How many GODS do you have?

[Arik]

Hakurei is a professional statistician.  But I don't trust facile manipulation of statistics either.

Unfortunately Hakurei doesn't have the big picture in his mind.

All his picture is confined to the corral of the finite dimension and he is quite happy with that little.
One day he too like everybody else will realize that the big picture involve the infinity.
All the best to him anyway.

[Baruch]

Unfortunately Hakurei doesn't have the big picture in his mind.

All his picture is confined to the corral of the finite dimension and he is quite happy with that little.
One day he too like everybody else will realize that the big picture involve the infinity.
All the best to him anyway.

"'Tis too narrow for your mind. That must be because you're so ambitious. It's too small for your large mind. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams." ... Hamlet Reimu.

Tell us plainly, Arik ... you are or are not the same guy as Absolute_Agent.

[Arik]

You do not seem to be able to differentiate between a claim, and not being convinced of a claim.

You are passing the burden of proof. You and your ilk are making the claims for: afterlives, NDE's, gods, 'spirituality', etc. It is up to you to support your claims. The burden of proof is not up to those that do not believe your claims, it is up to those making the claims.

I beg your pardon?

These are atheists claims Simon not mine so it is up to those who make these claims to back them up with evidence.

Very few atheists make the claim, with absolute certainty, that there is no life after death. Most take the position, that theists claims that there is life after death has not met its burden of proof, therefore, there is no warrant to believe it is true.

Again Simon.
I have seen (read) many many times atheists that claim that when you are dead is all over so it is up to them to back their claim.

Please point to one verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable example of a consciousness that exists absent a brain.

All evidence points to consciousness being a result of physical brain processes. Please provide verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable evidence that consciousness is not a product of a physical brain.

1) NDEs are clear evidence because the people who had these NDEs described what was happening while physically dead in the casualty room and witness confirmed the events.
2) There is no evidence that the consciousness being a result of physical brain processes.
None of whatsoever. All there are are all guesses.

I do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that I have never lived before or will not live again. My position is, that those of you that claim this is true, have not met your burden of proof. Therefore, I have no warrant to believe it is true.

Let us forget for a minute that NDEs are not prove that life exist after death and let us instead think how the human consciousness is so much evolved compare to animals or even plants.
Why is that so Simon?
Do you really think that our INDIVIDUAL consciousness come as per magic and we never build it up in previous lives?
Are you that fool to believe in magic?

There is no evidence that a god is needed to create or run the universe. Please provide verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable evidence that a god is necessary.

Again, you are the one making the claim that a god is necessary, therefore, you have the burden of proof.

As soon as theists are able to meet their burden of proof, I will be forced to accept it is true.

This is an atheist claim Simon so atheists should really provide evidence.
As far as it concern me the universe is like a body and as all the bodies need to be fed by the one who created in the first place.
Energy in different forms is needed all the time or the universe would cease to exist.

It is interesting, however, that the majority of physicists and cosmologists, are non-believers. Doesn't mean they are correct, only that the people that understand the evidence well beyond you are I do, do not see evidence of gods.

I do not have the statistics of how many are believer or non believer but this has very little importance.
Also long time ago most people thought that the earth was flat but later on they were proven wrong.

There is at least one obvious difference, religion is pretty easy to define, spirituality is not. For every single person I've ever heard use the term 'spirituality', I get just as many different definitions.

So let answer this question to all atheists that say that they are the same thing.

Very few atheists make this claim. Even guys like Robert Price or Richard Carrier, 2 of the most vocal mythicists, do not claim to be absolutely certain that Jesus did not exist. Their position is that there is not enough evidence to prove that he did exist.

History is written by the winners and Jesus was not a winner.

But here's the thing, even if a historical Jesus did exist, that offers zero evidence that any of the miracle god claims attributed to him occured. After all, the evidence for a historical Mohamed is stronger than for a historical Jesus, but I'll bet you don't believe Mohamed flew to Heaven on a winged creature.

I don't believe in miracles.
To me to walk on the water is not a miracle but something natural for anyone who understand that this dimension is an illusion.
Same thing for those who insert hooks in their flesh without experience any pain and having the hole close as soon as the hook is removed.

Even if they are hallucinations, that doesn't mean that they are lies. The person experiencing a NDE, may be having a completely natural (but nonstandard) brain state, that they are misinterpreting. They might completely believe their experience is real, without lying about it.

Science is the single best and most reliable method ever developed by humanity to explain reality. Please name another method that is as successful and reliable.

Intuitional science.

[Arik]

"'Tis too narrow for your mind. That must be because you're so ambitious. It's too small for your large mind. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams." ... Hamlet Reimu.

Tell us plainly, Arik ... you are or are not the same guy as Absolute_Agent.

I know an absolute cosmic consciousness but I don't really know an Absolute Agent.

[Arik]

Sleep time mate.

[josephpalazzo]

Sleep time mate.

Ok since you refuse to answer my post, here's a question for you: do you believe in the after life?

[Unbeliever]

Energy in different forms is needed all the time or the universe would cease to exist.

The universe (probably) doesn't use any energy at all: it contains zero net energy, because the positive energy of the matter/radiation is balanced by the negative energy of gravity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

[Hydra009]

Intuitional science.

intuitional "science" photo side by side with a photo of guesswork and unjustified opinions.

[Baruch]

The universe (probably) doesn't use any energy at all: it contains zero net energy, because the positive energy of the matter/radiation is balanced by the negative energy of gravity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Slacker universe ;-)  Principle of least action, regardless of the net-net value of the whole universe ... has been a valid principle for over 300 years now.

[Baruch]

I know an absolute cosmic consciousness but I don't really know an Absolute Agent.

Not the first time this community demonstrates xenophobia and paranoia ;-)  What can one do?

Continue to talk as long as you can, unless something else becomes more immediate.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I don't doubt you are skilled at analyzing data; if that weren't the case I wouldn't have invested the time bouncing my ideas off you. My suggestion is take a step back and look at the big picture.  Just think about it: if the total energy in the universe is near zero, what exactly was it that initiated the huge differentials creating all these stars that burn for ages?

Well, that is a difficult question, but we actually have an embarassment of hypotheses awaiting evidence to discriminate between them. The first thing to realize is that the time that you're familiar with and the time against which you formed your conception of causality doesn't exist apart from the universe. The universe is not an object that exists in time, but rather it is time that exists within the universe.

It's also not a differential. The mass energy of the universe and gravitational potential are two different types of energy. Furthermore, most people have this conception that energy is a substance that is exchanged between parts of a system like a fluid. This is not so. Energy is a number, a so-called state variable, associated with the state of a system. If a system is in a particular state, there is exactly one energy associated with that state.

Now that's out of the way, let's take a closer look at that event typically referred to as the beginning of the universe. This is, according to our best theories, simply the event at which there is no event prior in time â€" to whit, the first instant. We do know that all the matter in the universe was crammed into an itty-bitty volume smaller than a proton. Now, you can't put that many particles (particularly fermions) into that small a space and not have your average fermion have a tremendous amount of energy. Furthermore, that matter being in one place with that energy demands a particular curvature from spacetime, one that is either expanding or contracting, and we know that the universe wasn't contracting at that point. Ergo, it expands, and you have the Big Bang.

After that, the expanding universe cools (to around 2 K) to the point where gas can coalesce into stars. These stars are heated by the gravitational contraction about them (remember gravitational potential?), and ignite in nuclear fusion. Now there are hot spots in the universe and temperature differentials where interesting things can happen.

Why there was a bunch of particles crammed together in a small volume is not something that is known at this point. It may be a quantum fluctuation (likely, given that the energy content of the early universe was not different from zero), but at this point, "Nobody rightly knows," is the only honest answer that anyone can give. Yes, that includes you, because at this point you're just speculating using intuition in a regime we know intuition breaks down.

So, yeah.

The intricate life forms? Was it just a poof random event?

There are intriguing calculations that show that the fastest way for a system to increase entropy is for a replicator to do its business within it. Whatever else life is, it is a replicator. As such, systems that create replicators tend to increase energy the fastest. As such, primitive replication would tend to be entropically favored. In short, creationists may have it completely backwards: that life generates far more entropy than their creation reduces.

Why is there so much order in the midst of chaos?

Because you can only get chaos in complex systems. Also, chaos also organizes itself into an order. You look at any real complex system and there is a hidden order somewhere in it. In short, creations may have it exactly backwards: that the natural tendency of the universe is to fall into order, not chaos.

It simply can't be explained by mere material causality.

Knowledge of "mere material causality" reveals this to be mere ignorance. Again, you do not know enough about the mere material causality you live in to make this kind of statement.

Ignorance is not a virtue but recognizing it is the foundation of true knowledge.

And scientists recognize the limits of their knowledge. That's why they investigate.

But proclaiming you know that the material is not all there is without evidentiary support is, in fact, ignorance. It's ignorance merely disguised as knowledge. Ignorance disguised as knowledge is the most dangerous kind of ignorance of all.

[Absolute_Agent]

Well, that is a difficult question, but we actually have an embarassment of hypotheses awaiting evidence to discriminate between them. The first thing to realize is that the time that you're familiar with and the time against which you formed your conception of causality doesn't exist apart from the universe. The universe is not an object that exists in time, but rather it is time that exists within the universe.

It's also not a differential. The mass energy of the universe and gravitational potential are two different types of energy. Furthermore, most people have this conception that energy is a substance that is exchanged between parts of a system like a fluid. This is not so. Energy is a number, a so-called state variable, associated with the state of a system. If a system is in a particular state, there is exactly one energy associated with that state.

Now that's out of the way, let's take a closer look at that event typically referred to as the beginning of the universe. This is, according to our best theories, simply the event at which there is no event prior in time â€" to whit, the first instant. We do know that all the matter in the universe was crammed into an itty-bitty volume smaller than a proton. Now, you can't put that many particles (particularly fermions) into that small a space and not have your average fermion have a tremendous amount of energy. Furthermore, that matter being in one place with that energy demands a particular curvature from spacetime, one that is either expanding or contracting, and we know that the universe wasn't contracting at that point. Ergo, it expands, and you have the Big Bang.

After that, the expanding universe cools (to around 2 K) to the point where gas can coalesce into stars. These stars are heated by the gravitational contraction about them (remember gravitational potential?), and ignite in nuclear fusion. Now there are hot spots in the universe and temperature differentials where interesting things can happen.

Why there was a bunch of particles crammed together in a small volume is not something that is known at this point. It may be a quantum fluctuation (likely, given that the energy content of the early universe was not different from zero), but at this point, "Nobody rightly knows," is the only honest answer that anyone can give. Yes, that includes you, because at this point you're just speculating using intuition in a regime we know intuition breaks down.

So, yeah.
There are intriguing calculations that show that the fastest way for a system to increase entropy is for a replicator to do its business within it. Whatever else life is, it is a replicator. As such, systems that create replicators tend to increase energy the fastest. As such, primitive replication would tend to be entropically favored. In short, creationists may have it completely backwards: that life generates far more entropy than their creation reduces.
Because you can only get chaos in complex systems. Also, chaos also organizes itself into an order. You look at any real complex system and there is a hidden order somewhere in it. In short, creations may have it exactly backwards: that the natural tendency of the universe is to fall into order, not chaos.
Knowledge of "mere material causality" reveals this to be mere ignorance. Again, you do not know enough about the mere material causality you live in to make this kind of statement.
And scientists recognize the limits of their knowledge. That's why they investigate.

But proclaiming you know that the material is not all there is without evidentiary support is, in fact, ignorance. It's ignorance merely disguised as knowledge. Ignorance disguised as knowledge is the most dangerous kind of ignorance of all.

Impressive.  Much of that was over my head.  Do you run across this material in your job or is it a hobby?  I like your approach.

Now, what I gather is:

1) You don't have the answer to what got everything started.

2) You don't think I know the answer.

3) You think I am making a claim of knowledge without evidence.

4) You think what is known, subverts the concept of creationism.

My response:

1) I don't know the answer.

2) I have a theory based on personal experiential evidence that cannot meet a scientific standard, in conjunction with additional scientific evidence which is not widely published, that I am unable to disclose.

3) I have beliefs that logically explain all the ultimate answers, although they cannot be proven, yet which have been consistently and abundantly confirmed in personal subjective experience.

4) I do not see the information you shared invalidating my theory that immaterial consciousness generates reality, or my belief that Allah created everything.  This does not mean I believe that Allah is consciousness itself, since Allah cannot be conceived.

5) It is possible that the manner in which Allah created, and Allah Himself, are completely different from what humans including myself have thus far conceived.

6) My beliefs are not just made up.  They are based on evidence, the scriptures.  I consider them convincing evidence, even though you do not.

7) I find your statement that time exists in matter and not matter in time, intriguing and plausible.  I hypothesize that time itself is an illusion.  All moments past, present and future, exist simultaneously, in reality.


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Absolute_Agent]

Also, chaos also organizes itself into an order. You look at any real complex system and there is a hidden order somewhere in it. In short, creations may have it exactly backwards: that the natural tendency of the universe is to fall into order, not chaos.
Knowledge of "mere material causality" reveals this to be mere ignorance. Again, you do not know enough about the mere material causality you live in to make this kind of statement.

What I understand is that material causality is the assumption that all phenomena in the material world are caused by other material things, as opposed to divine intervention.  This is what you refer to as the discarding of spiritual briefs in science.  Prima facie, this is an illogical belief similar to if I were to believe that steel molds itself into cars and bicycles.  No, I would logically assume that a conscious intelligent agent is acting upon the materials to bring about a design.  Likewise it is more logical to assume that all material forms are a product of consciousness, than that all consciousness is a product of those material forms.

Chaos "organizes itself into order?" This is ultimate the logical conclusion of the belief in material causality, a pinnacle of absurdity.  Its just you all are so engrossed in the multitudinous details of your trip down the rabbit hole you don't realize how deep into confusion you have fallen. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Sal1981]

What I understand is that material causality is the assumption that all phenomena in the material world are caused by other material things, as opposed to divine intervention.  This is what you refer to as the discarding of spiritual briefs in science.  Prima facie, this is an illogical belief similar to if I were to believe that steel molds itself into cars and bicycles.  No, I must logically believe that an agent is acting upon the materials to bring about a design.  Am I missing something?

Chaos "organizes itself into order?" This is ultimate the logical conclusion of the belief in material causality, a pinnacle of absurdity.  Its just you all are so engrossed in the multitudinous details of your trip down the rabbit hole you don't realize how deep into confusion you have fallen. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

There is local order arising in chaos, happens all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

[Arik]

Ok since you refuse to answer my post, here's a question for you: do you believe in the after life?

What sort of deranged psycho are you?

First you accuse me to be a troll and that you have a policy not to waste time with gullible, naive and ignorant assholes like me.
Now you ask me why I didn't answer your post.

Are you under the influence of something?

Never mind Joe, I am getting used to get insulted so I pretend that nothing happen and answer your questions.


1) You probably mean after this physical life.
Yes of course.
In reality we never died and we will never die.
Energy and consciousness that are the two sides of the same sheet are immortal.
Even science say that energy can not be destroyed.

Now let me answer your question from the previous post.

1. Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts. Sorry for you to hear this, but it is over once you're death.

Sorry for you to hear this but your facts are load of garbage.
In fact there is no evidence that anybody ever did died but there is plenty of evidence that life goes on and on after the physical death.

https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html

2. If some one cracks your brain with an ax there won't be an Arik spewing nonesense on the internet. If you believe otherwise you are naive and gullible. i dare you to try it. Plunge an ax through your brain, and if you come back, I'll apologize. Deal?

Have you ever seen a dead consciousness next to a dead body?
Body dead does not means dead consciousness and because you are the consciousness that is clear that you can not die.
A physical-material blow is unable to penetrate and kill something abstract like the consciousness.
Materialists are stuck with the notion that you are the body-brain when in fact body-brain are the vehicles that you use to live this physical life.
Get real Joe. (svegliati Giuseppe)

3. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?

Since most atheists say that we only live once they should really provide evidence that this is the case.
As far as it concern me I already provided evidence that this is not the case with the NDEs.

4. I don't believe in God, and I see no need to believe in one. If you want to believe in God, it's your choice, and I don't give a fuck.

I never asked you whether you believe or not in God.
That is your choice which has nothing to do with the point that I made.
The point was that most atheists say that there is no need for a God to create and run this universe so the thing was for atheists to provide evidence that nobody ever created and nobody run this universe.

5. Yes, there are both figment of the imagination.

Obviously you haven't got the slightest clue.

6. Don't know, don't care.

Your answer is much better than the answer that many atheists give which is that Jesus never existed despite there is so much history behind it.

7. NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains. In the USA, patients have visions of their beliefs in Christianity. In India, those patients ave visions of idols in their own culture. Ditto in othe countries. Those are facts. deal with it.

1) How can a dead brain be able to dream?
You too haven't got the slightest clue of what you are talking about.
2) It is natural that different culture-upbringing have different visions after all God is not a physical entity and will show to the person as it is most natural to him-her according to his-her culture.

8. Unless you have a PhD in biology, I strongly suggest you stay off the topic of evolution. My expertise is in physics, and most likely i know ten times more than you do in evolution, but you will find a rare occasion that I have come on this forum to talk about evolution because I know I'm not an expert in that field. That's a major difference between a troll like you and I. I know where my expertise lies, and where it doesn't. You don't even know that much.

For God'sake Giuseppe stop talking garbage.

Darwin never talk about evolution.
He was only interested in biological changes which have little to do with evolution.
The word evolution existed well before him and it stand for PROGRESS.
It Latin UNFOLD means explain, unravel, expound, disentangle, unroll so by this we come to a progress and a progress in consciousness equal to evolution.
Obviously there is evolution also in many fields such as medical science in rocket science and in all other field of science.
In unravel more consciousness a science is also needed so even in this field we can have a progress that cause a change for the better that is why we say that progress stand for evolution and evolution is progress.

9. Yes, and I would include philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning that can enlarge your understanding.

All these factors are quite important to stay afloat in this material-physical dimension but all this does not equal to progress.
Progress is a total different thing.
Progress is when you add one positive to zero so 0 + 1 give you 1.
When instead you add 1 to -1 you get 0 and that is what happen when you struggle to stay afloat.
Life is a continuous struggle to stay afloat so real progress is just a dream because the positive and the negative ALWAYS balance each other.
The only progress exist in the spiritual arena where the negative does not exist.

10. ...or become the president of the USA - ever heard of Donald Trump?!?

If that guy would have to wear a military uniform and face the enemy he probably would poo in his pants but as all politician he let other people to fight his wars for him and die for him.