How many GODS do you have?

[josephpalazzo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E

Nice video.

There is also another dimension not mentioned in that video. That is, we make an hypothesis - there is a dragon in my garage- but then we must make a prediction based on that hypothesis. Example: the dragon occupies a certain volume of space, or makes wind when it moves around, etc. If the prediction is observed then the hypothesis acquires a certain credibility. But if the same predicted observation can be explained by a better hypothesis, then "there is a dragon in my garage" might not reach a consensus. OTOH, if prediction fails, or the hypothesis cannot generate a testable prediction, then the hypothesis is useless. This is the problem with String Theory -  nice hypothesis, but it cannot make any testable prediction. Until then, it shouldn't even qualify as a "theory."

[Baruch]

But, but ... scifi is real, because Jules Verne was always right.

[Arik]

I worked with a geophysics exploration company, for a year.  Our clients were concerned with geology in Mongolia and off shore New Guinea.  They would develop detailed gravitational and magnetic maps at the Earth's surface.  Which tells us indirectly, what kind of rocks exist underground.  A useful petroleum exploration tool for general surveys.  Detailed surveys are done by seismic survey.  The classic example are salt domes on the Texas Gulf coast.  Salt domes are less dense than regular rocks.  So a salt dome underground makes a local low gravity feature.  Oil and gas are found at the margins of the salt dome (the dome is shaped like a mushroom, the cap of the mushroom captures oil and gas, that would otherwise leak out over time).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbSg9dhb3fM

I also worked briefly in oil exploration ... downhole geophysics.  You have a deep hole in the ground, and you drop a set of instruments down the hole to analyze the rock layers.  That is a direct observation (someone had to speculate a lot of money to drill that hole) compared to indirect geophysics.  Of course this just demonstrates Pythagoras, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein had ever more empirical methods.  All of them assumed rationality (things have to be mathematically consistent).  It doesn't answer "what things are" or "why things are".  Only philosophy and theology do that.

To me philosophy and theology are external approaches.

I don't really see how something that lie within should be searched outside. 

[Mike Cl]

To me philosophy and theology are external approaches.

I don't really see how something that lie within should be searched outside. 

And therein lies the problem.  For me, all of the 'inside' is a product of the 'outside'.  I don't really see a real difference.  The universe is not a being or a consciousness or alive in any way.  The universe consists of all of the elements it contains, but has no awareness.  I do have awareness but of and related to myself.  I see and feel the universe as my species has evolved and since we are still here is a species, it has succeeded so far.  Other species see and feel the universe differently.  In any case, the universe does not care, for it cannot care.  It is and always has been and always will be neutral.  As a species we will thrive--or not.  The universe does not care.  I am what I am (Kudos to Popeye) because of the the evolution of my species from all the materials generated by this universe.  I, and I alone, can care; I determine how I feel (to some extent, at least) ; I chose (to some extent) how I act.  And the universe does not care and is not aware. 

That is how I understand it--and you see it another way.  That's not good---that's not bad; it just is.

[Arik]

You've got it wrong. If you claim something exists, the burden is on you to prove that existence. Example: there is a ghost in the basement of my house. Making that claim would require that I provide proof. But stating that there is no ghost does NOT require a proof. Example: my neighbor killed someone - proof is required; my neighbor didn't kill anyone - no proof required. There is no afterlife - no proof required; there is an afterlife - proof required. There is a God - proof required; there is no god - no proof required. There are fire-breathing dragons - proof required; there are no fire-breathing dragons - no proof required.

IF YOU CLAIM THAT "ANY THING EXISTS" THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROVE THAT THIS THING DOES EXIST.

GET IT.

Wrong again Joe.

To say that something exist or not exist are affirmations in both cases no matter how you put it and affirmation are nothing unless they are back by evidence.

If you go to court and you say to the judge.........that thing does not exist........ the judge will ask you to give evidence that that is the case and if you say that you do not have to give evidence you will get in real trouble with the judge.

You may well have dozen and dozen of degrees in every subject but that doesn't help you much because your naivety is a real concern.

You live in a cocoon of fantasy thinking that everything revolve around the physical reality beside I already gave evidence that the 10 atheists points are all bankrupt.

You even had the audacity to say that the brain which was dead had the capability to put together an NDE.
Total disaster Joe. 

[josephpalazzo]

And therein lies the problem.  For me, all of the 'inside' is a product of the 'outside'.  I don't really see a real difference.  The universe is not a being or a consciousness or alive in any way.  The universe consists of all of the elements it contains, but has no awareness.  I do have awareness but of and related to myself.  I see and feel the universe as my species has evolved and since we are still here is a species, it has succeeded so far.  Other species see and feel the universe differently.  In any case, the universe does not care, for it cannot care.  It is and always has been and always will be neutral.  As a species we will thrive--or not.  The universe does not care.  I am what I am (Kudos to Popeye) because of the the evolution of my species from all the materials generated by this universe.  I, and I alone, can care; I determine how I feel (to some extent, at least) ; I chose (to some extent) how I act.  And the universe does not care and is not aware. 

That is how I understand it--and you see it another way.  That's not good---that's not bad; it just is.

Good post Mike. The problem with arik and his post

"To me philosophy and theology are external approaches.

I don't really see how something that lie within should be searched outside."

It is just another cry of "in my heart of heart I know the truth", which you get time after time from Christian apologists. Therefore there's no need to justify my beliefs with evidence.  It's a perverted and insidious way to escape accountability.

[Arik]

And therein lies the problem.  For me, all of the 'inside' is a product of the 'outside'.  I don't really see a real difference.  The universe is not a being or a consciousness or alive in any way.  The universe consists of all of the elements it contains, but has no awareness.  I do have awareness but of and related to myself.  I see and feel the universe as my species has evolved and since we are still here is a species, it has succeeded so far.  Other species see and feel the universe differently.  In any case, the universe does not care, for it cannot care.  It is and always has been and always will be neutral.  As a species we will thrive--or not.  The universe does not care.  I am what I am (Kudos to Popeye) because of the the evolution of my species from all the materials generated by this universe.  I, and I alone, can care; I determine how I feel (to some extent, at least) ; I chose (to some extent) how I act.  And the universe does not care and is not aware. 

That is how I understand it--and you see it another way.  That's not good---that's not bad; it just is.

You are running too fast with your mind Mike.

Who said that the universe care or not care?
What I said instead was that everything is made of consciousness.
That doesn't mean that the universe has enough consciousness to know things.
Evolution is there to evolve and that means that there are degree of progress in this evolution.

The universe is made of matter and matter is the lowest form of evolution so it is impossible for the lowest form of evolution to have any concern about one of the most form of evolution such as the human stage of evolution.


The concern with the whole universe and all forms of life within can not lie with the universe itself but with the creator of this universe.

[Arik]

Good post Mike. The problem with arik and his post

"To me philosophy and theology are external approaches.

I don't really see how something that lie within should be searched outside."

It is just another cry of "in my heart of heart I know the truth", which you get time after time from Christian apologists. Therefore there's no need to justify my beliefs with evidence.  It's a perverted and insidious way to escape accountability.

How on earth can you mention the word .....accountability.........when you even refuse to back your affirmations with solid evidence?

Get real Joe.

[josephpalazzo]

How on earth can you mention the word .....accountability.........when you even refuse to back your affirmations with solid evidence?

Get real Joe.

You're just a troll as you clearly refuse to read the other posts that have addressed your issues, and you come back with the same drivel over and over. I believe it's time to consider a ban on you.

[Arik]

You're just a troll as you clearly refuse to read the other posts that have addressed your issues, and you come back with the same drivel over and over. I believe it's time to consider a ban on you.

You are a liar Joe.

All you said is that you do not have to give any evidence to your affirmations and now you are begging the administration to ban me.

How sick you are.

Grow up Joe.

[josephpalazzo]

You are a liar Joe.

All you said is that you do not have to give any evidence to your affirmations and now you are begging the administration to ban me.

How sick you are.

Grow up Joe.

The evidence required is about "something that exists". That was established many posts ago. But you keep ignoring it with the same drivel over and over. That's why I'm asking for a ban. There is no dialogue possible with you.

[Arik]

The evidence required is about "something that exists". That was established many posts ago. But you keep ignoring it with the same drivel over and over. That's why I'm asking for a ban. There is no dialogue possible with you.

How do you know that something does not exist?

The fact that a particular thing does not exist in your mind does not means that does not exist elsewhere.
To get a particular station in your radio you got to tune in, right?
Your problem is that you still do not know how to tune in and your are not interested in what may exist outside your understanding yet you claim that the reception is not possible therefore it does not exist.

Fail again Joe.
What you really need is not to try to ban somebody.
What you really need is to grow up and get out the cocoon of fantasy that so far give you so many false certainties.

[josephpalazzo]

How do you know that something does not exist?

That's not the point. The statement "there is no dragon in my garage", requires no evidence. It's only if you make the statement that "there is a dragon in your garage", that you would need to provide evidence.

The fact that a particular thing does not exist in your mind does not means that does not exist elsewhere.
To get a particular station in your radio you got to tune in, right?

But I can find out if that particular station exists. And that evidence is physical and can be accessible to anyone, just not restrict to you alone.

Your problem is that you still do not know how to tune in and your are not interested in what may exist outside your understanding yet you claim that the reception is not possible therefore it does not exist.

There is no tuning in what you are proposing- "consciouness is everywhere". The funny part is you use a radio analogy that requires physical evidence, but you are peddling something that is unphysical. Wrong analogy.

What you really need is not to try to ban somebody.

Prove to me that you can debate reasonably instead of ignoring what was said and repeating endlessly the same thing over and over.

What you really need is to grow up and get out the cocoon of fantasy that so far give you so many false certainties.

I'm old enough to be your grandfather. As to live in a cocoon of fantasy, that describes perfectly yourself as you clinch desperately to something no one on earth can prove.

[Mike Cl]

You are running too fast with your mind Mike.

Who said that the universe care or not care?
What I said instead was that everything is made of consciousness.
That doesn't mean that the universe has enough consciousness to know things.
Evolution is there to evolve and that means that there are degree of progress in this evolution.

The universe is made of matter and matter is the lowest form of evolution so it is impossible for the lowest form of evolution to have any concern about one of the most form of evolution such as the human stage of evolution.


The concern with the whole universe and all forms of life within can not lie with the universe itself but with the creator of this universe.

The crux of the matter---there is no 'creator'.  The universe came with all the material and substances we now have.  What happened, happened.  Happenstance and math--that drives the universe.  There is no 'plan' nor a 'creator of that plan'.  There is probably something like a billion to one that life (any life) will occur.  That seems to make it impossible that life would or could form; except that there are probably trillions of times the right combo of substances combined just right and so it makes the seemly impossible odds of a billion to one to one of certainty.  Just impossible to tell exactly when or where.  It see the probability much like when I first walk out into a rain storm.  I will be hit by one specific first drop.  The storm has trillions of drops, so predicting which one will be the first is impossible; but it is a total certainty that I will be hit by one; but it is impossible to know just exactly which would be the first.  But I will get wet!

[aitm]

This idiot babbles on and on about nothingness...which is  the immaterial he thinks is something...though it is nothing and has done nothing to any positive effect for human or animal while material has done everything. His babbling is old and tiresome and worn out. When you guys are tired of it just let me know.