|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Y-H-W-H is God; besides him there is nothing. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Eliyahu writes: Only God exists. Besides Him there is nothing. You may be right, but I don't believe you. You don't provide any reason to think that this is true.There is, however, a reason to believe that God does not exist -> the fact that nothing seems to require God. To them I say: There is NOTHING except for God. Repeating yourself with capitalization doesn't add any value to your words.
And what about the whole physical world? The real solid tangible material world? Well, that's just an illusion. Yes, very much so. How does this point to God?
In one shot we are rid of 99.9999999999999% of the material world. However, we are still stuck with the remaining 0.0000000000001%. True (...enough, anyway).But, again, how does this point to God? Even you just said (twice, even... sometimes with CAPTIALS) that there is nothing except for God. But now you're saying the world is mostly nothing... and not showing any God. You're arguing against yourself. So, what is it? Is there mostly nothing in this universe, or is there mostly God? What you've said here, is that there's mostly nothing. But, apart from your own confusion... all this means is that our original concept of the physical world was incorrect.Things are not solid, they simply feel solid because of the fields they produce... not because they are continuous. But just because fields exist doesn't mean God exists. It means fields exist.How does any of this point to God? People much smarter and much better educated than me, concluded from this that the universe is a mental entity, and not a physical entity. You have a false dichotomy here.I agree that the world is not physical in the sense that objects are solid, impermeable matter. But that knowledge doesn't create a mental entity in any way. It creates a way that physical objects exist to us such that they feel solid even though they are not. This is explained by all the interacting fields (gravity, electric, energy...). In 2005 an article appeared in one of the most respected, if not THE most respected, peer reviewed scientific journal, "Nature", which speaks about the mental universe. That can be read here, if you give them your credit card number... Or, viewed in it's entirety for free here: The mental Universe by Richard Conn Henry A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke ‘decoherence’ the notion that ‘the physical environment’ is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. That's not what decoherence is.
Decoherence is this: the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary All that means is, basically: "when things get big enough that we no longer require the specific equations of quantum mechanics to describe the physical motions... the equations of Newtonian mechanics work just fine." Or, again: "when things are large enough that they act in the way we're used to experience things acting in our everyday lives." The term has nothing to do with the human mind. I promise. Someone's trying to make a fool of you, and you're letting them.
The strange part is that these facts are known for almost a hundred years, and almost nobody knows about it. I know about it.It's taught rather normally in university physics courses. Maybe electricity and magnetism courses? Maybe quantum mechanics courses... I can't remember. It's not a secret, though. So the mental universe is a fact, a non-controversial generally accepted fact. No, I don't think you understand.Quantum mechanics are a fact, yes. But jumping to a "mental universe" just because things are not solid as you previously thought... with no other reason to use the term "mental" in any way... with no evidence to suggest any sort of consciousness within the universe apart from known humans and animals... that's silly. And that's what's "not talked about." But it's not laughed away because it's not desired.It's ridiculed because there's no evidence pointing towards that conclusion in any way. Find some evidence, and people will listen. Just like they listened to Galileo... because he showed them the evidence.
Please be advised that nevertheless it is not a good idea to start banging your head against the wall, thinking: "That wall doesn't exist anyway", because we are subjected to the laws that God has set for our matrix, and head-against-the-wall-banging will result in a nasty headache. Again, no.The wall doesn't feel solid because of God. The wall feels solid because of the fields it creates as described by quantum mechanics. We have a wall that feels solid.No God is necessary. We used to think the wall felt solid because of solid physics. The wall still feels solid. No God is necessary. We now think the wall feels solid because of the interactions of the fields created by all the components of matter as described by quantum physics. The wall still feels solid. No God is necessary. Maybe one day we'll find some evidence pointing towards God.Maybe not. Maybe one day we'll find some evidence pointing towards another God-not-required explanation that replaces quantum physics. Maybe not. Either way... currently, there is no evidence pointing towards a "mental universe" in the context that God is required for it's existence.And the wall still feels solid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Phat writes: Imagine now that you were a Creator like God and, hypothetically, you created(either directly or indirectly) humanity. It is true that at the present time they do not need you. It may well be, however, that they may find a point in the future where they do need you. Sure. Quite possible. What about probable, though?Also quite possible -> The universe is created from the egg of a turtle. Probable? So far... not so much. We can think of all sorts of ideas that do not contradict what we see. That makes them possible. What makes them probable? Currently, the best technique we have for determining if any particular idea is probable or not is to find evidence that points towards that idea. So far, there's no evidence for a Creator God.So far, there's no evidence for a turtle egg universe. So far... there's lots and lots of evidence that God is not required. So far... there's lots and lots of evidence that turtle eggs are not required. So far... there's lots and lots of evidence that God does not exist.So far... there's lots and lots of evidence that turtle egg universes do not exist. It's the same evidence. The more we discover, the more we learn:...we discover and learn non-God techniques for why things are the way they are. ...we discover and learn non-turtle-egg techniques for why things are the way they are. If we want to follow the evidence... then the evidence currently says that God does not exist.If we want to follow the evidence... then the evidence currently says that turtle egg universes do not exist. Is it possible to discover God in the future? Of course it is. But how likely? As likely as it is to discover turtle-egg universes, it seems.
Sounds a bit like atoms to me. They are invisible. Just a thought....carry on Sure does.Who wrote the Bible? Right... people. No God required, again. We already know that people are capable of talking about things that sound a bit like invisible atoms... it happens every day. Remember... thinking of ideas that do not contradict what we see are meaningless. In order to support an idea as probable you need to give a unique reason why it should be considered. Otherwise, the possibility remains as unlikely as turtle eggs creating universes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
vimesey writes: Isn't the mistake he's making, trying to extrapolate quantum behaviour into the day to day, classical, macro world ? He's making too many mistakes to count Here's two of the major ones:
Therefore... "the pen we see in our brains" is "the mental universe" (because that really only exists in our mind's interpretation of reality).And "whatever-the-pen-actually-is" is the real universe... mostly nothing physical... but lots of "fields." Calling reality "mostly nothing" when it's really only "mostly nothing physical" is another mistake. Reality is not "mostly nothing."Reality is "mostly nothing physical." Reality is "mostly fields resulting from the interactions of whatever particles actually exist." And, again, all it takes is a small correction to the definition of "physical" from "actual, real, solid objects" to "what we perceive as solid objects from the actual, real fields." And you can use the world "physical" just as you always did before. That's why the wall is still solid.The wall is whatever-the-wall-is... that doesn't change just because our-understanding-of-whatever-the-wall-is has changed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Eliyahu writes: To them I say: There is NOTHING except for God.
Stile writes:
Says who? Repeating yourself with capitalization doesn't add any value to your words. Says me. And, unfortunately, if you can't figure this one out... there's really no point in trying to discuss anything with you at all. I will try with an example: You say: All ducks can fly!I say: No, a duck with broken wings cannot fly. You say: ALL ducks can fly! ...but, as I said, repeating yourself with capitalization doesn't add any value to your words. Once you're able to grasp this idea, you'll see how important it is to support the things you say instead of simply repeating yourself in another font. Let me know what you think and I'll see if you're ready to play with the big boys.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Can you give me some of that lots and lots of evidence? Not here, no, it would be off topic. But I can do it here:
Message 310I Know That God Does Not Exist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Eliyahu writes: That thread is closed Not anymore, feel free to add any comments there.
I only see there what you think, and I'm not interested in that. Everything I post here is what I think. And I'm the most interesting man in the forum. I think you should try reading it again.
What I want is some solid proof that God does not exist. And I want some solid proof that God does exist. Neither is forthcoming.However, we do have one thing... lots and lots of evidence. So, we can go over the evidence we do have and see where it leads us. Following the evidence is a personal choice, no one expects you do so.It is, however, the best method humans have ever devised for modelling reality. If you're interested in the truth, but refuse to follow the evidence... then your true intentions will be revealed. Please open a new thread about that subject and present me with the proofs. Here you go: Message 310 from I Know That God Does Not Exist
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024