago the descendants of some on here and some not sat around a camp fire and the hot air caused a change in the thingie which affected something.. anyway who cares.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I don't know..... But one thing I do know is that no-one else knows either,,,,,,,, no matter how longwinded a response they care to offer attempting to impose some kind greater understanding than those of us who readily accept we don't know .... " As that's side swipe at me, I'll reiterate why the long response I'm saying Noone as yet knows This does not mean we cannot know This does not mean all human invented creation concepts should be treated with equal , possibility , plausibility , or not subject to scrutiny to assess such Human invented creation concepts ,CAN be psychological devious to manipulate humans I don't know more I am amazed at the depth of belief in unsubstantiated insubstantial , human invented creator concepts I much prefer the facts concerning frog evolution xx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"You see ......the way I kinda look at it is.......even the word "created" was just a noise invented by man... Ya know,,,, its a bit like saying wibble.... or blib-blib-blib,,,,it means fuk-all really..... " I like sputum xx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"You see ......the way I kinda look at it is.......even the word "created" was just a noise invented by man... Ya know,,,, its a bit like saying wibble.... or blib-blib-blib,,,,it means fuk-all really..... I like sputum xx" Bugger meant Smegma x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"God." Yeah but what created Thor Marvelous x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"White mice....with help from Slartibartfast!" how did they get those elephants to stand on the back of that giant turtle | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I don't know..... But one thing I do know is that no-one else knows either,,,,,,,, no matter how longwinded a response they care to offer attempting to impose some kind greater understanding than those of us who readily accept we don't know .... As that's side swipe at me, I'll reiterate why the long response I'm saying Noone as yet knows This does not mean we cannot know This does not mean all human invented creation concepts should be treated with equal , possibility , plausibility , or not subject to scrutiny to assess such Human invented creation concepts ,CAN be psychological devious to manipulate humans I don't know more I am amazed at the depth of belief in unsubstantiated insubstantial , human invented creator concepts I much prefer the facts concerning frog evolution xx " au contraire mon ami That was not a side swipe at you.... I haven't read any of the posts in this thread that are over 3 lines long ..... It was simply an off the cuff remark at the futility of pondering the imponderable ...... Ahhhh people can be so precious | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"God. Yeah but what created Thor " Warm weather on ice or snow, turning the freezer off - that kind of thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I don't know..... But one thing I do know is that no-one else knows either,,,,,,,, no matter how longwinded a response they care to offer attempting to impose some kind greater understanding than those of us who readily accept we don't know .... As that's side swipe at me, I'll reiterate why the long response I'm saying Noone as yet knows This does not mean we cannot know This does not mean all human invented creation concepts should be treated with equal , possibility , plausibility , or not subject to scrutiny to assess such Human invented creation concepts ,CAN be psychological devious to manipulate humans I don't know more I am amazed at the depth of belief in unsubstantiated insubstantial , human invented creator concepts I much prefer the facts concerning frog evolution xx au contraire mon ami That was not a side swipe at you.... I haven't read any of the posts in this thread that are over 3 lines long ..... It was simply an off the cuff remark at the futility of pondering the imponderable ...... Ahhhh people can be so precious " How does one know something is beyond pondering , until one has indeed pondered it x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
" How does one know something is beyond pondering , until one has indeed pondered it x " Ah perhaps acceptant imponderability does not require preponderant preponderance..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
" How does one know something is beyond pondering , until one has indeed pondered it x Ah perhaps acceptant imponderability does not require preponderant preponderance..... " But then incidental pondering about the ponderbility of the possibly of imponderability is usually an inevitably | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I've been told that I must be living in my own little universe so it must be me " Mind over matter.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"The entire universe is just an experiment in a giants petri dish " But then that prompts the question, who created the petri dish | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"The entire universe is just an experiment in a giants petri dish But then that prompts the question, who created the petri dish " It was Jeff clearly !!! You know Jeff the giant ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"The entire universe is just an experiment in a giants petri dish But then that prompts the question, who created the petri dish It was Jeff clearly !!! You know Jeff the giant ! " Ah of course, I really should have known that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Continue here, quite interesting " was my post shag . lol But god my heads in a mess reading what they say here ... maybe UFO S come down and did some magic ... I am also into ufo s stuff and after life too . lolol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
" How does one know something is beyond pondering , until one has indeed pondered it x Ah perhaps acceptant imponderability does not require preponderant preponderance..... But then incidental pondering about the ponderbility of the possibly of imponderability is usually an inevitably " Ah but surely that's dependant on whether conclusion concludes that a conclusion is indeed simply the place where we got tired of thinking rather than accepting the futility of pondering futile imponderability become utterly ponderous....... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
" How does one know something is beyond pondering , until one has indeed pondered it x Ah perhaps acceptant imponderability does not require preponderant preponderance..... But then incidental pondering about the ponderbility of the possibly of imponderability is usually an inevitably Ah but surely that's dependant on whether conclusion concludes that a conclusion is indeed simply the place where we got tired of thinking rather than accepting the futility of pondering futile imponderability become utterly ponderous....... " Disagree as it's an incidental inevitability, conclusion was never a guaranteed part or inevitable part of the hypothesis infect a conclusion is most possibly an incidental distraction Aliens plausible Life after death a semantic non possibility until the word life is defined to a degree that everyone agrees , of course life after death at face value , devalues death to nothing merely phase change | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"The entire universe is just an experiment in a giants petri dish But then that prompts the question, who created the petri dish It was Jeff clearly !!! You know Jeff the giant ! " Do you mean the tall guy that invented sweetcorn? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Well ufo and afterlife very interesting things to talk about" So are quantum gravity vortex bubbles . Which theoretically at least explain fully all supernatural phenomen The facts about the quantum world and the understanding of chaos theory pretty much wraps it up Oh that and most probably psychology xx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Well ufo and afterlife very interesting things to talk about" I find thinking about it make my head spin .....as there is no answer | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"God. Yeah but what created Thor Marvelous x" I think that was Stan Lee | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Well ufo and afterlife very interesting things to talk about So are quantum gravity vortex bubbles . Which theoretically at least explain fully all supernatural phenomen The facts about the quantum world and the understanding of chaos theory pretty much wraps it up Oh that and most probably psychology xx" " So are quantum gravity vortex bubbles . Which theoretically at least explain fully all supernatural phenomen The facts about the quantum world and the understanding of chaos theory pretty much wraps it up" so this is theory and not solid evidence..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Well ufo and afterlife very interesting things to talk about So are quantum gravity vortex bubbles . Which theoretically at least explain fully all supernatural phenomen The facts about the quantum world and the understanding of chaos theory pretty much wraps it up Oh that and most probably psychology xx" Don't forget the "one electron universe" postulate by John Wheeler which allows for time travel and all kinds of quantum spookiness lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Well ufo and afterlife very interesting things to talk about So are quantum gravity vortex bubbles . Which theoretically at least explain fully all supernatural phenomen The facts about the quantum world and the understanding of chaos theory pretty much wraps it up Oh that and most probably psychology xx So are quantum gravity vortex bubbles . Which theoretically at least explain fully all supernatural phenomen The facts about the quantum world and the understanding of chaos theory pretty much wraps it up so this is theory and not solid evidence..? " No it's tongue firmly in cheek xx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Well ufo and afterlife very interesting things to talk about So are quantum gravity vortex bubbles . Which theoretically at least explain fully all supernatural phenomen The facts about the quantum world and the understanding of chaos theory pretty much wraps it up Oh that and most probably psychology xx So are quantum gravity vortex bubbles . Which theoretically at least explain fully all supernatural phenomen The facts about the quantum world and the understanding of chaos theory pretty much wraps it up so this is theory and not solid evidence..? No it's tongue firmly in cheek xx" ahh..ok | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Well ufo and afterlife very interesting things to talk about So are quantum gravity vortex bubbles . Which theoretically at least explain fully all supernatural phenomen The facts about the quantum world and the understanding of chaos theory pretty much wraps it up Oh that and most probably psychology xx So are quantum gravity vortex bubbles . Which theoretically at least explain fully all supernatural phenomen The facts about the quantum world and the understanding of chaos theory pretty much wraps it up so this is theory and not solid evidence..? No it's tongue firmly in cheek xx ahh..ok" But one does not need solid evidence or indeed any evidence to believe ? Right ? When someone remarks that life is a miracle , I will always remark at the miraculous way malaria devours it's young human prey I find evolution remarkable I leave the alien concept of miracles to the fairytale section xx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"So you believe something without empirical evidence What do you mean?" It means that the story Noah can be illustrated to be nothing more than the work of fertile bronze age blood cult , minds xx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"You see ......the way I kinda look at it is.......even the word "created" was just a noise invented by man... Ya know,,,, its a bit like saying wibble.... or blib-blib-blib,,,,it means fuk-all really..... I like sputum xx" Plegm is my favourite | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"God. Yeah but what created Thor Marvelous x I think that was Stan Lee " Thor was created by Odin and Freya as he was their son. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
Reply privately |
"Is it possible to be late for work ?" Not if you got a time machine lol. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Is it possible to be late for work ?Not if you got a time machine lol." Il have a look on eBay , other time machine retailers are available | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"So if the scientists don't acknowledge that space is infinite and time don't exist in reality, how did they come up with the big bang as start of time? Confused myself there." The short answer , is Einstein has a theory that light speed in a vacuum is always content Thus he postulated spacetime a universal fabric as it were Observations prove the universe is expanding and thus working backwards they conclude at some point 13 bla billion years ago all visible matter in what we term a universe , was within a singularity , Ie ,well small heavy bunch of stuff As it is suggested there was no space or time at that point , some conclude that was a beginning I don't believe the above theory I know stuff in the universe is expanding and was once closer together . Big bang , is an old theory and there are a fair few more which I feel are more plausible x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
Reply privately |
Reply privately |
"Is it possible to be late for work ?" If you have got a good Boss I,m sure he won,t mind now and again.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"So if the scientists don't acknowledge that space is infinite and time don't exist in reality, how did they come up with the big bang as start of time? Confused myself there. The short answer , is Einstein has a theory that light speed in a vacuum is always content Thus he postulated spacetime a universal fabric as it were Observations prove the universe is expanding and thus working backwards they conclude at some point 13 bla billion years ago all visible matter in what we term a universe , was within a singularity , Ie ,well small heavy bunch of stuff As it is suggested there was no space or time at that point , some conclude that was a beginning I don't believe the above theory I know stuff in the universe is expanding and was once closer together . Big bang , is an old theory and there are a fair few more which I feel are more plausible x " Also a black hole have eaten and teared up a star not long ago, wonder if a black hole can end life as we know it if the earth gets to close to one?. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
Reply privately |
"No such thing as infinity. " Mandelbrots set proves there is | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"No such thing as infinity. " I,m sure I saw a bottle of That In the perfume counter at boots when out Shopping.. or was it after shave.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I've read a lot of the atheist arguments against God recently and am currently writing a book on it all. None of the arguments hold up to closer scrutiny and most of them are left overs from 19th century arguments which require a 19th century understanding of science to back them up. The key problem with all of them is that they simply haven't been thought through thoroughly enough so that they might survive serious rational questioning. They are generally right when it comes to criticising the beliefs of the various faiths. But their arguments against God exhibit deeply flawed reasoning." Define your god concept | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I've read a lot of the atheist arguments against God recently and am currently writing a book on it all. None of the arguments hold up to closer scrutiny and most of them are left overs from 19th century arguments which require a 19th century understanding of science to back them up. The key problem with all of them is that they simply haven't been thought through thoroughly enough so that they might survive serious rational questioning. They are generally right when it comes to criticising the beliefs of the various faiths. But their arguments against God exhibit deeply flawed reasoning. Define your god concept " Of course most god concepts as they are simpley unsubstantiated human imaginings don't need need science of any century to illustrate their failings , they usually just require honest semantics and logic x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"In short , there are a lot of human invented creator concepts Some people for reasons I do not understand, choose to take one or adapt one and believe them to be fact There will be a reason behind the conclusion If i know the reason perhaps I can understand how the conclusion was devised Somewhere just somewhere I need to shout TEAPOT" Most peoples reasons for believing, is because they want to believe. It makes them feel better about their short existence. They don't want to question, what is really a very shaky reason to believe. If it makes them happy, fine. But it irritates me when someone believes without question. Can't you see the teapot? You need a very special magical telescope! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I've read a lot of the atheist arguments against God recently and am currently writing a book on it all. None of the arguments hold up to closer scrutiny and most of them are left overs from 19th century arguments which require a 19th century understanding of science to back them up. The key problem with all of them is that they simply haven't been thought through thoroughly enough so that they might survive serious rational questioning. They are generally right when it comes to criticising the beliefs of the various faiths. But their arguments against God exhibit deeply flawed reasoning." As opposed to believing in a god without any shred of physical evidence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"God." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?!" Are we the only conscious animal? Are you sure? How do all the others survive and communicate them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?! Are we the only conscious animal? Are you sure? How do all the others survive and communicate them?" Well yes, we are the only concious animals, a monkey doesn't sit and look at himself in the mirror and study himself, or question why he exists or how the universe came to be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?! Are we the only conscious animal? Are you sure? How do all the others survive and communicate them? Well yes, we are the only concious animals, a monkey doesn't sit and look at himself in the mirror and study himself, or question why he exists or how the universe came to be." They do study themselves! Give a primate a mirror and he will study his face. They work out that the image is a reflection of themselves. We dont know what he is thinking, but we know he thinks, because he communicate with us, simply, but its there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?! Are we the only conscious animal? Are you sure? How do all the others survive and communicate them? Well yes, we are the only concious animals, a monkey doesn't sit and look at himself in the mirror and study himself, or question why he exists or how the universe came to be. They do study themselves! Give a primate a mirror and he will study his face. They work out that the image is a reflection of themselves. We dont know what he is thinking, but we know he thinks, because he communicate with us, simply, but its there." We are a totally different level of conciousness to primates though, we communicate through verbal language not just body language, art, text, etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?! Are we the only conscious animal? Are you sure? How do all the others survive and communicate them? Well yes, we are the only concious animals, a monkey doesn't sit and look at himself in the mirror and study himself, or question why he exists or how the universe came to be. They do study themselves! Give a primate a mirror and he will study his face. They work out that the image is a reflection of themselves. We dont know what he is thinking, but we know he thinks, because he communicate with us, simply, but its there. We are a totally different level of conciousness to primates though, we communicate through verbal language not just body language, art, text, etc. " We form words, because we can. Birds have different calls, how is that different? Chimps make noises to, that is part of there communication. Chimps are evolving just as we are. Whose to say they won't be speaking in another half a million years. Do you know chimps don't make art? Just because you don't recognise something as art it doesnt mean the other being doesn't. Chimps may well see our art as the scribblings of idiots. Animals are conscious. You don't have levels of it. You either are or are not. That's what sets us apart from plants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's all theory whatever anyone chooses to believe whether the claim is based in science or faith. The wonderful thing about knowledge is the more you aquire the more you understand just how ignorant you are. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?!" According to a documentary I saw, a while ago, at one time we were not the only ape type creature, with the potential to reach the level of modern humans. there where species other than us, and Neanderthals that showed the same intelligence, at the same point in our history. We are merely the only one of them to survive, and that's possibly more due to our violent nature, as aposed to intelligence superior to that of some of our gentler relatives. So maybe we're not quite as special as we think we are, but there is no doubting man's ability to completely wipe out other species. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?!" It matters not how amazing or unfathomable you may perceive the visible universe , if you feel it can only be amazing because something more amazing exists , you have created a a non reducing circular paradox that solves zero The concept of evolution is to date the only observed mechanism that does not fall foul to the circular argument The dishonest , will not define the word god as to do so always reduces to the circular non logic x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?! Are we the only conscious animal? Are you sure? How do all the others survive and communicate them? Well yes, we are the only concious animals, a monkey doesn't sit and look at himself in the mirror and study himself, or question why he exists or how the universe came to be. They do study themselves! Give a primate a mirror and he will study his face. They work out that the image is a reflection of themselves. We dont know what he is thinking, but we know he thinks, because he communicate with us, simply, but its there. We are a totally different level of conciousness to primates though, we communicate through verbal language not just body language, art, text, etc. We form words, because we can. Birds have different calls, how is that different? Chimps make noises to, that is part of there communication. Chimps are evolving just as we are. Whose to say they won't be speaking in another half a million years. Do you know chimps don't make art? Just because you don't recognise something as art it doesnt mean the other being doesn't. Chimps may well see our art as the scribblings of idiots. Animals are conscious. You don't have levels of it. You either are or are not. That's what sets us apart from plants." My point was that why are we so advanced in comparison to everything else on the planet, when apes have been around for the same time period as the humanoid. How is it that our humanoid species has such an advanced level of intelligence that we can build pyramids to astrological perfection and phi. It doesnt make sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?! Are we the only conscious animal? Are you sure? How do all the others survive and communicate them? Well yes, we are the only concious animals, a monkey doesn't sit and look at himself in the mirror and study himself, or question why he exists or how the universe came to be. They do study themselves! Give a primate a mirror and he will study his face. They work out that the image is a reflection of themselves. We dont know what he is thinking, but we know he thinks, because he communicate with us, simply, but its there. We are a totally different level of conciousness to primates though, we communicate through verbal language not just body language, art, text, etc. We form words, because we can. Birds have different calls, how is that different? Chimps make noises to, that is part of there communication. Chimps are evolving just as we are. Whose to say they won't be speaking in another half a million years. Do you know chimps don't make art? Just because you don't recognise something as art it doesnt mean the other being doesn't. Chimps may well see our art as the scribblings of idiots. Animals are conscious. You don't have levels of it. You either are or are not. That's what sets us apart from plants. My point was that why are we so advanced in comparison to everything else on the planet, when apes have been around for the same time period as the humanoid. How is it that our humanoid species has such an advanced level of intelligence that we can build pyramids to astrological perfection and phi. It doesnt make sense. " Whilst I agree that we seem to be uniquely more self aware than most other animals I don't think we should dismiss the possibility that some animals may be more self aware than we currently seem to think. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Who created the creator and what was he doing before he started his creating?" The infinite recursion question pops its head up again. The only logical answer is that there has to be, at some point of iteration, something infinite must exist. What this infinite is has yet to be proved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I personally believe that I am a product of a lot of evolutionary coincidences. From a blob of chemicals that formed a cell that developed and learnt that by grouping together with other cells, survival chances were better. If a higher power put me here, why did he bother and what did he hope to gain from it?" To give me someone to argue with!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"A combination of witchcraft and pelvic sorcery ." for ‘je suis ’. I'll ignore the rest | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?! Are we the only conscious animal? Are you sure? How do all the others survive and communicate them? Well yes, we are the only concious animals, a monkey doesn't sit and look at himself in the mirror and study himself, or question why he exists or how the universe came to be. They do study themselves! Give a primate a mirror and he will study his face. They work out that the image is a reflection of themselves. We dont know what he is thinking, but we know he thinks, because he communicate with us, simply, but its there. We are a totally different level of conciousness to primates though, we communicate through verbal language not just body language, art, text, etc. We form words, because we can. Birds have different calls, how is that different? Chimps make noises to, that is part of there communication. Chimps are evolving just as we are. Whose to say they won't be speaking in another half a million years. Do you know chimps don't make art? Just because you don't recognise something as art it doesnt mean the other being doesn't. Chimps may well see our art as the scribblings of idiots. Animals are conscious. You don't have levels of it. You either are or are not. That's what sets us apart from plants. My point was that why are we so advanced in comparison to everything else on the planet, when apes have been around for the same time period as the humanoid. How is it that our humanoid species has such an advanced level of intelligence that we can build pyramids to astrological perfection and phi. It doesnt make sense. " Because early humans eradicated their closest rivals, leaving the planet clear for us to fuck up, all by ourselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?! Are we the only conscious animal? Are you sure? How do all the others survive and communicate them? Well yes, we are the only concious animals, a monkey doesn't sit and look at himself in the mirror and study himself, or question why he exists or how the universe came to be. They do study themselves! Give a primate a mirror and he will study his face. They work out that the image is a reflection of themselves. We dont know what he is thinking, but we know he thinks, because he communicate with us, simply, but its there. We are a totally different level of conciousness to primates though, we communicate through verbal language not just body language, art, text, etc. We form words, because we can. Birds have different calls, how is that different? Chimps make noises to, that is part of there communication. Chimps are evolving just as we are. Whose to say they won't be speaking in another half a million years. Do you know chimps don't make art? Just because you don't recognise something as art it doesnt mean the other being doesn't. Chimps may well see our art as the scribblings of idiots. Animals are conscious. You don't have levels of it. You either are or are not. That's what sets us apart from plants. My point was that why are we so advanced in comparison to everything else on the planet, when apes have been around for the same time period as the humanoid. How is it that our humanoid species has such an advanced level of intelligence that we can build pyramids to astrological perfection and phi. It doesnt make sense. " Evolutionists put a lot of it down to fire. As we started to use fire (a discovery, not an invention!), then our bodies could digest more protein as the meat was cooked. This may have led to increased brain size. People seem to be under the impression that evolution has stopped. It hasnt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?! Are we the only conscious animal? Are you sure? How do all the others survive and communicate them? Well yes, we are the only concious animals, a monkey doesn't sit and look at himself in the mirror and study himself, or question why he exists or how the universe came to be. They do study themselves! Give a primate a mirror and he will study his face. They work out that the image is a reflection of themselves. We dont know what he is thinking, but we know he thinks, because he communicate with us, simply, but its there. We are a totally different level of conciousness to primates though, we communicate through verbal language not just body language, art, text, etc. We form words, because we can. Birds have different calls, how is that different? Chimps make noises to, that is part of there communication. Chimps are evolving just as we are. Whose to say they won't be speaking in another half a million years. Do you know chimps don't make art? Just because you don't recognise something as art it doesnt mean the other being doesn't. Chimps may well see our art as the scribblings of idiots. Animals are conscious. You don't have levels of it. You either are or are not. That's what sets us apart from plants. My point was that why are we so advanced in comparison to everything else on the planet, when apes have been around for the same time period as the humanoid. How is it that our humanoid species has such an advanced level of intelligence that we can build pyramids to astrological perfection and phi. It doesnt make sense. Evolutionists put a lot of it down to fire. As we started to use fire (a discovery, not an invention!), then our bodies could digest more protein as the meat was cooked. This may have led to increased brain size. People seem to be under the impression that evolution has stopped. It hasnt." Yes, but there is a significant jump from finding fire, to building a pyramid which is exactly aligned with orions belt and built to the same calculations as the golden mean. I don't personally think we have come as far as we have without intervention of some kind | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?! Are we the only conscious animal? Are you sure? How do all the others survive and communicate them? Well yes, we are the only concious animals, a monkey doesn't sit and look at himself in the mirror and study himself, or question why he exists or how the universe came to be. They do study themselves! Give a primate a mirror and he will study his face. They work out that the image is a reflection of themselves. We dont know what he is thinking, but we know he thinks, because he communicate with us, simply, but its there. We are a totally different level of conciousness to primates though, we communicate through verbal language not just body language, art, text, etc. We form words, because we can. Birds have different calls, how is that different? Chimps make noises to, that is part of there communication. Chimps are evolving just as we are. Whose to say they won't be speaking in another half a million years. Do you know chimps don't make art? Just because you don't recognise something as art it doesnt mean the other being doesn't. Chimps may well see our art as the scribblings of idiots. Animals are conscious. You don't have levels of it. You either are or are not. That's what sets us apart from plants. My point was that why are we so advanced in comparison to everything else on the planet, when apes have been around for the same time period as the humanoid. How is it that our humanoid species has such an advanced level of intelligence that we can build pyramids to astrological perfection and phi. It doesnt make sense. Evolutionists put a lot of it down to fire. As we started to use fire (a discovery, not an invention!), then our bodies could digest more protein as the meat was cooked. This may have led to increased brain size. People seem to be under the impression that evolution has stopped. It hasnt. Yes, but there is a significant jump from finding fire, to building a pyramid which is exactly aligned with orions belt and built to the same calculations as the golden mean. I don't personally think we have come as far as we have without intervention of some kind " Possibly, personally, I concur but until we find the black monolith then I am not going to say for definite. Maybe the black monolith is the black stone in Mecca??? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?! Are we the only conscious animal? Are you sure? How do all the others survive and communicate them? Well yes, we are the only concious animals, a monkey doesn't sit and look at himself in the mirror and study himself, or question why he exists or how the universe came to be. They do study themselves! Give a primate a mirror and he will study his face. They work out that the image is a reflection of themselves. We dont know what he is thinking, but we know he thinks, because he communicate with us, simply, but its there. We are a totally different level of conciousness to primates though, we communicate through verbal language not just body language, art, text, etc. We form words, because we can. Birds have different calls, how is that different? Chimps make noises to, that is part of there communication. Chimps are evolving just as we are. Whose to say they won't be speaking in another half a million years. Do you know chimps don't make art? Just because you don't recognise something as art it doesnt mean the other being doesn't. Chimps may well see our art as the scribblings of idiots. Animals are conscious. You don't have levels of it. You either are or are not. That's what sets us apart from plants. My point was that why are we so advanced in comparison to everything else on the planet, when apes have been around for the same time period as the humanoid. How is it that our humanoid species has such an advanced level of intelligence that we can build pyramids to astrological perfection and phi. It doesnt make sense. " Firstly I totally disagree with the subjective assessment that human primates are vastly more advanced than some of the others Secondly , the facts of evolutionary explain species variation And finally, s within evolution species interact and kill each other some times to a degree of extinction There is evidence to substantiate the theorys , regarding a number of differing intelligent hominid species such as neanderthal, and the hobbit people Can you imagine what some humans would do to chimps if the evolved an intelligence deemed a threat , of course some humans would want to annihilate them , and there is little doubt at key evolutionary pivot points this has happened | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Who created the creator and what was he doing before he started his creating? The infinite recursion question pops its head up again. The only logical answer is that there has to be, at some point of iteration, something infinite must exist. What this infinite is has yet to be proved." Wrong. There doesn't have to be something infinite. The recursion itself could be infinite. If god is finite, and that is the requirement for what god is, then the chain of predecessors must indeed be infinite. If, instead, causes (which god is) can be infinite i.e. without cause, then why can't this universe itself be infinite and therefore lacking any requirement for a creator? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I've read a lot of the atheist arguments against God recently and am currently writing a book on it all. None of the arguments hold up to closer scrutiny and most of them are left overs from 19th century arguments which require a 19th century understanding of science to back them up. The key problem with all of them is that they simply haven't been thought through thoroughly enough so that they might survive serious rational questioning. They are generally right when it comes to criticising the beliefs of the various faiths. But their arguments against God exhibit deeply flawed reasoning. Define your god concept " God is an infinite All-pervasive Being Who is The Source of Everything That is not a concept which needs defining. It is an aggregate of what all the Faiths agree upon. It is the core definition which Atheism should be attempting to refute, as it best characterizes what most religious people believe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I've read a lot of the atheist arguments against God recently and am currently writing a book on it all. None of the arguments hold up to closer scrutiny and most of them are left overs from 19th century arguments which require a 19th century understanding of science to back them up. The key problem with all of them is that they simply haven't been thought through thoroughly enough so that they might survive serious rational questioning. They are generally right when it comes to criticising the beliefs of the various faiths. But their arguments against God exhibit deeply flawed reasoning. Define your god concept Of course most god concepts as they are simpley unsubstantiated human imaginings don't need need science of any century to illustrate their failings , they usually just require honest semantics and logic x " Yeah that's one of the pitfalls that Atheism falls into... confusing arguments about language with arguments about things. It only ever amounts to a complaint that you're using the wrong words... not that your logic is wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I've read a lot of the atheist arguments against God recently and am currently writing a book on it all. None of the arguments hold up to closer scrutiny and most of them are left overs from 19th century arguments which require a 19th century understanding of science to back them up. The key problem with all of them is that they simply haven't been thought through thoroughly enough so that they might survive serious rational questioning. They are generally right when it comes to criticising the beliefs of the various faiths. But their arguments against God exhibit deeply flawed reasoning. As opposed to believing in a god without any shred of physical evidence?" If the universe is God there's a tonne of physical evidence | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Who created the creator and what was he doing before he started his creating? The infinite recursion question pops its head up again. The only logical answer is that there has to be, at some point of iteration, something infinite must exist. What this infinite is has yet to be proved. Wrong. There doesn't have to be something infinite. The recursion itself could be infinite. If god is finite, and that is the requirement for what god is, then the chain of predecessors must indeed be infinite. If, instead, causes (which god is) can be infinite i.e. without cause, then why can't this universe itself be infinite and therefore lacking any requirement for a creator?" Indeed, given the argument that an infinte chain of causes, which can themselves be infinite, will ultimately lead to one which is infinite...and that, once this infinite cause comes into existence, nothing could have existed before it and nothing could have existed after it (which seems to be the working definition of infinity)... would this not act as proof that, in our existing, we must therefore be that infinite cause | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"No such thing as infinity. " actually, there are 2 kinds of infinity. 1) potential infinity (eg the space between two fixed points. this can potentially be divided infinitely. 2) actual infinity - eg numbers. + possibly space | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Who created the creator and what was he doing before he started his creating? The infinite recursion question pops its head up again. The only logical answer is that there has to be, at some point of iteration, something infinite must exist. What this infinite is has yet to be proved. Wrong. There doesn't have to be something infinite. The recursion itself could be infinite. If god is finite, and that is the requirement for what god is, then the chain of predecessors must indeed be infinite. If, instead, causes (which god is) can be infinite i.e. without cause, then why can't this universe itself be infinite and therefore lacking any requirement for a creator?" As you know from our previous discussions, I personally do believe that the infinite is a creator but that's not my point at this time. My point at this time is that something, at some point, has to be infinite. From a logical point I have no problem with that infinite being either the universe itself or something that existed before the universe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?! Are we the only conscious animal? Are you sure? How do all the others survive and communicate them? Well yes, we are the only concious animals, a monkey doesn't sit and look at himself in the mirror and study himself, or question why he exists or how the universe came to be. They do study themselves! Give a primate a mirror and he will study his face. They work out that the image is a reflection of themselves. We dont know what he is thinking, but we know he thinks, because he communicate with us, simply, but its there. We are a totally different level of conciousness to primates though, we communicate through verbal language not just body language, art, text, etc. We form words, because we can. Birds have different calls, how is that different? Chimps make noises to, that is part of there communication. Chimps are evolving just as we are. Whose to say they won't be speaking in another half a million years. Do you know chimps don't make art? Just because you don't recognise something as art it doesnt mean the other being doesn't. Chimps may well see our art as the scribblings of idiots. Animals are conscious. You don't have levels of it. You either are or are not. That's what sets us apart from plants. My point was that why are we so advanced in comparison to everything else on the planet, when apes have been around for the same time period as the humanoid. How is it that our humanoid species has such an advanced level of intelligence that we can build pyramids to astrological perfection and phi. It doesnt make sense. " Our ape cousins haven't necessarily been around any longer than we have, we have each evolved from common ancestors. Our line in the tree just happened to develop more advanced brains capable of deeper thinking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"No such thing as infinity. actually, there are 2 kinds of infinity. 1) potential infinity (eg the space between two fixed points. this can potentially be divided infinitely. " ^^ I think this is infinite as opposed to infinity. Or even infinitely divisible " 2) actual infinity - eg numbers. + possibly space" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I've read a lot of the atheist arguments against God recently and am currently writing a book on it all. None of the arguments hold up to closer scrutiny and most of them are left overs from 19th century arguments which require a 19th century understanding of science to back them up. The key problem with all of them is that they simply haven't been thought through thoroughly enough so that they might survive serious rational questioning. They are generally right when it comes to criticising the beliefs of the various faiths. But their arguments against God exhibit deeply flawed reasoning. Define your god concept Of course most god concepts as they are simpley unsubstantiated human imaginings don't need need science of any century to illustrate their failings , they usually just require honest semantics and logic x Yeah that's one of the pitfalls that Atheism falls into... confusing arguments about language with arguments about things. It only ever amounts to a complaint that you're using the wrong words... not that your logic is wrong." I'm sorry that's dishonest Firstly language is key and humans must have semantic agreement for word meanings for any tangible communication Second " If the universe is God there's a tonne of physical evidence " Meaningless nonsense without am agreed god definition The statement "If smegma is God there's a tonne of physicl evidence " Holds as much logical truth as your nonsensical quip Now here is the crux I can see a universe and I see no god Thus your specific god definition is the concept you imagine that differentiates it from my perception And you won't declare what it is that is the difference xx bear in mind that is only your construction or a belief of someone else's So dare you define your god concept as I have zero idea which one of the thousands you dream is the truth x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"No such thing as infinity. actually, there are 2 kinds of infinity. 1) potential infinity (eg the space between two fixed points. this can potentially be divided infinitely. ^^ I think this is infinite as opposed to infinity. Or even infinitely divisible " infinitesimally is the technical word, though that spelling might be off | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I've read a lot of the atheist arguments against God recently and am currently writing a book on it all. None of the arguments hold up to closer scrutiny and most of them are left overs from 19th century arguments which require a 19th century understanding of science to back them up. The key problem with all of them is that they simply haven't been thought through thoroughly enough so that they might survive serious rational questioning. They are generally right when it comes to criticising the beliefs of the various faiths. But their arguments against God exhibit deeply flawed reasoning. Define your god concept Of course most god concepts as they are simpley unsubstantiated human imaginings don't need need science of any century to illustrate their failings , they usually just require honest semantics and logic x Yeah that's one of the pitfalls that Atheism falls into... confusing arguments about language with arguments about things. It only ever amounts to a complaint that you're using the wrong words... not that your logic is wrong. I'm sorry that's dishonest Firstly language is key and humans must have semantic agreement for word meanings for any tangible communication Second " If the universe is God there's a tonne of physical evidence " Meaningless nonsense without am agreed god definition The statement "If smegma is God there's a tonne of physicl evidence " Holds as much logical truth as your nonsensical quip Now here is the crux I can see a universe and I see no god Thus your specific god definition is the concept you imagine that differentiates it from my perception And you won't declare what it is that is the difference xx bear in mind that is only your construction or a belief of someone else's So dare you define your god concept as I have zero idea which one of the thousands you dream is the truth x" It's not just that you don't see a god, but there is no evidence that there is one either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Why should there be any requirement for a creator? Just because be don't know the precise trigger for the creation of the universe (and possibly can't know)doesn't mean that there has to be a sentient creator." Logically there does not have to be a creator. It's perfectly logical to argue that everything happened as a result of an infinite number of causes and effects. However I choose to believe in a creator and logic does not rule it out either. Logic only suggests that something, at some point of iteration, must be infinite. What that something is is not yet know. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"You cannot see gravity but you can feel the effect it has. You cannot see air but you soon notice if it missing. Having a belief or faith is a personal choice. I cannot disprove a creator that does not mean I am wrong. I cannot prove there is a creator, that does not mean I am wrong either." In a nutshell that's the point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"You cannot see gravity but you can feel the effect it has. You cannot see air but you soon notice if it missing. Having a belief or faith is a personal choice. I cannot disprove a creator that does not mean I am wrong. I cannot prove there is a creator, that does not mean I am wrong either. In a nutshell that's the point." It can however be clearly reasoned two fold that A, there is zero data for any conceived creator or that any observable object is work of creation B, that for any part of the observable universe that a creator would be required to achive anything that would not have to exist prior in order for the creator to exist | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"It's impossible to say how it came to be but there are very fascinating structures to the universe, for example the self correcting code, golden mean (phi), etc.. Also why are we so closely linked to apes yet we are the only concious beings, why have we split the atom, it's all very mind boggling. I personally think we are the offspring or concoction of a more intelligent or ancient race perhaps bred to be the humanoid you see today. Who knows?! Are we the only conscious animal? Are you sure? How do all the others survive and communicate them? Well yes, we are the only concious animals, a monkey doesn't sit and look at himself in the mirror and study himself, or question why he exists or how the universe came to be. They do study themselves! Give a primate a mirror and he will study his face. They work out that the image is a reflection of themselves. We dont know what he is thinking, but we know he thinks, because he communicate with us, simply, but its there. We are a totally different level of conciousness to primates though, we communicate through verbal language not just body language, art, text, etc. " Who says they don't communicate by psychic means? They may discuss allsorts about how the universe was created, what they want for their tea, how dumb the humans are for having to speak out loud and not in their heads. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"So dare you define your god concept as I have zero idea which one of the thousands you dream is the truth x" I defined God earlier, in the only way which God can be defined in such a manner that the majority of the faiths agree. I dare you to go back and read it lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Alot of Atheist thought comes down to the assertion that science is managing to refute the existence of the forest by showing us a bunch of trees Science is, and should remain, completely indifferent as to whether there is a God or not. It works regardless. If God exists it works. If God does not exist it works. It is, and should remain, neutral on the issue. By neutral, I mean sceptical.... either way " Allow me to explain lol that atheist bashing is futile x not all atheists think the same or have exactly the same thoughts Your above nothing said nothing or added anything x And also just because some scientist may think one thing or and illustrated to be wrong that does not have reliance to this your assertion x You dare me lol . I'm borderline autistic of course I'll find it . If i deem it worthy I may concern myself to bother x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"I'm sorry that's dishonest Firstly language is key and humans must have semantic agreement for word meanings for any tangible communication Second " If the universe is God there's a tonne of physical evidence " Meaningless nonsense without an agreed god definition The statement "If smegma is God there's a tonne of physicl evidence " Holds as much logical truth as your nonsensical quip" This is not dishonest at all. It's very reasonable. You illustrate it perfectly yourself by accurately replacing the word universe with "smegma". If we are to follow your lead words such as universe, reality, existence, consciousness, space, time, etc.. all are considered redundant and unusable. This is merely an attempt to silence someone you disagree with. Not confront their logic. It's just a neat party trick. Not a logical argument which tackles the subject itself. I'm sorry but some of what your beloved Bertrand Russell said basically belongs to the anals of phenomenology and semiotics. It does not engage with the actual argument and it does not constitute a valid counter argument "Being is a being" is a perfectly sensible sentence to everyone who doesn't wish to refrain from dealing with the argument by insisting that it is semantically wrong. Everyone knows what the sentence is attempting to say, and everyone can agree upon what it means. Only someone who'd rather not tackle it would try reducing it to nonsense. Almost all the key concepts that underpin philosophy and science are similarly incomprehendable, such as infinity, but we are presumably allowed to continue talking about them regardless of the fact. That stinks of special pleading imo | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Alot of Atheist thought comes down to the assertion that science is managing to refute the existence of the forest by showing us a bunch of trees Science is, and should remain, completely indifferent as to whether there is a God or not. It works regardless. If God exists it works. If God does not exist it works. It is, and should remain, neutral on the issue. By neutral, I mean sceptical.... either way Allow me to explain lol that atheist bashing is futile x not all atheists think the same or have exactly the same thoughts Your above nothing said nothing or added anything x And also just because some scientist may think one thing or and illustrated to be wrong that does not have reliance to this your assertion x You dare me lol . I'm borderline autistic of course I'll find it . If i deem it worthy I may concern myself to bother x" I've read a lot of different atheist arguments and they almost always revolve around the same misunderstandings, such as the problem of evil, etc. In arguing against them I don't imagine that I shall wipe out Atheism... but it will be forced to come up with better arguments imo I repeat. Science is merely descriptive. It cannot be truly explanative. As it only ever describes the universe it cannot know whether what it is describing is God or not and it should, in the name of scientific enquiry remain completely neutral on the issue. If God exists, it should find it and not be blnkered to it by a prejudice that colors it's results. You cannot truly reverse engineer the universe. You can only develop credible hypotheses on how it appears to work by observing it and describing what you see. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"natural/physical science deals with proof. logic deals with proof. god cant be proved either as a truth, or a non truth. so we rely on faith. ergo- faith in god,or not- is a belief. non provable either way, hence the eternal debates." If god exists we should be able to prove it. Only a god that doesn't exist, like the Judeo-Christian god who, by definition, is said to exist outside the realms of existence, can never be proved. To have faith in something is the same as having doubt. We only have faith in something when we suspect it might not be so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"The universe is infinite, therefore nothing created it. It changes form and energy intensities within itself in an endless loop of cosmic recycling. There maybe nothing exterior to it. It is alive in parts and dead or states that humans or any life form using clean logic would not term living and aware in parts such as the atoms that humans are manifest and has a personality . It goes about under the name "George Putney" but I prefer to call it God " So you think the whole universe has personality or just certain areas which have evolved sentience and awareness like humans did ? So yes I removed your god definition Ultimate creator Now if I am wrong that's a good result because then you can clearly explaine your above definition of god so I don't miss understand you x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Alot of Atheist thought comes down to the assertion that science is managing to refute the existence of the forest by showing us a bunch of trees Science is, and should remain, completely indifferent as to whether there is a God or not. It works regardless. If God exists it works. If God does not exist it works. It is, and should remain, neutral on the issue. By neutral, I mean sceptical.... either way Allow me to explain lol that atheist bashing is futile x not all atheists think the same or have exactly the same thoughts Your above nothing said nothing or added anything x And also just because some scientist may think one thing or and illustrated to be wrong that does not have reliance to this your assertion x You dare me lol . I'm borderline autistic of course I'll find it . If i deem it worthy I may concern myself to bother x I've read a lot of different atheist arguments and they almost always revolve around the same misunderstandings, such as the problem of evil, etc. In arguing against them I don't imagine that I shall wipe out Atheism... but it will be forced to come up with better arguments imo I repeat. Science is merely descriptive. It cannot be truly explanative. As it only ever describes the universe it cannot know whether what it is describing is God or not and it should, in the name of scientific enquiry remain completely neutral on the issue. If God exists, it should find it and not be blnkered to it by a prejudice that colors it's results. You cannot truly reverse engineer the universe. You can only develop credible hypotheses on how it appears to work by observing it and describing what you see." What an odd suggestion that logical people cannot be philosophical or be an aesthete Sorry yes we can x you're talking concepts that have little basis and a real non argument about other people's thoughts without any of your own to discus You are bating to bash scientific method leading away from the nonsense about a god concept we are discussing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Alot of Atheist thought comes down to the assertion that science is managing to refute the existence of the forest by showing us a bunch of trees Science is, and should remain, completely indifferent as to whether there is a God or not. It works regardless. If God exists it works. If God does not exist it works. It is, and should remain, neutral on the issue. By neutral, I mean sceptical.... either way " I totally agree with this statement | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Alot of Atheist thought comes down to the assertion that science is managing to refute the existence of the forest by showing us a bunch of trees Science is, and should remain, completely indifferent as to whether there is a God or not. It works regardless. If God exists it works. If God does not exist it works. It is, and should remain, neutral on the issue. By neutral, I mean sceptical.... either way I totally agree with this statement" Really ? I mean really really ? It is utter nonsense ? If you agree you are agreeing with "We believe a non defined god concept holds truth. We have zero evidence to logically substantiate our claim , and to prove we are right we are going to shout loudly that anyone who disagrees with us , really should not " That's it that's what you agree with It really is lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Alot of Atheist thought comes down to the assertion that science is managing to refute the existence of the forest by showing us a bunch of trees " I don't agree with a lot of what he says but this bit, right below here, what he actually says here, not what you think it means, I totally agree with. " Science is, and should remain, completely indifferent as to whether there is a God or not. It works regardless. If God exists it works. If God does not exist it works. It is, and should remain, neutral on the issue. By neutral, I mean sceptical.... either way I totally agree with this statement Really ? I mean really really ? It is utter nonsense ? If you agree you are agreeing with "We believe a non defined god concept holds truth. We have zero evidence to logically substantiate our claim , and to prove we are right we are going to shout loudly that anyone who disagrees with us , really should not " That's it that's what you agree with It really is lol " And no, I don't agree with any of that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Alot of Atheist thought comes down to the assertion that science is managing to refute the existence of the forest by showing us a bunch of trees I don't agree with a lot of what he says but this bit, right below here, what he actually says here, not what you think it means, I totally agree with. Science is, and should remain, completely indifferent as to whether there is a God or not. It works regardless. If God exists it works. If God does not exist it works. It is, and should remain, neutral on the issue. By neutral, I mean sceptical.... either way I totally agree with this statement Really ? I mean really really ? It is utter nonsense ? If you agree you are agreeing with "We believe a non defined god concept holds truth. We have zero evidence to logically substantiate our claim , and to prove we are right we are going to shout loudly that anyone who disagrees with us , really should not " That's it that's what you agree with It really is lol And no, I don't agree with any of that." No that's fine that how I inferred it x so please clearly explaine how you understood it and how it is productive in explaining what you believe to those of us who do not understand x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Or People who systematically examine the planet and visible universe should not question the basis for my delusions ?" I only have to explain what I wish to argue. And the only thing I wish to argue in this thread is that at some point of iteration of creation (for want of a better word) something infinite has to exist. That is a perfectly logical argument. I do not have to defend my personal beliefs to you or anyone else unless I'm putting them forward as fact or I'm trying to convince or convert you or someone else to or of those beliefs. I'm not trying to do either. And I have not said that you should not question what I believe, why should you not question it. The only way to come to any conclusion about your own beliefs and others is by questioning them all. And this is where you seem to really fail. You do not seem cable of questioning your own beliefs but seem intent on insisting that anyone who does not believe as you do is either simple or delusional. That, to me, just sounds like intolerance, not reasoned argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"Alot of Atheist thought comes down to the assertion that science is managing to refute the existence of the forest by showing us a bunch of trees Science is, and should remain, completely indifferent as to whether there is a God or not. It works regardless. If God exists it works. If God does not exist it works. It is, and should remain, neutral on the issue. By neutral, I mean sceptical.... either way I totally agree with this statement" I don't have any beliefs, to defend lol x A = without Theism belief in human invented god concepts I have heard about most , some people won't declare theirs , and to date not one has enough data for me to rationally take a stance of belief This is not because I have an alternative , it's because there is zero data to substantiate the others And you really agree with the above statement which in truth says We think that God does have a definition We think that beyond the visible universe there is something science or rational thought cannot know ( well you did agree with that statement ) Well give me the evidence to validate your statement , that a god is defined as something science cannot know Words are important, cannot is a pretty final knowing statement | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
""And this is where you seem to really fail. You do not seem cable of questioning your own beliefs but seem intent on insisting that anyone who does not believe as you do is either simple or delusional. That, to me, just sounds like intolerance, not reasoned argument." Believe as I do ? Which is ? I question my view on the world hourly and it changes often, I question how our perception of gravity and our observations of its effects lights years away are manifest . There are a number of possibilities theorised and I hope some as yet that are not I don't believe any of them , I do hourly try to understand what one is with the data most plausible or indeed not possible It's called non bias objectivity . And if a god existed I cannot as yet see why it would be beyond this approach ?" Ok, lets try and clarify. Are you saying you believe there is nothing outside of what can be reasoned or are you saying you believe nothing because it has not been reasoned yet. The first is a positive belief that there is nothing, the second is no belief because, like the rest of us, you don't know and you will only believe what you do know. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
""And this is where you seem to really fail. You do not seem cable of questioning your own beliefs but seem intent on insisting that anyone who does not believe as you do is either simple or delusional. That, to me, just sounds like intolerance, not reasoned argument." Believe as I do ? Which is ? I question my view on the world hourly and it changes often, I question how our perception of gravity and our observations of its effects lights years away are manifest . There are a number of possibilities theorised and I hope some as yet that are not I don't believe any of them , I do hourly try to understand what one is with the data most plausible or indeed not possible It's called non bias objectivity . And if a god existed I cannot as yet see why it would be beyond this approach ? Ok, lets try and clarify. Are you saying you believe there is nothing outside of what can be reasoned or are you saying you believe nothing because it has not been reasoned yet. The first is a positive belief that there is nothing, the second is no belief because, like the rest of us, you don't know and you will only believe what you do know. " Clarification Let's try this I am atheist A, without Theism , belief in any of the human invented god concepts Thus no belief As for the statement Does something exist beyond reasoning ? The question makes no sense to me and I don't understand it If you ask me " does stuff exist in the universe which humans will never be aware of or can never be completely aware of ?" My answer would be I'd conclude that statement plausible , probability is exceptionally high , and here is some data to substantiate my conclusion xx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"In reply to Ops opening statement, which was directed at me and a reply I made to an ongoing discussion on the original thread. I believe what I believe because people I trusted and loved taught me to believe that. Yes, you could call that indoctrination; in fact it most definitely is indoctrination. If they had believed something different and taught me that then I’d probably believe that instead. However to say that my belief is unquestioning is simply not true. I question and test all my beliefs against facts. And no, I don’t accept what I belief as fact, if it was fact I would not have to believe it I would know it. When I come across evidence that goes against my beliefs I look more closely at the evidence and either dismiss it as incorrect evidence or amend my beliefs to fit in with the evidence. It’s called reasoning and it’s why I believe God gave me a brain. My whole argument on the previous thread is not that what I believe is correct and everyone else should believe it but that, until proof is found one way or another, no one knows what the truth is and all or no beliefs should be treated with equal respect. The fact that the OP cannot understand why someone believes what they believe does not, by its self, add any more validity or credibility to his own belief. And arguing that believing in nothing is not a belief is just simple a cop-out used to justify an intolerant belief system. " Re this part of the above post: 'My whole argument on the previous thread is not that what I believe is correct and everyone else should believe it but that, until proof is found one way or another, no one knows what the truth is and all or no beliefs should be treated with equal respect' This isn't true at all. As an example, say I believe there is a zebra outside my house and my partner says he doesn't believe there is a zebra there. Should these beliefs be treated as equally plausible until one of us looks out the window to check? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
" This isn't true at all. As an example, say I believe there is a zebra outside my house and my partner says he doesn't believe there is a zebra there. Should these beliefs be treated as equally plausible until one of us looks out the window to check?" My new sat nav is brilliant. I was travelling to work and it said "at the end of the road, bear right" I was passing Bristol Zoo | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"In reply to Ops opening statement, which was directed at me and a reply I made to an ongoing discussion on the original thread. I believe what I believe because people I trusted and loved taught me to believe that. Yes, you could call that indoctrination; in fact it most definitely is indoctrination. If they had believed something different and taught me that then I’d probably believe that instead. However to say that my belief is unquestioning is simply not true. I question and test all my beliefs against facts. And no, I don’t accept what I belief as fact, if it was fact I would not have to believe it I would know it. When I come across evidence that goes against my beliefs I look more closely at the evidence and either dismiss it as incorrect evidence or amend my beliefs to fit in with the evidence. It’s called reasoning and it’s why I believe God gave me a brain. My whole argument on the previous thread is not that what I believe is correct and everyone else should believe it but that, until proof is found one way or another, no one knows what the truth is and all or no beliefs should be treated with equal respect. The fact that the OP cannot understand why someone believes what they believe does not, by its self, add any more validity or credibility to his own belief. And arguing that believing in nothing is not a belief is just simple a cop-out used to justify an intolerant belief system. Re this part of the above post: 'My whole argument on the previous thread is not that what I believe is correct and everyone else should believe it but that, until proof is found one way or another, no one knows what the truth is and all or no beliefs should be treated with equal respect' This isn't true at all. As an example, say I believe there is a zebra outside my house and my partner says he doesn't believe there is a zebra there. Should these beliefs be treated as equally plausible until one of us looks out the window to check?" Part of what would help me decide if I believed the person telling me this would be how much I already trusted that person from past experience. Also the environment that I'm in could add or detract from the plausibility of the statement. For example, if I was in my flat in Hammersmith I would have to have a lot of faith in a person who told me there was a Zebra outside my house. If I was in my house on a residential estate just outside Liverpool I'd fine it a little more plausible but not much. If, on the other hand I lived in a hut in a village in Kenya I would probably find it quite plausible and might well believe someone I didn't even know. One maybe more plausible than another in different circumstances but neither is impossible. It would only be when I went and looked that I would know for sure, then it would no longer matter whether I had believed them or not because I would know. That's the difference between belief and knowledge. And the reason why we can not agree is because you are in the London flat whilst I am in the Kenyan hut. You believe it to implausible, I believe it to be plausible. Part of being tolerant is to try and see things from the other perspectives and that is what you don't seem to be able to do. You've clearly thought through your position and it makes quite reasonable sense. All you have to do now is try and see things from another perspective. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it, just try and see it and understand it. To me that is the very essence of being tolerant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"The question 'Who'? is not valid - it presupposes there is a who. The honest question to ask is 'How?'. And the honest answer is 'We don't know'." So true | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
" "Ok, lets try and clarify. Are you saying you believe there is nothing outside of what can be reasoned " Now perhaps I should flip this manipulative word play ? From your question I might be able to reason that actually you believe that something exists which is beyond the reasoning of humans ? Of course I would question such a belief as in the future there may indeed be methods of reasoning that as yet un theorised or discovered , in short unless you know Absolutely the limit of potential reasoning your belief is unfounded I certainly do not think the simplistic logic tools we have thus far are the only ones which exist within the cosmos, I would certainly not argue with anyone who postulated that an advanced evolved alien life form had a greater capacity for reasoning It seems you want to trip me into admitting I believe something which is untenable and which I don't, and then use this to justify irrational thought" I'm really not trying to trip you up in any way. I am trying to understand where you are coming from and what you really believe. In other words are you an atheist as in the old sense of the word - Someone who believes there is no God. or in the newer sense of the word - Someone who lacks belief in deities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"In reply to Ops opening statement, which was directed at me and a reply I made to an ongoing discussion on the original thread. I believe what I believe because people I trusted and loved taught me to believe that. Yes, you could call that indoctrination; in fact it most definitely is indoctrination. If they had believed something different and taught me that then I’d probably believe that instead. However to say that my belief is unquestioning is simply not true. I question and test all my beliefs against facts. And no, I don’t accept what I belief as fact, if it was fact I would not have to believe it I would know it. When I come across evidence that goes against my beliefs I look more closely at the evidence and either dismiss it as incorrect evidence or amend my beliefs to fit in with the evidence. It’s called reasoning and it’s why I believe God gave me a brain. My whole argument on the previous thread is not that what I believe is correct and everyone else should believe it but that, until proof is found one way or another, no one knows what the truth is and all or no beliefs should be treated with equal respect. The fact that the OP cannot understand why someone believes what they believe does not, by its self, add any more validity or credibility to his own belief. And arguing that believing in nothing is not a belief is just simple a cop-out used to justify an intolerant belief system. Re this part of the above post: 'My whole argument on the previous thread is not that what I believe is correct and everyone else should believe it but that, until proof is found one way or another, no one knows what the truth is and all or no beliefs should be treated with equal respect' This isn't true at all. As an example, say I believe there is a zebra outside my house and my partner says he doesn't believe there is a zebra there. Should these beliefs be treated as equally plausible until one of us looks out the window to check?" maybe she has x-ray vision | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
" Part of what would help me decide if I believed the person telling me this would be how much I already trusted that person from past experience. Also the environment that I'm in could add or detract from the plausibility of the statement. For example, if I was in my flat in Hammersmith I would have to have a lot of faith in a person who told me there was a Zebra outside my house. If I was in my house on a residential estate just outside Liverpool I'd fine it a little more plausible but not much. If, on the other hand I lived in a hut in a village in Kenya I would probably find it quite plausible and might well believe someone I didn't even know. One maybe more plausible than another in different circumstances but neither is impossible. It would only be when I went and looked that I would know for sure, then it would no longer matter whether I had believed them or not because I would know. That's the difference between belief and knowledge. And the reason why we can not agree is because you are in the London flat whilst I am in the Kenyan hut. You believe it to implausible, I believe it to be plausible. Part of being tolerant is to try and see things from the other perspectives and that is what you don't seem to be able to do. You've clearly thought through your position and it makes quite reasonable sense. All you have to do now is try and see things from another perspective. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it, just try and see it and understand it. To me that is the very essence of being tolerant. " So you are now saying that beliefs are based on prior knowledge? The zebra example is based on where you live and where zebras live. So basically your claim is based on empirical evidence, i.e. zebras don't walk the streets of hammersmith or liverpool but they can be found walking in kenya. So this belief is based on evidence, not just guesswork. My whole point wasn't about being right or wrong (or some bizarre view about being tolerant or intolerant), it was about being logical. And you're mentioning being tolerant and seeing things from another perspective. I've not said anything that is intolerant (can you find something?) and I've not mentioned anything about seeing things from a certain perspective. All I have brought up is a purely logical discussion that you are more than welcome to dispute. If you want to dispute the logic of this discussion then lay it out in a logical manner rather than making random accusations. Then we can move on and discuss it. The point I made in my post earlier is a very very basic one about beliefs not being equally valid. If you want to dispute that then you are disagreeing with every great philosopher or thinker of our age, unless you can find one that agrees with you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"The comments on perspective related to above were not appropriate and were not intended for that poster. If you check back up the thread you will see that I have already apologized for them and I apologize again for them now. " We've moved on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"What if we are all correct. What if every conceivable option or belief whether past, present or future is valid and correct because it is believed. (Including a belief in the Greek God's). A crash course in quantum mechanics should help us all to realise we are in the absolute infancy of our knowledge. The impossible is possible. How much of knowing is believing?" . None .. You can either know something from empirically proving it through science and maths or you can believe something through intuition and gut feeling. I've had plenty of gut feelings based on experience that turned out right. But I've also had plenty that turned out wrong, however when I've added 2+2 it's always equalled 4, this doesn't mean it's right, your just getting the same answer all the time so it improves the probability, but then if you can prove its right with additional equations you can say you know 2+2=4 , so I don't need to believe in it, now I just know it. I thought about this while reading a thread on Nostradamus, lots of people believe his predictions because of some loosely felt connections, so I read a little bit more about him from a probability mathematician, his phrase about 911 seems believable until he did the numbers on new city's, fire from earth, two rocks, and tall towers and then he concluded that you could apply the same phrase to 4 million other things, really it just came down to what you choose to believe and why you choose to believe it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"What if we are all correct. What if every conceivable option or belief whether past, present or future is valid and correct because it is believed. (Including a belief in the Greek God's). A crash course in quantum mechanics should help us all to realise we are in the absolute infancy of our knowledge. The impossible is possible. How much of knowing is believing?. None .. You can either know something from empirically proving it through science and maths or you can believe something through intuition and gut feeling. I've had plenty of gut feelings based on experience that turned out right. But I've also had plenty that turned out wrong, however when I've added 2+2 it's always equalled 4, this doesn't mean it's right, your just getting the same answer all the time so it improves the probability, but then if you can prove its right with additional equations you can say you know 2+2=4 , so I don't need to believe in it, now I just know it. " You're quick to dismiss what I've written, I challenge you to think a little deeper about it first. Empirical means that something is verifiable by observation or experience rather than just theory or pure logic. How would you therefore attempt to explain quantum mechanics? Only at the point of observation or measurement does a particle have a specific position. Prior to that it is simultaneously everywhere. Empirical 'proof' is not 'knowing' as you claim. It can be argued that it is arrogant to state, as you have, that it is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"What if we are all correct. What if every conceivable option or belief whether past, present or future is valid and correct because it is believed. (Including a belief in the Greek God's). A crash course in quantum mechanics should help us all to realise we are in the absolute infancy of our knowledge. The impossible is possible. How much of knowing is believing?. None .. You can either know something from empirically proving it through science and maths or you can believe something through intuition and gut feeling. I've had plenty of gut feelings based on experience that turned out right. But I've also had plenty that turned out wrong, however when I've added 2+2 it's always equalled 4, this doesn't mean it's right, your just getting the same answer all the time so it improves the probability, but then if you can prove its right with additional equations you can say you know 2+2=4 , so I don't need to believe in it, now I just know it. I thought about this while reading a thread on Nostradamus, lots of people believe his predictions because of some loosely felt connections, so I read a little bit more about him from a probability mathematician, his phrase about 911 seems believable until he did the numbers on new city's, fire from earth, two rocks, and tall towers and then he concluded that you could apply the same phrase to 4 million other things, really it just came down to what you choose to believe and why you choose to believe it." That's pretty much what I've been saying. The only thing I'd add to that is that believing that ones own beliefs are somehow better or more valid than someone else's because they are better sourced (i.e delivered directly from God, derived from a theory of how things must be or some special individual insight) is the road to intolerance. As for the post about Greek gods; whilst I don't believe that they were real gods and do believe the belief in them to be incorrect; I would treat people who believe in them in exactly the same way as I treat people who are alive today who have pagan beliefs. That is with respect. I believe them to be wrong and incorrect but I don't know them to be either wrong or incorrect. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
" How much of knowing is believing?. None .. You can either know something from empirically proving it through science and maths or you can believe something through intuition and gut feeling. " Sorry, but youre wrong saying there is no belief in knowing. Knowledge is technically classified as a -justified + -true + -belief | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"What if we are all correct. What if every conceivable option or belief whether past, present or future is valid and correct because it is believed. (Including a belief in the Greek God's). A crash course in quantum mechanics should help us all to realise we are in the absolute infancy of our knowledge. The impossible is possible. How much of knowing is believing?. None .. You can either know something from empirically proving it through science and maths or you can believe something through intuition and gut feeling. I've had plenty of gut feelings based on experience that turned out right. But I've also had plenty that turned out wrong, however when I've added 2+2 it's always equalled 4, this doesn't mean it's right, your just getting the same answer all the time so it improves the probability, but then if you can prove its right with additional equations you can say you know 2+2=4 , so I don't need to believe in it, now I just know it. You're quick to dismiss what I've written, I challenge you to think a little deeper about it first. Empirical means that something is verifiable by observation or experience rather than just theory or pure logic. How would you therefore attempt to explain quantum mechanics? Only at the point of observation or measurement does a particle have a specific position. Prior to that it is simultaneously everywhere. Empirical 'proof' is not 'knowing' as you claim. It can be argued that it is arrogant to state, as you have, that it is. " Whilst that is the dictionary definition of the term, in science this definition is better In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. With the most important two being IMHO adversarial review and reproduction of results. I also think that bringing quantum science into all this probably only muddies the waters even more. For example, quantum science says that something only becomes what it is when it is observed. So who, or what, was there to observe anything before humans came. A God perhaps. But as even those who study quantum science say that it is not understandable we are back to arguing about things like the number of angels dancing on a pin head. Really think it's best left out of this discussion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
" How much of knowing is believing?. None .. You can either know something from empirically proving it through science and maths or you can believe something through intuition and gut feeling. Sorry, but youre wrong saying there is no belief in knowing. Knowledge is technically classified as a -justified + -true + -belief " We are not talking about the definition of knowledge we are talking about the difference between knowing something and believing something. Both require knowledge but they are not the same thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
" Sorry, but youre wrong saying there is no belief in knowing. Knowledge is technically classified as a -justified + -true + -belief We are not talking about the definition of knowledge we are talking about the difference between knowing something and believing something. Both require knowledge but they are not the same thing." so you dont know something unless its a true, justified belief. cos thats what knowledge is. if you have any one of those 3 things (such as your belief), but not the other 2 then it aint knowledge. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
" You're quick to dismiss what I've written, I challenge you to think a little deeper about it first. Empirical means that something is verifiable by observation or experience rather than just theory or pure logic. How would you therefore attempt to explain quantum mechanics? Only at the point of observation or measurement does a particle have a specific position. Prior to that it is simultaneously everywhere. Empirical 'proof' is not 'knowing' as you claim. It can be argued that it is arrogant to state, as you have, that it is. Whilst that is the dictionary definition of the term, in science this definition is better In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. With the most important two being IMHO adversarial review and reproduction of results. I also think that bringing quantum science into all this probably only muddies the waters even more. For example, quantum science says that something only becomes what it is when it is observed. So who, or what, was there to observe anything before humans came. A God perhaps. But as even those who study quantum science say that it is not understandable we are back to arguing about things like the number of angels dancing on a pin head. Really think it's best left out of this discussion." Quantum mechanics has been 'empirically proven' even by the standards of your requirements, adversarial review and reproduction of results. I don't care if it, in your opinion, muddies the waters, it has a very valid place in the debate and is without doubt a key part of this debate for some of the world's greatest minds right now. You would choose to leave it out of the discussion. Many of our best minds consider it's phenomenon to be core to this debate. I agree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
" You're quick to dismiss what I've written, I challenge you to think a little deeper about it first. Empirical means that something is verifiable by observation or experience rather than just theory or pure logic. How would you therefore attempt to explain quantum mechanics? Only at the point of observation or measurement does a particle have a specific position. Prior to that it is simultaneously everywhere. Empirical 'proof' is not 'knowing' as you claim. It can be argued that it is arrogant to state, as you have, that it is. Whilst that is the dictionary definition of the term, in science this definition is better In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. With the most important two being IMHO adversarial review and reproduction of results. I also think that bringing quantum science into all this probably only muddies the waters even more. For example, quantum science says that something only becomes what it is when it is observed. So who, or what, was there to observe anything before humans came. A God perhaps. But as even those who study quantum science say that it is not understandable we are back to arguing about things like the number of angels dancing on a pin head. Really think it's best left out of this discussion. Quantum mechanics has been 'empirically proven' even by the standards of your requirements, adversarial review and reproduction of results. I don't care if it, in your opinion, muddies the waters, it has a very valid place in the debate and is without doubt a key part of this debate for some of the world's greatest minds right now. You would choose to leave it out of the discussion. Many of our best minds consider it's phenomenon to be core to this debate. I agree. " If you want to include it that's OK by me. Just don't think it helps either side to bring something else into the discussion that most people will simply not be able to get there head round, including me. That's why I've not mentioned it before myself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
" Sorry, but youre wrong saying there is no belief in knowing. Knowledge is technically classified as a -justified + -true + -belief We are not talking about the definition of knowledge we are talking about the difference between knowing something and believing something. Both require knowledge but they are not the same thing. so you dont know something unless its a true, justified belief. cos thats what knowledge is. if you have any one of those 3 things (such as your belief), but not the other 2 then it aint knowledge. " And there in lies the difference between belief and knowing. Belief only requires belief, it doesn't require anything else, knowing requires some sort of non anecdotal evidence (often called empirical evidence). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"What if we are all correct. What if every conceivable option or belief whether past, present or future is valid and correct because it is believed. (Including a belief in the Greek God's). A crash course in quantum mechanics should help us all to realise we are in the absolute infancy of our knowledge. The impossible is possible. How much of knowing is believing?. None .. You can either know something from empirically proving it through science and maths or you can believe something through intuition and gut feeling. I've had plenty of gut feelings based on experience that turned out right. But I've also had plenty that turned out wrong, however when I've added 2+2 it's always equalled 4, this doesn't mean it's right, your just getting the same answer all the time so it improves the probability, but then if you can prove its right with additional equations you can say you know 2+2=4 , so I don't need to believe in it, now I just know it. You're quick to dismiss what I've written, I challenge you to think a little deeper about it first. Empirical means that something is verifiable by observation or experience rather than just theory or pure logic. How would you therefore attempt to explain quantum mechanics? Only at the point of observation or measurement does a particle have a specific position. Prior to that it is simultaneously everywhere. Empirical 'proof' is not 'knowing' as you claim. It can be argued that it is arrogant to state, as you have, that it is. " . I wasn't quick to dismiss anything,i was giving my opinion on how I see it. I don't think about quantum mechanics to much because A it's a very hard subject and B it helps me very little in my day to day life, I find I can only get my head around things that can be recreated, observed, tested and have some day to day use. Hence my atheism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
"What if we are all correct. What if every conceivable option or belief whether past, present or future is valid and correct because it is believed. (Including a belief in the Greek God's). A crash course in quantum mechanics should help us all to realise we are in the absolute infancy of our knowledge. The impossible is possible. How much of knowing is believing?" May I suggest you're refering to multiverse theory rather than qm although , we can agree it's a branch from qm it's actually more linked to 13 dimensional string theory than qm which is truly only illustrated at sub atomic levels Also qm or string theory do NOT make the impossible possible Impossible will always mean beyond possibility However it may change what we perceive as impossible into its true light as possible It may indeed be possible (It's currently theorised not to be possible ) to reason that none of the creator concepts ever devised by humans can in any possible universe be plausible I don't believe string theory xx For me I have very little interest in speculation or what was occurring in our universe beyond 13 billion years I have a small brain and using a telescope I have billions of real things to understand , way before I start believing stuff I know know one knows or know are guessing , on top of that I have over a 100 million current species to understand and millions of extinctio ones , over 2 billion years worth of rock formations and the data each millimetre contains Age 9 I reasoned the cosmos must be infinite and this keeps my mind at peace by 14 I reasoned that none of the human invented god concepts I had read and understood , had any supporting data to cause me to enter into a state of belief If you feel better with belief then that's cool x if you declare that on a forum I'll ask why , to date no one has ever given a reason that could suggest I should start believing , most beliefs I have discovered are a proportion of meme indoctrination and a proportion of personal adjustment. Thus until an individual specifically describes precisely their specific thoughts , it's usually futile to engage as one cannot second guess their mind What do I belive Well I don't know as a fact yet but I belive the bbc website that a frog has been discovered that gives birth to tadpoles , I do love understanding the facts of evolution x I will clearly note there is zero evidence that anything that any human has defined as creator exists (logically that does NOT say a creator does not exist , it does say if it does there is zero data to validate that conclusion ) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) |
Reply privately |
back to top |