Endercreeper01 Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 4 minutes ago, beecee said: Great work! and also once again, Let me say at this time that your personal beliefs [philosophical or scientific] are not being challenged. That's your concern. Your attitude in claiming them as facts is being challenged. They are not scientifically based facts but can have facts supporting it, facts which include number synchronicity in the universe.
beecee Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: They are not scientifically based facts but can have facts supporting it, facts which include number synchronicity in the universe. Sorry, no science in that as far as I can see.
Endercreeper01 Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 Just now, beecee said: Sorry, no science in that as far as I can see. Science is not the only route to knowledge.
beecee Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said: Science is not the only route to knowledge. Science is "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation" (Merriam-Webster). Science has, and continues to push back any need for any unscientific higher power or supernatural being into oblivion: While science does not know all the answers, substituting your mythical higher power or any other supernatural solution is simply a short circuit.
YaDinghus Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 8 hours ago, Strange said: I know that was Descartes intention It was his intention to logically prove the existence of god, but in the prologue to one of his books, he actually apologizes to his benefactors in the Vatican that he was unable to do so, and the only conclusion he could come to was that the only thing he could be sure of was his own existence, because he could perceive himself, hence 'cogito, ergo sum'. I really recommend reading Descartes if you are interested in the history of modern philosophy. Also, 'cogito, ergo sum' is only the popular half of his famous conclusion. It's:"dubito, ergo cogito, cogito, ergo sum" Quote While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge, I think, therefore I am,[d] is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophizes orderly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum 6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said: The idea of my argument is not that consciousness exists independently from the body. Instead, it is about a higher power creating everything around the consciousness, through physical processes, in order for the consciousness to exist in. That essentially means that the consciousness creates it's own existence. You really need to try and effectively argue that Descartes is wrong, and Hegel, and Kant, and Shopenhauer, and Camus, you might try your hand at Nietzsche, too. Really fascinating literature.
Endercreeper01 Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 27 minutes ago, beecee said: Science is "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation" (Merriam-Webster). Science has, and continues to push back any need for any unscientific higher power or supernatural being into oblivion: While science does not know all the answers, substituting your mythical higher power or any other supernatural solution is simply a short circuit. Tell me how a consciousness, as in the self at the core of my very being, is explained by science. You can't, because science explains a reality existing around a central point of observation, which is the self or "I am" point of consciousness. Nothing around this self can explain its existence of experiencing reality. And how about you tell me what started the big bang? Or more specifically, what need was there for the universe to exist such that there had stop be a starting point as a big bang? 3 minutes ago, YaDinghus said: It was his intention to logically prove the existence of god, but in the prologue to one of his books, he actually apologizes to his benefactors in the Vatican that he was unable to do so, and the only conclusion he could come to was that the only thing he could be sure of was his own existence, because he could perceive himself, hence 'cogito, ergo sum'. I really recommend reading Descartes if you are interested in the history of modern philosophy. Also, 'cogito, ergo sum' is only the popular half of his famous conclusion. It's:"dubito, ergo cogito, cogito, ergo sum" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum You really need to try and effectively argue that Descartes is wrong, and Hegel, and Kant, and Shopenhauer, and Camus, you might try your hand at Nietzsche, too. Really fascinating literature. My point is that the "I' exists within the external reality, but that the "I" is what fundamentally creates the reality around it in order for it to exist within it as an "I". The creation of the reality around it is what is done a higher power, or simply a power, which is not distinguished from the "I".
YaDinghus Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 47 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: Tell me how a consciousness, as in the self at the core of my very being, is explained by science. You can't, because science explains a reality existing around a central point of observation, which is the self or "I am" point of consciousness. Nothing around this self can explain its existence of experiencing reality. And how about you tell me what started the big bang? Or more specifically, what need was there for the universe to exist such that there had stop be a starting point as a big bang? My point is that the "I' exists within the external reality, but that the "I" is what fundamentally creates the reality around it in order for it to exist within it as an "I". The creation of the reality around it is what is done a higher power, or simply a power, which is not distinguished from the "I". Just saying a lot of confusing and garbled words will make me ignore you instead of believe you
Endercreeper01 Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 15 minutes ago, YaDinghus said: Just saying a lot of confusing and garbled words will make me ignore you instead of believe you Just saying that I am being meaningless is not a counter argument to my reasoning.
YaDinghus Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 24 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: Just saying that I am being meaningless is not a counter argument to my reasoning You're not reasoning, you're repeating.
Endercreeper01 Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, YaDinghus said: You're not reasoning, you're repeating. I already reasoned, but I am not getting a proper refutation of my reasoning. It does not in and of itself disprove the idea if it is unscientific. Edited June 2, 2018 by Endercreeper01
beecee Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said: Tell me how a consciousness, as in the self at the core of my very being, is explained by science. You can't, because science explains a reality existing around a central point of observation, which is the self or "I am" point of consciousness. Nothing around this self can explain its existence of experiencing reality. There you go being obtuse again. I have said many times that there is much science cannot explain. But that's no excuse in this day and age to install your god of the gaps, which you are unable to explain by logical means. Quote And how about you tell me what started the big bang? Or more specifically, what need was there for the universe to exist such that there had stop be a starting point as a big bang? We don't know, and I'm pretty sure I have also mentioned that somewhere. But we do know that the universe evolved from a hotter, denser state we call the BB, and which we can reasonably describe from around 10-43 seconds post BB. Quote My point is that the "I' exists within the external reality, but that the "I" is what fundamentally creates the reality around it in order for it to exist within it as an "I". The creation of the reality around it is what is done a higher power, or simply a power, which is not distinguished from the "I". Continuing with your garbled nonsense. Again while you have every right to your mythical beliefs, they are just that...your beliefs, personal, unscientific and without any observational and/or experimental support. 34 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: Just saying that I am being meaningless is not a counter argument to my reasoning. And offering meaningless, speculative faulty reasoning, based on myths is no counter to science. 16 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: I already reasoned, but I am not getting a proper refutation of my reasoning. It does not in and of itself disprove the idea if it is unscientific. Any supernatural, and/or paranormal nonsense, is by definition unscientific: You denying that fact, only detracts from the logic of your posts and unsupported claims. The scientific method requires that a hypothesis can be tested systematically and that it can be repeated again and again. Your personal beliefs fail that at every turn.
Endercreeper01 Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 19 minutes ago, beecee said: There you go being obtuse again. I have said many times that there is much science cannot explain. But that's no excuse in this day and age to install your god of the gaps, which you are unable to explain by logical means. We don't know, and I'm pretty sure I have also mentioned that somewhere. But we do know that the universe evolved from a hotter, denser state we call the BB, and which we can reasonably describe from around 10-43 seconds post BB. Continuing with your garbled nonsense. Again while you have every right to your mythical beliefs, they are just that...your beliefs, personal, unscientific and without any observational and/or experimental support. And offering meaningless, speculative faulty reasoning, based on myths is no counter to science. I'm not explaining any "gaps" with a higher power other than what seems like gaps in reality itself... You act as if being unscientific invalidates whatever I have reasoned, when the truth is that science is not a complete view of reality and does not answer questions about existence of the conscious self and of reality itself.
beecee Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said: I'm not explaining any "gaps" with a higher power other than what seems like gaps in reality itself... What reality is that? Your mythical reality based on your unsupported unscientific nonsense? Quote You act as if being unscientific invalidates whatever I have reasoned, when the truth is that science is not a complete view of reality and does not answer questions about existence of the conscious self and of reality itself. Now you are being dishonest. Again no one has said science can explain consciousness, other then a step in evolution. You know the theory of evolution? that scientific theory which is as certain as any scientific theory can be. And of course you and your ilk are also unable to explain any actual validity in the myths you claim as fact. Ancient man had many reasons to see gods in the Sun, Moon, Mountains etc, because science was not there to explain it. Humanity in this day and age have no excuse, particularly when that type of supernatural nonsense has been shown to be superfluous and unnecessary..
YaDinghus Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 10 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: You act as if being unscientific invalidates whatever I have reasoned, when the truth is that science is not a complete view of reality and does not answer questions about existence of the conscious self and of reality itself. Well, yeah. That is exactly what this whole 'discussion' seems to be about. We operate on entirely different premises of how reality works, and we are not going to agree on a basic set of premises for how a discussion works, either. So, we shouldn't be discussing this at all, but agree to disagree
Endercreeper01 Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 30 minutes ago, beecee said: What reality is that? Your mythical reality based on your unsupported unscientific nonsense? Now you are being dishonest. Again no one has said science can explain consciousness, other then a step in evolution. You know the theory of evolution? that scientific theory which is as certain as any scientific theory can be. And of course you and your ilk are also unable to explain any actual validity in the myths you claim as fact. Ancient man had many reasons to see gods in the Sun, Moon, Mountains etc, because science was not there to explain it. Humanity in this day and age have no excuse, particularly when that type of supernatural nonsense has been shown to be superfluous and unnecessary.. Explain to me how my reasoning has no value. Obtaining an idea in a non scientific process does not invalidate the idea. Synchronicity of numbers in the universe shows that a higher power has been at work all along in reality itself. 27 minutes ago, YaDinghus said: Well, yeah. That is exactly what this whole 'discussion' seems to be about. We operate on entirely different premises of how reality works, and we are not going to agree on a basic set of premises for how a discussion works, either. So, we shouldn't be discussing this at all, but agree to disagree Well, that's fair. It's just that there are more routes to knowledge than a strictly physically based evidence approach, and the validity of an idea can be shown, but not proven, with reason. It's not that I don't have proof for this reasoning. Number alignments and synchronicity appear in all areas of reality, and can only be the result of a higher power.
Strange Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 5 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said: The belief is not a belief but an understanding of one's own consciousness that leads to one's reasoning of reality based on a higher power. Nope. It’s just what you believe. And your claims of “reasoning” are totally bogus. Your only “reasoning” is to simply repeat what you believe. 1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said: Explain to me how my reasoning has no value. There is no reasoning. Therefore no value.
dimreepr Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 3 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said: I already reasoned, but I am not getting a proper refutation of my reasoning. It does not in and of itself disprove the idea if it is unscientific. You argue that it's your consciousness that is this higher power, what happened before you were conscious and if you're claiming it's our collective consciousness then what happened before life existed?
DrP Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said: It's not that I don't have proof for this reasoning. ... it's just that you haven't presented any here? 2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said: Number alignments and synchronicity appear in all areas of reality, and can only be the result of a higher power. or coincidence, or it is just the way things are, or it is your brain finding patterns and attributing reasons to things that have none (all humans do that) - all easily explainable with the most basic statistics and maths. Your statement claiming this can ONLY be the result of a higher power is so obviously false and points to your 'reasoning' being in error. You are mistaken, You have drawn a false conclusion - you can accept that and move on with life and choose to be happy and learn about reality (the world is an amazing place which you can fill with love and joy) - or you can stick your head in the sand, cover your ears and shout LA LA LA! PRAISE THE LORD! and continue wallowing in your own ignorance. I was like it for decades - drop the fear - I assume you cling to this belief out of fear of hell? It's bollocks - drop it - not a shred of evidence for it - not ONE single thing beyond the ramblings of the crazy and mislead.
Strange Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said: Number alignments and synchronicity appear in all areas of reality, and can only be the result of a higher power. I have no idea what you mean by "number alignments". Synchronicity is superstitious nonsense. And, even if these tings existed, there could be multiple possible explanations. You would need (wait for it) EVIDENCE to decide between them.
beecee Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said: Explain to me how my reasoning has no value. Obtaining an idea in a non scientific process does not invalidate the idea. Your reasoning is totally unscientific as has been explained to you many times. Quote Synchronicity of numbers in the universe shows that a higher power has been at work all along in reality itself. Synchronicity of numbers is pure coincidence that the gullible and foolish tend to grab hold when it happens to coincidently align with their personal beliefs. Quote Well, that's fair. It's just that there are more routes to knowledge than a strictly physically based evidence approach, and the validity of an idea can be shown, but not proven, with reason. Once again as has been pointed out to you many times, science is not about proof, Science is a discipline in continued progress, and that is the reason it continues to lessen the room for the god of gaps some like to raise. I can live and proper on a day to day basis with out your mythical unscientific nonsense...You cannot live and prosper on a day to day basis with out making use of science and what it has achieved. Quote It's not that I don't have proof for this reasoning. Number alignments and synchronicity appear in all areas of reality, and can only be the result of a higher power. Utter hogwash for the many reasons already stated.
Endercreeper01 Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Strange said: Nope. It’s just what you believe. And your claims of “reasoning” are totally bogus. Your only “reasoning” is to simply repeat what you believe. There is no reasoning. Therefore no value. the reasoning is about consciousness creating reality around it. Although it's not a very complicated reasoning, it has yet to be refuted by anyone on this forum. 33 minutes ago, DrP said: ... it's just that you haven't presented any here? or coincidence, or it is just the way things are, or it is your brain finding patterns and attributing reasons to things that have none (all humans do that) - all easily explainable with the most basic statistics and maths. Your statement claiming this can ONLY be the result of a higher power is so obviously false and points to your 'reasoning' being in error. You are mistaken, You have drawn a false conclusion - you can accept that and move on with life and choose to be happy and learn about reality (the world is an amazing place which you can fill with love and joy) - or you can stick your head in the sand, cover your ears and shout LA LA LA! PRAISE THE LORD! and continue wallowing in your own ignorance. I was like it for decades - drop the fear - I assume you cling to this belief out of fear of hell? It's bollocks - drop it - not a shred of evidence for it - not ONE single thing beyond the ramblings of the crazy and mislead. 21 minutes ago, beecee said: Your reasoning is totally unscientific as has been explained to you many times. Synchronicity of numbers is pure coincidence that the gullible and foolish tend to grab hold when it happens to coincidently align with their personal beliefs. 29 minutes ago, Strange said: I have no idea what you mean by "number alignments". Synchronicity is superstitious nonsense. And, even if these tings existed, there could be multiple possible explanations. You would need (wait for it) EVIDENCE to decide between them. Synchronicity is about specific numbers appearing in the universe over and over again. It is not about isolated incidents of a number appearing. The more a number appears in this way, the less likely it is statistically to have the potential to show you. As the chances get smaller and smaller, it becomes clear that a higher power is behind number synchronicity. 21 minutes ago, beecee said: Once again as has been pointed out to you many times, science is not about proof, Science is a discipline in continued progress, and that is the reason it continues to lessen the room for the god of gaps some like to raise. I can live and proper on a day to day basis with out your mythical unscientific nonsense...You cannot live and prosper on a day to day basis with out making use of science and what it has achieved. Utter hogwash for the many reasons already stated. God of the gaps s different from what I am doing. I am explaining reality itself with god; I am not explaining a physical phenomenon with gid, so your statement about god in the gape makes no sense 46 minutes ago, dimreepr said: You argue that it's your consciousness that is this higher power, what happened before you were conscious and if you're claiming it's our collective consciousness then what happened before life existed? The question of what happened before a new consciousness was born is very difficult to answer, if working within the bounds of the classic view of time. However, if we try to answer this question, we can say that before there was life, then if there was consciousness before life existed here, it would have had to exist elsewhere in order to exist within the context of life.
dimreepr Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: The question of what happened before a new consciousness was born is very difficult to answer, if working within the bounds of the classic view of time. However, if we try to answer this question, we can say that before there was life, then if there was consciousness before life existed here, it would have had to exist elsewhere in order to exist within the context of life. 1 Then it's just a really long-winded way to explain God (magic man/woman/it). 8 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: it would have had to exist elsewhere in order to exist within the context of life. Except consciousness is an emergent property of life, IOW it came after not before.
Endercreeper01 Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Then it's just a really long-winded way to explain God (magic man/woman/it). If the consciousness has always an existence, then there would have been life elsewhere before in order for it to exist within.
beecee Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 7 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: God of the gaps s different from what I am doing. I am explaining reality itself with god; I am not explaining a physical phenomenon with gid, so your statement about god in the gape makes no sense Any supernatural being of whatever design of god that you like to dream up, like your number synchrocity claims, is unevidenced nonsense and just your personal opinion. Quote The question of what happened before a new consciousness was born is very difficult to answer, if working within the bounds of the classic view of time. However, if we try to answer this question, we can say that before there was life, then if there was consciousness before life existed here, it would have had to exist elsewhere in order to exist within the context of life. There is really only one scientific answer to the existence of universal life my friend, and that is Abiogenesis.
Endercreeper01 Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 Just now, beecee said: Any supernatural being of whatever design of god that you like to dream up, like your number synchrocity claims, is unevidenced nonsense and just your personal opinion. There is really only one scientific answer to the existence of universal life my friend, and that is Abiogenesis. It's not a supernatural being, its a higher power that created everything around consciousness.
Recommended Posts