Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
Quote:
Some universes (maybe most) are "unpatterned" stuff, "raw nothingness" as you put it.
No, If it were raw nothingness as I put it, it would NOT be any universes.. It would be NOTHINGNESs.
NO U
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- +1 athiests
+1 athiestsFollow
No, If it were raw nothingness as I put it, it would NOT be any universes.. It would be NOTHINGNESs.
NO U
Jawbox wrote:
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
Quote:
Some universes (maybe most) are "unpatterned" stuff, "raw nothingness" as you put it.
No, If it were raw nothingness as I put it, it would NOT be any universes.. It would be NOTHINGNESs.
NO U
AMIRITE!?
AMIRITE!?
You bumped this thread just to goad me, didn't you?
Oooooooooooookay...
I don't think you are lying. I think you are self-deluded. But you're not alone.
By definition, a fact is irrefutable. Let me illustrate with a conversation that I just had with a coworker:
This particular coworker has a penchant for quoting and arguing dubious and well-refuted claims of the paranormal and whatnot. In this particular case, he was trying to tell me that it was a FACT that human beings only use ten percent of their brains. I told him that this was not true. That any MRI will show you that we use pretty much every inch of our brain, even when sitting at rest.
COWORKER: If I said it was raining outside you would say it wasn't a fact.
ME: Well, when you tell me that, I don't know it to be a fact. I have a fact in my possession when you tell me that. That fact is that you TOLD me it was raining outside. I could then ask someone else how the weather is outside. If that person tells me it's raining, then I have two facts. Fact number one: You told me it's raining outside. Fact number two: Another person told me it's raining outside. Then let's say I look out the window and find that it appears to be raining. There's fact number three. It appears to be raining. Then let's say I go outside and get soaked by the rain. There's fact number four. I'm dripping wet.
Now I have four facts, all of which when taken together suggest very strongly that it is raining outside. It is suggested so strongly that it would be MORE unreasonable for me to NOT believe it is raining than it is for me to believe it is raining.
So let's take Christianity. It is a fact that the Bible tells stories of a God who exists and works miracles. It is also a fact that this text has never been proven to be a reliable record of actual events. It is also a fact that the sort of miracles and Earthly divine manifestations documented in the Bible have never been reliably observed since the Bible was discovered. Therefore, we have no preponderance of facts. And in the 2,000 years since those stories have been told, the Christians have yet to achieve that preponderance of evidence.
The FACT that they have been unable to do so, along with many other facts that challenge the veracity of the Bible, and no compelling facts to support it, means it is far more unreasonable to BELIEVE the Bible than it is to NOT believe it.
I do not know exactly what your personal belief system is, but it seems to relate to the idea that there's "no such thing as coincidence." And, as I said before, statisticians would tell you that coincidence is more the norm than the exception, and is not in itself exceptional. So it is not reasonable observation to see coincidence and then make the leap that all things must be connected.
Your belief system does not allow for the vastness of the universe. The anti-Big Bang people like to say, "What's the odds that something explodes and creates all of this?"
Well, the answer to that is 1 - 0. If it happened, it happened.
Let's imagine I take a 2x4 and say, "I'm going to throw this in the air until it lands on it's end."
You would say the odds of that are slim.
But if I could throw that piece of wood 2,000,000,000,000 times over and over without rest, how do you like my odds?
If 6 trillion things explode and create nothing, or create something that proves to be unsustainable, it's not coincidence, it's not pattern, and it's not any sort of predestination to presume that just ONCE something is going to be created, and then flourish.
Let me correct your correction:
Now, let's say I walk into your office. You say, "You like my gloozledorp?"
"Your what?"
"My gloozledorp."
"Your whatledorp?"
"Gloozledorp."
"Your gloozlewhat?"
"Gloozledorp."
Your what-what?"
Edited, Dec 29th 2006 5:17pm by bloodywilliam
Oooooooooooookay...
Kel wrote:
well that's all the proof that I need. I don't expect to pass over my beliefs to you through the internet like they were a bong and a lighter. You may think that I'm lying or self deluded all you want. It's ok. Maybe I am.
I don't think you are lying. I think you are self-deluded. But you're not alone.
Kel wrote:
Facts are only as good as those who proclaim them and can change... Remember that we are trudging through an obstruction of words and semantics here. A "fact" is only quantified by your particular understanding of something.. The TRUTH of waht that something is can never be fully known by a human being.
DO you disagree with this? It's not new.
DO you disagree with this? It's not new.
By definition, a fact is irrefutable. Let me illustrate with a conversation that I just had with a coworker:
This particular coworker has a penchant for quoting and arguing dubious and well-refuted claims of the paranormal and whatnot. In this particular case, he was trying to tell me that it was a FACT that human beings only use ten percent of their brains. I told him that this was not true. That any MRI will show you that we use pretty much every inch of our brain, even when sitting at rest.
COWORKER: If I said it was raining outside you would say it wasn't a fact.
ME: Well, when you tell me that, I don't know it to be a fact. I have a fact in my possession when you tell me that. That fact is that you TOLD me it was raining outside. I could then ask someone else how the weather is outside. If that person tells me it's raining, then I have two facts. Fact number one: You told me it's raining outside. Fact number two: Another person told me it's raining outside. Then let's say I look out the window and find that it appears to be raining. There's fact number three. It appears to be raining. Then let's say I go outside and get soaked by the rain. There's fact number four. I'm dripping wet.
Now I have four facts, all of which when taken together suggest very strongly that it is raining outside. It is suggested so strongly that it would be MORE unreasonable for me to NOT believe it is raining than it is for me to believe it is raining.
So let's take Christianity. It is a fact that the Bible tells stories of a God who exists and works miracles. It is also a fact that this text has never been proven to be a reliable record of actual events. It is also a fact that the sort of miracles and Earthly divine manifestations documented in the Bible have never been reliably observed since the Bible was discovered. Therefore, we have no preponderance of facts. And in the 2,000 years since those stories have been told, the Christians have yet to achieve that preponderance of evidence.
The FACT that they have been unable to do so, along with many other facts that challenge the veracity of the Bible, and no compelling facts to support it, means it is far more unreasonable to BELIEVE the Bible than it is to NOT believe it.
I do not know exactly what your personal belief system is, but it seems to relate to the idea that there's "no such thing as coincidence." And, as I said before, statisticians would tell you that coincidence is more the norm than the exception, and is not in itself exceptional. So it is not reasonable observation to see coincidence and then make the leap that all things must be connected.
Kel wrote:
The pattern in all things is so obvious I'm not even going to go into it. The UNIVERSE is a giant pattern of STUFF. Were it NOT a PATTERN of STUFF, then it would just be STUFF.. with no Order... no form... just Raw Nothingness.. immeasuarable one-dimensional points that are shapeless and massless and timeless and Nothingness.
Put all of those points together in some kind of Order.. suddenly you have 3-Dimemsional objects and a whole universe of Ordered Stuff.
That, my friend, is a pattern. It's there and it's clearly real. You choose to see everything as a series of fragmented coincidences; I choose to see it another way.
Put all of those points together in some kind of Order.. suddenly you have 3-Dimemsional objects and a whole universe of Ordered Stuff.
That, my friend, is a pattern. It's there and it's clearly real. You choose to see everything as a series of fragmented coincidences; I choose to see it another way.
Your belief system does not allow for the vastness of the universe. The anti-Big Bang people like to say, "What's the odds that something explodes and creates all of this?"
Well, the answer to that is 1 - 0. If it happened, it happened.
Let's imagine I take a 2x4 and say, "I'm going to throw this in the air until it lands on it's end."
You would say the odds of that are slim.
But if I could throw that piece of wood 2,000,000,000,000 times over and over without rest, how do you like my odds?
If 6 trillion things explode and create nothing, or create something that proves to be unsustainable, it's not coincidence, it's not pattern, and it's not any sort of predestination to presume that just ONCE something is going to be created, and then flourish.
Kel wrote:
Cute, but the context is tottally irrelevant.
In this dialog the "lamp" is a thing that both parties have a full understanding of. You know waht a lamp is, I know waht I lamp is.. there is no rational questioning of the presence of a lamp.
It would be more like:
Now, let's say I walk into your office. You say, "You like my gloozledorp?"
I look, but there's nothing there.
"I don't see a gloozledorp."
"It's there. But you have to know what you are looking at."
"Ah," I say. "Then there's no gloozledorp."
"You don't believe in my gloozledorp?"
"If there's a gloozledorp, prove it to me. Let's see it do something I can recognize."
"I can't make you recognize something."
"Ah. Well. Then. Lunch?""
In this dialog the "lamp" is a thing that both parties have a full understanding of. You know waht a lamp is, I know waht I lamp is.. there is no rational questioning of the presence of a lamp.
It would be more like:
Now, let's say I walk into your office. You say, "You like my gloozledorp?"
I look, but there's nothing there.
"I don't see a gloozledorp."
"It's there. But you have to know what you are looking at."
"Ah," I say. "Then there's no gloozledorp."
"You don't believe in my gloozledorp?"
"If there's a gloozledorp, prove it to me. Let's see it do something I can recognize."
"I can't make you recognize something."
"Ah. Well. Then. Lunch?""
Let me correct your correction:
Now, let's say I walk into your office. You say, "You like my gloozledorp?"
"Your what?"
"My gloozledorp."
"Your whatledorp?"
"Gloozledorp."
"Your gloozlewhat?"
"Gloozledorp."
Your what-what?"
Edited, Dec 29th 2006 5:17pm by bloodywilliam
I don't see how this little ice helix does anything to prove or disprove God. In my perception, with an acceptance of both science and religion, I can't imagine God as a SimCity player making objects and life appear out of thin air. I see it more as him writing the rules of physics, and designing the periodic table, then hitting the play button on this little invention He has called "time", and watching His collection of elements react to gravity, temperature, and an assorted other set of forces in the space called "Universe" as His only sentient beings kill each other while one side believes He's just there, maybe because He proved it early in this invention called "time" while another group runs around documenting the rules of this space called "universe" and thinking it is proof that He doesn't exist. Yeah, I have faith in God, and I believe evolution. How? The same way a guy thought that disease somehow came from creatures so small that we couldn't see them.
Now I want a gloozledorp too 
ug, remind me not to goad you into posting again..
statisticians would tell you that coincidence is more the norm than the exception, and is not in itself exceptional. So it is not reasonable observation to see coincidence and then make the leap that all things must be connected.
All things ARE connected. quantum blah blah blah
The question is HOW they are connected.
Therefore I DO NOT see these coincidences as extraordinary things and I recognize that they are everywhere... I mean Christ, WHAT exactly is a coincidence anyway.. It is only a PERCIEVED set of incidents and events.. percieved through our own personal view of the world around us. I'm no fool.
Wehn I bought a new car and suddenly started seeing those cars all over the road, I did not think that people actually started buying that same car at once...
We create these things. They are psychological constructs. Things happen. We asign a value to it.
We are limited in our language and thinking.
how do I describe One Thing with Many Parts made up of many other Parts? Do I descibe the Thing? Do I describe the Parts?
Things are as they are. I can say that it's how God wants it. I can say that it's all links in the cosmis chain or spokes in the magic wheel.. it's all the same limited language. In this same respect the DIVINE can only be regocnized by us in limited ways.. through the medium of the LOGICAL WORLD around us. In order for waht people call GOD to manifest to a person in a logical world is through any logical way that a particular human being can percieve it. If there is no room in the brain of that person to see it, then there is probably another room for something else at that point in their existances.
It's no mystery how time and space work. Our dimensions can easily be mathematically strewn out onto other greater planes and branes and wahtver. To think that everything is connected I think is not too far of a strectch and to think that some version of our selves can exist within these states isn't too far off either it seems. Our thought processes are complex to say the least.
But then; so waht? Waht do percieved coincidences have to do with a God or a Primal Source? Well.... if indeed everything does work in a pattern.. which it does, and which is as much of a fact as the Sun rising and falling everyday...... then I challenge you to think of waht excatly it means to Be Alive.. to Have Thoughts... To Be Sentient..
it is merely a series of events... a series if energy patterns..... That is you.
NOW. back to the greater pattern....
Our brains.. our psyches.. made of of many seperate parts working together as a whole forming One Mind.
do you see the point? If our minds are really an amalgam of processes that can be viewed as a SINGLE conscousness... then how is it so far off to say that the greater patterns of series of energies would not be seen as Such IF WERE were capable Of even recognizing it... I'm talking that EVery Single Thing In existance is a piece of potential consciousness... trees, bicycles, rocks, pencils, watches, mountains, and planets.... not the objects themselves.. but their "values" in the universe as percieved as a series of events and meanings..
in this sense.. all of the seemingly "normal" things that are around you and the words of the people around you really may hold the meaning of the universe if only you could see through and interpret the universal metphor that you are witnessing...... BUT it is hard not to asign a limited human value onto the things that we see.... hard not to just take things at face value. You are taught all your life that a bird is just a bird and a rainbow is just a rainbow. Sure... but only from a matter of limited perspective.
FACT:
What goes up must come down.
but waht about in... SPACE?
you can't sit here and tell me that your facts are all 100% irrefutably true because you can never know that. Rain is Rain... pls don't patronize me.
It was a Fact that man could not fly.. that changed..
It was a fact that the earth was flat.. that changed...
You may say... Oh Oh those were not Facts.. those were.. wrong..
Well then how do you know about anything else then?
look. I do not frown upon your logical thinking at all. I'm just telling like I see it. I know I'm not alone as ou say.. but honestly, i have yet but to meet a handful of people who can spout the kind of bullsh*t that I do.
I see your point... but MY point is that obviously some RULE existed that said that things need to come together in this certain precise way for things to come out as they did. Things are not total chaos.. otherwise how could MATTER hold itself Together?
Why is the sum of the Whole Greater than the Sum of it's Parts?
indeed, but recognize that even that is taking the divine framwork and filling in the unknowable blanks with concepts with which we are familiar.. like SimCity and rules and time.
Edited, Dec 29th 2006 8:23pm by Kelvyquayo
Quote:
statisticians would tell you that coincidence is more the norm than the exception, and is not in itself exceptional. So it is not reasonable observation to see coincidence and then make the leap that all things must be connected.
All things ARE connected. quantum blah blah blah
The question is HOW they are connected.
Therefore I DO NOT see these coincidences as extraordinary things and I recognize that they are everywhere... I mean Christ, WHAT exactly is a coincidence anyway.. It is only a PERCIEVED set of incidents and events.. percieved through our own personal view of the world around us. I'm no fool.
Wehn I bought a new car and suddenly started seeing those cars all over the road, I did not think that people actually started buying that same car at once...
We create these things. They are psychological constructs. Things happen. We asign a value to it.
We are limited in our language and thinking.
how do I describe One Thing with Many Parts made up of many other Parts? Do I descibe the Thing? Do I describe the Parts?
Things are as they are. I can say that it's how God wants it. I can say that it's all links in the cosmis chain or spokes in the magic wheel.. it's all the same limited language. In this same respect the DIVINE can only be regocnized by us in limited ways.. through the medium of the LOGICAL WORLD around us. In order for waht people call GOD to manifest to a person in a logical world is through any logical way that a particular human being can percieve it. If there is no room in the brain of that person to see it, then there is probably another room for something else at that point in their existances.
It's no mystery how time and space work. Our dimensions can easily be mathematically strewn out onto other greater planes and branes and wahtver. To think that everything is connected I think is not too far of a strectch and to think that some version of our selves can exist within these states isn't too far off either it seems. Our thought processes are complex to say the least.
But then; so waht? Waht do percieved coincidences have to do with a God or a Primal Source? Well.... if indeed everything does work in a pattern.. which it does, and which is as much of a fact as the Sun rising and falling everyday...... then I challenge you to think of waht excatly it means to Be Alive.. to Have Thoughts... To Be Sentient..
it is merely a series of events... a series if energy patterns..... That is you.
NOW. back to the greater pattern....
Our brains.. our psyches.. made of of many seperate parts working together as a whole forming One Mind.
do you see the point? If our minds are really an amalgam of processes that can be viewed as a SINGLE conscousness... then how is it so far off to say that the greater patterns of series of energies would not be seen as Such IF WERE were capable Of even recognizing it... I'm talking that EVery Single Thing In existance is a piece of potential consciousness... trees, bicycles, rocks, pencils, watches, mountains, and planets.... not the objects themselves.. but their "values" in the universe as percieved as a series of events and meanings..
in this sense.. all of the seemingly "normal" things that are around you and the words of the people around you really may hold the meaning of the universe if only you could see through and interpret the universal metphor that you are witnessing...... BUT it is hard not to asign a limited human value onto the things that we see.... hard not to just take things at face value. You are taught all your life that a bird is just a bird and a rainbow is just a rainbow. Sure... but only from a matter of limited perspective.
FACT:
What goes up must come down.
but waht about in... SPACE?
you can't sit here and tell me that your facts are all 100% irrefutably true because you can never know that. Rain is Rain... pls don't patronize me.
It was a Fact that man could not fly.. that changed..
It was a fact that the earth was flat.. that changed...
You may say... Oh Oh those were not Facts.. those were.. wrong..
Well then how do you know about anything else then?
look. I do not frown upon your logical thinking at all. I'm just telling like I see it. I know I'm not alone as ou say.. but honestly, i have yet but to meet a handful of people who can spout the kind of bullsh*t that I do.
Quote:
If 6 trillion things explode and create nothing, or create something that proves to be unsustainable, it's not coincidence, it's not pattern, and it's not any sort of predestination to presume that just ONCE something is going to be created, and then flourish.
I see your point... but MY point is that obviously some RULE existed that said that things need to come together in this certain precise way for things to come out as they did. Things are not total chaos.. otherwise how could MATTER hold itself Together?
Why is the sum of the Whole Greater than the Sum of it's Parts?
laviont the Charming wrote:
I can't imagine God as a SimCity player making objects and life appear out of thin air. I see it more as him writing the rules of physics, and designing the periodic table, then hitting the play button on this little invention He has called "time", and watching His collection of elements react to gravity, temperature, and an assorted other set of forces in the space called "Universe" as .
indeed, but recognize that even that is taking the divine framwork and filling in the unknowable blanks with concepts with which we are familiar.. like SimCity and rules and time.
Edited, Dec 29th 2006 8:23pm by Kelvyquayo
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/opinion/30blum.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin#secondParagraph
Recent Visitors: 259
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (259)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- +1 athiests
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC