God from the Investigation of Existence

[Davros of Skaro]

2 hours ago, Blaye Otanka said:

With the realization of Atomic calculators, Crystals that store data, Energy that interacts with intelligence, A cycle to all of time/space's motion, and etc..., then you begin to understand there is something called divine law. Everything is founded upon the same construct, and those things that can not retain this data fall into disrepair.

Energy is conscious, without the Neurons in your head firing, what computer would you have to operate? Rather those who find the truth only allow the Emotion of Love to enter their mind, and the disregard of division, and to come with the mind of a serpent (wisdom) in order to properly view existance. Yes the mind very well has to imagine what it believes to understand it, but this does not mean that the Neurons emitting Energy did not come from a real place. Certainly without the initial push, or the first ripple of water, there would be no Energetic transfer. It is known by I, that Energy has a point, and that point is the law, and this one is conscious. Who is to say that the Photon that entered the water, became Kinetic, and rose as vapor to again become a Photon in the Aurora Borealis did not imagine what it was doing?

 

Imagination is an important part of any belief, even in that of Physics, for if you could not imagine it, then who is to say you would accept a blank number? Imagination was enabled by an energetic transfer in your computer, which has functions also organized by Energy. We are dependent upon a source, your imagination of that energy was energetically firing in your head, but will you look inside and grasp it? 

[Davros of Skaro]

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

It’s not that easy to grasp.

Everything thing is easy to grasp under the influence of neurochemical motivators. 

[ChrLzs]

2 hours ago, Blaye Otanka said:

With the realization of Atomic calculators

Using well understood science.

2 hours ago, Blaye Otanka said:

Crystals that store data

ditto.

2 hours ago, Blaye Otanka said:

Energy that interacts with intelligence

Yes, we can put electrodes on brains, artificial ears, etc.  ditto.  Science is so cool!

2 hours ago, Blaye Otanka said:

, A cycle to all of time/space's motion

Say what?  Which 'cycle' is that exactly.

2 hours ago, Blaye Otanka said:

then you begin to understand there is something called divine law.

No, I don't, I see scientific understanding.  See how easy it is to handwave?

2 hours ago, Blaye Otanka said:

Everything is founded upon the same construct, and those things that can not retain this data fall into disrepair.

Actually, pretty much everything falls into disrepair - well understood science again - Entropy.  And we live in a Cosmos that obeys many, many laws - eg of Physics, Maths, Chemistry, Electromagnetism, even Biology..  And there are laws that work at short range, longer ranges, according to inverse squares and cubes...  Yes, there are some universalities, but suggesting our Cosmos is as simple as you claim?  Don't be ridiculous.

2 hours ago, Blaye Otanka said:

Energy is conscious

No it isn't.  

2 hours ago, Blaye Otanka said:

without the Neurons in your head firing, what computer would you have to operate?

So you use a computer as an analogy, where well-understood electronics, just like those neurones, create intelligence.....  Think that one through again, and you might realise you are arguing against your claims.  How ironic that you do that while tapping away on your science- given device..

2 hours ago, Blaye Otanka said:

Rather those who find the truth only allow the Emotion of Love to enter their mind, and the disregard of division, and to come with the mind of a serpent (wisdom) in order to properly view existance.   {blah blah}

My brain glazes over when this sort of fluff is posted.  Nothing but handwaves.

Just answer the simple question - Who created the creator?  If you can't/won't. then I, using the exact same logic, deny your claim of a Creator.

Game Over.

 

[+joc]

8 hours ago, Blaye Otanka said:

Existence, and Deity can be proven to someone on a personal scale by Experience and Wisdom, it is just rather some people do not understand another persons perspective and so are inclined to readily disbelieve that other person.

Experience proves nothing. Wisdom has nothing to do with Deities.  Beliefs have little  to do with the actual truth of a thing and are generated by fear and superstition, which itself is generated by fear.  

[Will Due]

7 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

just like those neurones, create intelligence..... 

 

Please provide the scientific evidence that proves neurons create inteligence. 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Will Due

[danydandan]

42 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Please provide the scientific evidence that proves neurons create inteligence. 

 

 

Can you provide evidence that they dont.?

[+joc]

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

But that's exactly why it can only be discussion. It's not a real debate because there is nothing supporting a religious outlook to debate, only personal views. They can be pleasent or heated discussions but the definition of debate doesn't breach that. 

And that why when a university lecture happens, we discuss physics, not God it's never 'was it a big bang or was it god, let's examine the evidence' because evidence doesn't exist for God. We not only created thousands of gods, with today's personal take on religion, I'd propose we now have billions of God's. 

Ya!  Es verdad!  The problem, Is that they think they are debating!  

[Stubbly_Dooright]

12 hours ago, Blaye Otanka said:

Existence, and Deity can be proven to someone on a personal scale by Experience and Wisdom, it is just rather some people do not understand another persons perspective and so are inclined to readily disbelieve that other person.

And, I think, that would be understandable. I see your point of it being proven on a personal scale as a subjective point of view. And that can always change, differ, and such, from case to case. It's kind of like, no matter what strides humans make in today's world, I don't think one can actually know and be in the same mindset of someone else's thoughts, their own mind universe. Even if there is telepathy, I think one's thoughts will always be 'seen' as one's own, and still cannot get into another's. 

And though some people people might not understand another person's perspective, because it being a personal and subjective perspective. I don't think that makes it wrong or disappointing. Just that I would think, that it's just one's different perspective to another's. I think, what is important in the end, that it's still subjective, and it's the objective that is important to show how it can be equally understood.  

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Quote

, A cycle to all of time/space's motion

Say what?  Which 'cycle' is that exactly.

Timey wimey?!?!?     

Sorry, to the both of you, couldn't help myself. I go to corner to sulk. 

 

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Timey wimey?!?!?     

Sorry, to the both of you, couldn't help myself. I go to corner to sulk. 

 

Hi Stubbly

Now now little camper don't sulk there is a whole rack of cycles, we have one, two and three wheeled cycles.

jmccr8

[Stubbly_Dooright]

3 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

4 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Timey wimey?!?!?     

Sorry, to the both of you, couldn't help myself. I go to corner to sulk. 

 

Hi Stubbly

Now now little camper don't sulk there is a whole rack of cycles, we have one, two and three wheeled cycles.

jmccr8

Alright!

 

 

How much is this going to cost me?!   

 

[jmccr8]

46 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Alright!

 

 

How much is this going to cost me?!   

 

Hi Stubbly

No charge for you cuz we like happy faces.

jmccr8

[Guyver]

13 hours ago, joc said:

tExperience proves nothing. 

Or does it actually prove everything?

I mean, as a Materialist, experience is everything you are.  Your entire reality is based upon that wonderful supercomputer in between your ears called your brain.  It's such a marvelous machine, that it actually processes experience without one's cognitive recognition.  It's fascinating and interprets everything that you experience, and shapes you by it.  Just for starters.

In any event, experience is what shapes your existence in every sense.  Your own view of Materialism is the result of the thoughts running through your head that  you gained through experience.  So, that which you consider true, or proven is based upon your own cognition, which is an experience.  

It seems so often in these types of discussions that "sciency" types like to dismiss experience as subjective - which it is - and dismiss it.  That seems to me to be a logic fail, extreme oversight.....or combination of both for the reasons I stated above and more.  Scientific experiments themselves are documented by the experience of analyzing the results.   

[+joc]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Or does it actually prove everything?

I mean, as a Materialist, experience is everything you are.  Your entire reality is based upon that wonderful supercomputer in between your ears called your brain.  It's such a marvelous machine, that it actually processes experience without one's cognitive recognition.  It's fascinating and interprets everything that you experience, and shapes you by it.  Just for starters.

In any event, experience is what shapes your existence in every sense.  Your own view of Materialism is the result of the thoughts running through your head that  you gained through experience.  So, that which you consider true, or proven is based upon your own cognition, which is an experience.  

It seems so often in these types of discussions that "sciency" types like to dismiss experience as subjective - which it is - and dismiss it.  That seems to me to be a logic fail, extreme oversight.....or combination of both for the reasons I stated above and more.  Scientific experiments themselves are documented by the experience of analyzing the results.   

I am talking about experience of the 'spiritual' type.  Spiritual experience proves nothing. 

[Guyver]

32 minutes ago, joc said:

I am talking about experience of the 'spiritual' type.  Spiritual experience proves nothing. 

Right, well truth of the spiritual for some people is the same experience as yours in the opposite direction.  

[+joc]

8 hours ago, Guyver said:

Right, well truth of the spiritual for some people is the same experience as yours in the opposite direction.  

What does that even mean? Truth does not equal what one believes. My truth, your truth...thats just all so much BS. Truth is just what is...supportable by facts. The truth of experience is a chemical reaction in the brain...nothing more...nothing less.

[+Liquid Gardens]

13 hours ago, Guyver said:

It seems so often in these types of discussions that "sciency" types like to dismiss experience as subjective - which it is - and dismiss it.  That seems to me to be a logic fail, extreme oversight.....or combination of both for the reasons I stated above and more.  

I don't think it's any kind of fail because 'sciency' types typically don't just dismiss the subjective experiences, they dismiss them and usually provide lots of reasons why they are dismissing it. Ever hear of Albert Ostman, who was kidnapped by a Sasquatch family and lived with them for a week?

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

So what is your response, do you believe it, was he really abducted by Bigfoot?  How much is his subjective experience worth to you?  On the wiki page they even mention a Bigfoot researcher who needs more evidence in order to accept Ostman's claims; is that also a logic fail or extreme oversight?

It's not just that subjective experiences are dismissed, it's the question of what do you do with subjective experience claims that have little or no support in an objective sense.  I may be wrong but I seriously doubt you are looking at Ostman claims and thinking, 'hmmm, we should really investigate Bigfoot further based on this great new evidence'.  It's not like Ostman claiming he was kidnapped by his neighbor for a week, in his Sasquatch kidnapping claim there are actually two claims:  'Sasquatches exist' and 'I was kidnapped by a family of  them'.  In both scenarios, neighbor vs Sasquatch kidnapping, we only have his claim at this point that he was kidnapped at all, but we already know neighbors exist so that's not an issue.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

On 3/21/2018 at 3:55 PM, jmccr8 said:

On 3/21/2018 at 3:07 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Alright!

 

 

How much is this going to cost me?!   

 

Hi Stubbly

No charge for you cuz we like happy faces.

jmccr8

Cool, because I fumble for my credit cards, and aint not finding them!!!  

 

20 hours ago, Guyver said:

On 3/21/2018 at 6:21 AM, joc said:

tExperience proves nothing. 

Or does it actually prove everything?

I mean, as a Materialist, experience is everything you are.  Your entire reality is based upon that wonderful supercomputer in between your ears called your brain.  It's such a marvelous machine, that it actually processes experience without one's cognitive recognition.  It's fascinating and interprets everything that you experience, and shapes you by it.  Just for starters.

In any event, experience is what shapes your existence in every sense.  Your own view of Materialism is the result of the thoughts running through your head that  you gained through experience.  So, that which you consider true, or proven is based upon your own cognition, which is an experience.  

It seems so often in these types of discussions that "sciency" types like to dismiss experience as subjective - which it is - and dismiss it.  That seems to me to be a logic fail, extreme oversight.....or combination of both for the reasons I stated above and more.  Scientific experiments themselves are documented by the experience of analyzing the results.   

I hear ya, Guyver, but I think joc has point. Especially, if we are talking in the sciency way. Yes, experiences shape us, but individually, and so I would think in a subjective way. In the objective sense, I can understand what joc meant that it means nothing. Kind of how the experiences differ through the grapevine. Something different time. 

I think LG said it pretty well.  

 

[psyche101]

On 21/03/2018 at 10:55 PM, joc said:

Ya!  Es verdad!  The problem, Is that they think they are debating!  

[ChrLzs]

19 hours ago, Guyver said:

Right, well truth of the spiritual for some people is the same experience as yours in the opposite direction.  

Ummm... you're not spotting the rather large difference between the two?  In the OBjective experience of something, like, say, having a dog.. both the existence of a dog, and the experience of having one around the house, can all be documented, shared with other people, verified by other people, there is no real question as to whether that is a real experience, ie it's a dog.....

In a SUBjective spiritual experience, there is no dog to touch/share/document/verify.

If there was a God/Deity/Creator/Spirit, and especially given the claim of being all-powerful... it does seem a little odd that when it comes to doing anything that would manifest itself in such a way as to allow OBjective verification of their existence ... they are very shy indeed.  If they do nothing objectively measurable, then they might as well not exist.. and you can hardly blame those of us who take that view.  And up until a dog stars speaking, performs a miracle or two, and identifies itself as the Big Kahuna's spokes-dog, well, I'm one of those people.

[Guyver]

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't think it's any kind of fail because 'sciency' types typically don't just dismiss the subjective experiences, they dismiss them and usually provide lots of reasons why they are dismissing it. Ever hear of Albert Ostman, who was kidnapped by a Sasquatch family and lived with them for a week?

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

So what is your response, do you believe it, was he really abducted by Bigfoot?  How much is his subjective experience worth to you?  On the wiki page they even mention a Bigfoot researcher who needs more evidence in order to accept Ostman's claims; is that also a logic fail or extreme oversight?

 

I understand your point, and the obvious illustration.  I don’t believe or disbelieve Ostmans story.  I know that he swears to it, so I accept that as a fact.  Is it real?  It seems extremely unlikely.  Rather then get off on a Sasquatch tangent, I’ll just say that all experience is subjective, and subject to the individual, because that’s what experience is.  

No, someone’s unsubstantiated claims of experience don’t amount to any sort of proof.  But they also don’t confirm any falsehood.  I had an experience where I free climbed a large, steep and dangerous mountain once, while on a company retreat.  No one (except for one guy) believed that I climbed it.  We were all on a bus heading for a company dinner and I mentioned that I climbed that mountain behind the resort.  There was maybe 6-8 guys in this conversation.  They said no you didn’t.  So, they were pretty much calling me a liar, right to my face.  Why?  Probably because they thought since they couldn’t do it, it couldn’t be done.....IDK.  What I do know is they were wrong and I spoke truth.

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

I know that he swears to it, so I accept that as a fact.  Is it real?  It seems extremely unlikely.  

Agreed, but I'd just note that the above is exactly the approach of 'sciency' types too and I'm not seeing you being any less guilty of dismissing subjective experience than them.  I'd go a little stronger than you and maybe this is what you are criticizing, I disbelieve Ostman's story, but that's largely because of all the other information we have about bigfoot and most importantly biology, which pretty much has eliminated the possibility of Bigfoot outside of the possibilities of magic or aliens.  I disbelieve extremely unlikely things almost by definition.

Quote

No, someone’s unsubstantiated claims of experience don’t amount to any sort of proof.  But they also don’t confirm any falsehood.  

Sure, but again I don't think that disagrees with sciency types.

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

I had an experience where I free climbed a large, steep and dangerous mountain once, while on a company retreat.  No one (except for one guy) believed that I climbed it.  We were all on a bus heading for a company dinner and I mentioned that I climbed that mountain behind the resort.  There was maybe 6-8 guys in this conversation.  They said no you didn’t.  So, they were pretty much calling me a liar, right to my face.  Why?  Probably because they thought since they couldn’t do it, it couldn’t be done.....IDK.

I don't think they disbelieved you because they didn't think it could be done, I think they disbelieved you because you claimed to free climb a large steep and dangerous mountain, I kinda doubt they'd have disbelieved you if you said you went and sat in the hot tub.  But just to tie it in to the topic I think, your subjective claim here is quite a bit different than spiritual claims since the evidence for it only partially relies on your specific claim; we already know mountains exist and that people free climb them.

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

If there was a God/Deity/Creator/Spirit, and especially given the claim of being all-powerful... it does seem a little odd that when it comes to doing anything that would manifest itself in such a way as to allow OBjective verification of their existence ... they are very shy indeed.  

Indeed, I've always thought the same about poltergeists and hauntings and telekinetic demons and such.  There is no need for magic wards or psychics or priests to assist in ridding yourself of any of those, nothing will terrify them more or drive them away faster than a simple cell phone camera.

[psyche101]

On 20/03/2018 at 2:51 PM, oslove said:

Dear colleagues here, time to bring you guys to the OP [below in Annex], so that you will be re-oriented correctly, instead of vagabonding everywhere, except keeping focused to the OP.

 

Now, a lot of you who replied to me kept drumming that I am not doing any argument, but you are not thinking as to see an argument when one is looking straight into your eyeballs.

 

The thread is on “God from the Investigation of Existence.”

 

Now, a decent argument must first state the proposition to be advanced by the proponent, i.e. yours truly, Oslove.

 

Next, the definitions of the important terms in the proposition, in our case: God, existence.

 

That is why I say that you guys are always into evading, because no one here has contributed any additions to or subtractions from my concept of existence, and my concept of God.

 

Here, I will bring forth from the OP my definitions of the two terms:

 

Here is my concept of what is existence:

 

Existence is what we experience with our senses in particular our consciousness, for example we experience the nose in our face, babies, roses, the sun in the sky at daytime and the moon in the sky at night, they all are instances of existence: and it is by our senses and in particular our consciousness that we come to know what is existence.

 

Here is my concept of God:

 

God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

 

So, prove that you are NOT essentially into evasions from the thread, produce your definitions of existence and God.

 

Annex

 

 

 

Evasion???? 

Are you for real? 

19 pages ago I picked that you were here to push your failed primal cause argument that you restart every 6 months or so and your only just getting to what you started the thread for? 

You have not convinced others in other threads, not sure why you think that will change with this thread. 

You have evaded your agenda even though it's been realised from the start of the thread. Be honest your here to try and bash atheists and force your religious views as a religious alternative to the big bang theory using the God of the gaps argument. 

So you want to get on with it and stop evading so your God of the gaps argument can be summarily dismissed for the same reasons every other thread you have started on this subject have failed? 

[psyche101]

On 21/03/2018 at 11:51 AM, Blaye Otanka said:

Unless that non-life (biochemical) had life in it. Could be the only reason why an energetic transfer occured.

Not sure why your talking about. Nobody has proposed and energetic transfer resulting in a life form. It was a gradual process of increasing complexity over a very long time. 

On 21/03/2018 at 11:51 AM, Blaye Otanka said:

These kinds of departments and viewpoints for physics is lacking dramatically in our modern Erra. Why do I say this?

I'm honestly not sure why you say that, it's chemistry we are discussing here for that aspect of abiogenesis, not physics. 

On 21/03/2018 at 11:51 AM, Blaye Otanka said:

Everything is purposely compartmentalized because this profits better control, and management of the staff. All of it is based around Funding and Monetary means, and thus people's mind's are not geared in an Imaginative, out of box, or Honest sense. The division is destroying our bridge to see greater things.

Who's making all this money? 

My little sister is a scientist on a leading cancer research team, I make more than her as a tradesman. And she is focused on discovery, not wealth. Where do you come up with this stuff? 

On 21/03/2018 at 11:51 AM, Blaye Otanka said:

Unlike a Physicist who claims a big bang occurred that started from an Infinitesimally small point which exploded into the current stars, I rather see it differently.

But it's not about what your personal perspective is, it's about the best fit to the data. With all due respect I don't know why you think a non scientific approach or opinion is at all valid. 

On 21/03/2018 at 11:51 AM, Blaye Otanka said:

Time and Space are Illusions of Experience, and if we break that thought process we understand that though a source point did "bang" an expression of stars in the heavens, this point did not fall apart like a particle, or disappear, you just do not perceive him with your time based thought process.

Big Bang is a misnomer, I wouldnt be the first to see it more as a big swell. Your clearly not understanding the theory behind the big bang. 

It took hundreds of thousands of years for the matter released in the big bang to coalesce enough to then give us pop III stars. It wasn't BANG between you go, instant universe. 

On 21/03/2018 at 11:51 AM, Blaye Otanka said:

If you could watch a reel back to Billions maybe Trillions, maybe Infinite years ago, you would see He is still in his abode comfortably alive.

Who? Were discussing the origins of the Universe now after touching on abiogenesis above. There is no He in those hypotheses. 

On 21/03/2018 at 11:51 AM, Blaye Otanka said:

Now as for every star, they have what is called a zero point and do not just die out with lack of fuel constantly, rather there is a zero point which also is Infinitesimally small and yet is Infinitely larger than you perceive.

Are you referring to a singularity? 

On 21/03/2018 at 11:51 AM, Blaye Otanka said:

What is space? a vacuum? perhaps it is filled with a substance that is either vacuumed into a black whole or rises to the stars.

Space is space, you need to be more specific. Dark matter makes up most of the universe but I don't see how it gave rise to stars here. 

On 21/03/2018 at 11:51 AM, Blaye Otanka said:

Life is not what it may seem.

Why not?