Could consciousness pervade the universe ?

[Crazy Horse]

11 hours ago, joc said:

 

 But the laws of physics and common sense are on the side of thought that I embrace.  

The laws of physics do not even recognise spirit/soul, and they do not have the first clue as to what consciousness actually is.

So using them as some kind of argument is utterly ridiculous.

Where is the common sense in that?

[Crazy Horse]

11 hours ago, joc said:

 

One cannot prove a negative under any circumstance.  

This is kind of an intriguing point.

But, if I were say to you, Joc, I am not using your bathroom right now to take an humongous dump, you could quite easily prove that statement wrong? Or right?

By the way, I would give it a few minutes first....

[+joc]

4 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Of course you don't care. Because that would go against you current beliefs, and you obviously are not honest enough to simple follow the evidence.

That's very simple to explain and inline with all spiritual traditions.

The soul/consciousness, has now left the building...

Anecdotal evidence is NOT evidence of anything.  He said/she said...nothing more.  Many people have claimed to have been abducted...should I believe them? Do you?

I don't and quite frankly this conversation is going nowhere.  The bottom line is...if it cannot be proven with proper scientific method...I'm not buying it.  

From what I see...You think your belief system is superior to anyone else's that disagrees with you.  You buy anonymous anecdote.  I don't I buy scientific proof.  Kind of what most of the Real World does.  I am not in the 98% ....I am in the 2%.   I don't follow the sheep.  If you can't prove it...it's worth nothing to me.  Proof is only for the positive because it is impossible to prove a negative.  Disbelief is not belief.  Belief is a positive attribute.  You must believe Something.  If you don't believe Something, whatever that something is, it does not equate to belief...it equates to what it is disbelief.  You  confuse the two as the same...they are not.

[Helen of Annoy]

22 minutes ago, joc said:

Anecdotal evidence is NOT evidence of anything.  He said/she said...nothing more.  Many people have claimed to have been abducted...should I believe them? Do you?

I don't and quite frankly this conversation is going nowhere.  The bottom line is...if it cannot be proven with proper scientific method...I'm not buying it.  

From what I see...You think your belief system is superior to anyone else's that disagrees with you.  You buy anonymous anecdote.  I don't I buy scientific proof.  Kind of what most of the Real World does.  I am not in the 98% ....I am in the 2%.   I don't follow the sheep.  If you can't prove it...it's worth nothing to me.  Proof is only for the positive because it is impossible to prove a negative.  Disbelief is not belief.  Belief is a positive attribute.  You must believe Something.  If you don't believe Something, whatever that something is, it does not equate to belief...it equates to what it is disbelief.  You  confuse the two as the same...they are not.

Actually, to be honest, you're a typical sheep, since you put one particular strain of nihilism above any other of nearly countless options and stick with it blindly. 

I do admit it's possible that you never experienced anything that would make your personal opinion a little less rigid, but it would be very peachy if you would accept the possibility that others are not as mentally rigid.

Science is simply not advanced enough yet to even attempt giving the answer about possible consciousness of the Universe, since it didn't yet manage to understand human consciousness. 

There's just too much order in the Universe. It's not really logical to think it accidentally occurred out of nothing and goes into nothing, especially since nothing never would be capable of any action.    

[+joc]

2 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

There's just too much order in the Universe. It's not really logical to think it accidentally occurred out of nothing and goes into nothing, especially since nothing never would be capable of any action.    

No one knows the origin of the Universe.  The Big Bang goes a long way to explaining how it began.  God created it...answers nothing.  Many people believe the entire universe is only 6000 years old.  They believe it because their religious 'leaders' tell them the Bible says so.  That is 'sheepism'.  It is scientifically proven how old the universe is.  It is scientifically proven how long people have been on the planet.  If  you think Science is sheepism.  Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa is all I can say to you.

[Crazy Horse]

34 minutes ago, joc said:

Anecdotal evidence is NOT evidence of anything.  He said/she said...nothing more.  Many people have claimed to have been abducted...should I believe them? Do you?

I don't and quite frankly this conversation is going nowhere.  The bottom line is...if it cannot be proven with proper scientific method...I'm not buying it.  

From what I see...You think your belief system is superior to anyone else's that disagrees with you.  You buy anonymous anecdote.  I don't I buy scientific proof.  Kind of what most of the Real World does.  I am not in the 98% ....I am in the 2%.   I don't follow the sheep.  If you can't prove it...it's worth nothing to me.  Proof is only for the positive because it is impossible to prove a negative.  Disbelief is not belief.  Belief is a positive attribute.  You must believe Something.  If you don't believe Something, whatever that something is, it does not equate to belief...it equates to what it is disbelief.  You  confuse the two as the same...they are not.

It is when it can be backed-up by independent witnesses, and can be verified hundreds of times by folks who have absolutely nothing to gain, and sometimes everything to loose.

They are far from being anonymous anecdotes.

Atheism is a belief that God doesn't exist. 

 

[onlookerofmayhem]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Atheism is a belief that God doesn't exist. 

No it is not.

It is the lack of belief that a god does exist.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[+joc]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Atheism is a belief that God doesn't exist

The key word in the above sentence is 'doesn't'.     The key word in 'doesn't is 'not'.  Not is a negative.  One cannot prove a negative.  One can only prove that God exists...yet no one ever has.  The proof is always on the 'belief'...not on the 'disbelief'.  

You continue to make the same mistake.  Belief and disbelief are nothing similar.

I do not 'believe' that God exists.  You 'believe' that God does exist.  I disbelieve.  You believe.  

[Crazy Horse]

2 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

No it is not.

It is the lack of belief that a god does exist.

Do you understand the difference?

 

Not according to the Cambridge Dictionary.

Quote: the belief that God does not exist.

[+joc]

1 minute ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

No it is not.

It is the lack of belief that a god does exist.

Do you understand the difference?

 

This is a commonality among 'believers'.   

[+joc]

Just now, Crazy Horse said:

Not according to the Cambridge Dictionary.

Quote: the belief that God does not exist.

It's a simple logic matter CH.  

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

Not according to the Cambridge Dictionary.

Quote: the belief that God does not exist.

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

[Crazy Horse]

4 minutes ago, joc said:

The key word in the above sentence is 'doesn't'.     The key word in 'doesn't is 'not'.  Not is a negative.  One cannot prove a negative.  One can only prove that God exists...yet no one ever has.  The proof is always on the 'belief'...not on the 'disbelief'.  

You continue to make the same mistake.  Belief and disbelief are nothing similar.

I do not 'believe' that God exists.  You 'believe' that God does exist.  I disbelieve.  You believe.  

 

If I say it is not raining outside, that is very easy to prove.

 

[XenoFish]

The closest thing we get to a god is our idea of it. God is an idea.

[+joc]

9 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

 

If I say it is not raining outside, that is very easy to prove.

 

If a thing can be proven it is not a matter of belief...we are talking about beliefs that cannot be proven.

[Crazy Horse]

21 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

"Atheism is not a disbelief...……….."

Actually, a double negative equals a positive. If I say, I am not, not happy, that equates to, I am happy.

So what you just said was, Atheism is a belief that God doesn't exist. Just like the dictionary quote.

Just to be clear.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Crazy Horse

[onlookerofmayhem]

6 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

 

If I say it is not raining outside, that is very easy to prove.

 

The word "not" does not make that statement negative. It is a positive claim and CAN be easily proven. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.^[10] The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). 

[Crazy Horse]

1 minute ago, joc said:

If a thing can be proven it is not a matter of belief...we are talking about beliefs that cannot be proven.

But for a thing to be proven, you have to have an open mind, and follow the evidence as it comes.

Hundreds of NDErs, reporting things that they could not have possibly known, and later verified by friends, family, and independent witnesses, is absolutely evidence. 

Please explain that.

 

 

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

"Atheism is not a disbelief...……….."

Actually, a double negative equals a positive. If I say, I am not, not happy, that equates to, I am happy.

So what you just said was, Atheism is a belief that God doesn't exist. Just like the dictionary quote.

Just to be clear.

No. You are misunderstanding. 

Did you read the link I posted?

A claim is made that god exists.

I do not accept that claim.

That does not mean that I automatically claim gods do not exist. It simply means I don't accept the claim that they do.

 

[+joc]

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

But for a thing to be proven, you have to have an open mind, and follow the evidence as it comes.

Hundreds of NDErs, 

reporting things that they could not have possibly known, and later verified by friends, family, and independent witnesses, is absolutely evidence. 

Please explain that.

 

 

 

 

The first sentence is a false premise.  The Earth is spherical.  It is irrelevant whether one has an open mind or not.  It is has been proven through verifiable scientific means.

'things that they could not have possibly known'  verified ....

How were these things verified?  Through Memory of friends, etc.  Memory is unqualified as proof.  In a court of law...the memory of an eyewitness who 'saw' someone..must in fact be correlated with ...picking the same person out of a line up.  I don't have to explain anything that isn't proven...the burden of proof requires more than anecdotal evidence without scientific verification.

 

[Crazy Horse]

1 minute ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

No. You are misunderstanding. 

Did you read the link I posted?

A claim is made that god exists.

I do not accept that claim.

That does not mean that I automatically claim gods do not exist. It simply means I don't accept the claim that they do.

 

Answer me this, if you do not believe in God, yet do not disbelieve in God, surely that makes you agnostic?

 

[Crazy Horse]

Just now, joc said:

The first sentence is a false premise.  The Earth is spherical.  It is irrelevant whether one has an open mind or not.  It is has been proven through verifiable scientific means.

'things that they could not have possibly known'  verified ....

How were these things verified?  Through Memory of friends, etc.  Memory is unqualified as proof.  In a court of law...the memory of an eyewitness who 'saw' someone..must in fact be correlated with ...picking the same person out of a line up.  I don't have to explain anything that isn't proven...the burden of proof requires more than anecdotal evidence without scientific verification.

 

Its not a false premise at all. The scientist has to have an inquisitive mind, and must then make an experiment to check their theories, that must be done with an open mind, that is true science, of course, the spherical nature of the earth can then be proven.

And yes, all these examples are correlated, by independent witnesses.

 

[+joc]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

 The scientist has to have an inquisitive mind, and must then make an experiment to check their theories, that must be done with an open mind, that is true science, of course,

 

This too is a false premise.  

[Helen of Annoy]

1 hour ago, joc said:

No one knows the origin of the Universe.  The Big Bang goes a long way to explaining how it began.  God created it...answers nothing.  Many people believe the entire universe is only 6000 years old.  They believe it because their religious 'leaders' tell them the Bible says so.  That is 'sheepism'.  It is scientifically proven how old the universe is.  It is scientifically proven how long people have been on the planet.  If  you think Science is sheepism.  Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa is all I can say to you.

No, it was not scientifically proven how old the universe is. *facepalm* There's educated guesswork, which is hardly better than plain speculation. (It's pretty certain, though, it's not 6000 years old. Or made by some bearded meany sitting on a cloud.)

You guys with your thumping the science book are no better than any religious troglodyte thumping their scripture of choice. 

Because you do the same thing: cling to a belief, misinterpret the own book until it suits your personal needs and attempt to force it upon everyone else because - here comes sarcasm - nothing shows the confidence like panicky need to get approval or at least shut those who would ask the questions up. 

 

I'm asking myself, is the Universe conscious? I've got no problem believing that a lot of actual astrophysicists, along with anyone else, are asking the same, only they're (mostly) not crazy to say they've got the definite answer.  

[onlookerofmayhem]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Answer me this, if you do not believe in God, yet do not disbelieve in God, surely that makes you agnostic?

 

Not necessarily. 

Theism and atheism are related to belief or lack of belief. 

Agnosticism and gnosticism are related to lack of knowledge or knowledge.