Proof god doesn't exist

[warpus]

With every system that attempts to make sense of our universe, there are fundamental assumptions that cannot be proven.

But in any such system (or any system which attempts to model reality somehow) all fundamental assumptions should be falsifiable. Which means that you should be able to collect data and test each and every premise of the theorem. It should make predictions and you should be able to see if the theorem holds up and that the predictions come true.

If a prediction doesn't come true, you know that an assumption you made is wrong.. and so, you update your assumption and test again.

Without this important restriction your system would be too weak to make any respectable claims. It could make claims, but they just wouldn't mean anything.

There is a sort of middle ground between our positions. There might be fundamental assumptions that have not been formally proven.. BUT the restriction I imposed earlier implies that we can experience and test what these assumptions imply... and that contradicts your position because you
are claiming an entity which is, in a way, unmeasurable.

So I suppose if we disagree on this point, then we are really disagreeing on whether that restriction is a requirement or not

In science, the things in this world are sorted into two different bins: "potentially true" and "for sure wrong". The things that we've tested and we know are wrong are in the second bin. The things we haven't had a chance to check out yet, OR if we have and so far so good, go in the 1st.

In religion, the bins are radically different. There is a "potentially true" bin and a "for sure true" bin. So, for example, in Hinduism "Eating beef is wrong" is in the "for sure true" bin... but "eating pineapples is wrong" is in the "potentially true" bin.

These are very simple examples but I'm just attempting to illustrate how the two ways of thought are based on entirely different premises.

In any case, in science, in order to properly sort everything into the two bins, you need to make every claim you make falsifiable. In science, elements only move from the "potentially true" bin to the "for sure wrong" bin. Of course, you might ask, but isn't something like Theory of relativity "for sure true"? In everyday language and because of the probability of it being true, yes, but technically no. If one day, say after building a really sensitive particle collider, we run some weird test, and it goes against what the theory of relativity predicts somehow, then it might be time for the theory to move to the other bin. You do the test again a couple times, and if it holds up, then you put the theory of relativity into the "for sure wrong" bin. And the thing is, you always leave the possibility open for anything moving from bin 1 to 2. That is essential. That's why falsifiability is so important. What is also important, is the fact that you can't move from bin 2 to bin 1... (unless you made some sort of mistake with the collection of the data when you made your initial claim of it being not true.)

That's why I put that restriction in there and claim that it is necessary.

The assumptions that you choose will determine the way the universe appears using that system.

Yes.

I am not trying to "prove" that an unchanging whole exists at all, or that my system is correct. I begin with experience, make some assumptions and then build on them to a point where I can declare that I see the world "this way". Within my "system" I can, to my satisfaction, explain much of what goes on in the world in a way that is coherent and useful and leaves lots of room for new knowledge from folks like you.

The difference between me and you is that you make assumptions which are not falsifiable.

Like I said in my previous post (bolded above), the unchanging whole is an assumption. What are your assumptions?

All the assumptions I make are based on centuries of research and deduction done by other people.. all of whom have followed this process and made falsifiable assumptions that could be tested. I have great faith (and there is no irony in that) that so far, science has been able to sort the world into our 2 bins with near 100% accuracy.

Religion cannot say the same thing about its way of sorting the world into bins. The sorting is arbitrary.

So while some people might prefer to look at the world with the bins that religion provides because it lays down more fundamental and clear foundations for reality.. I choose to take the more sensible route and pick the system in which the bins are sorted with near perfect accuracy. It might tell me far less about the fundamental aspects of reality (ie. I couldn't tell you how the universe was created, or if it was, how life started, etc.), I feel that I at least know, for sure, that the things that I know are false, are false. This doesn't include things like God (he's in the potentially true bin, but probability rate doesn't seem very high right now), but it would include something like "The Theory of the World being on top of a giant turtle"

 

[Demetrias]

There is one problem with saying science doesn't make claims that can't be falsifiable. You can't test the big bang theory or how life went from rocks to organisms.

I would also like to point out that if matter is uncreatable then there is no scientific reason the universe should exist. There is a faith reason for god to exist and then to derive the universe from that but how do you get something from nothing without an unscientific reason.


The reason i said you can't test the big bang is cause its a one time event or at least one time per universe and if the universe were to unbang there would be no one to test the theory. Also because life exist already it would be hard to test evolution because you would never be sure if your presence and the life you bring to the environment is what you are seeing or if it was new and it would take millions of years and we don't live that long. Not even sure if mankind (human race) will live that long.

 

[Birdjaguar]

But in any such system (or any system which attempts to model reality somehow) all fundamental assumptions should be falsifiable. Which means that you should be able to collect data and test each and every premise of the theorem. It should make predictions and you should be able to see if the theorem holds up and that the predictions come true.

Bolding mine. Why should all assumptions be falsifiable? Would that be an assumption on whcih you build your view of things? Would your definition of what reality is also be a base assumption? Keep in mind that my model is not restricted by your constraints. I include your model within mine, but add additional elements that are currently outside of your model and that are not subject to the constraints of your way of thinking.

If a prediction doesn't come true, you know that an assumption you made is wrong.. and so, you update your assumption and test again.

Without this important restriction your system would be too weak to make any respectable claims. It could make claims, but they just wouldn't mean anything.

There is a sort of middle ground between our positions. There might be fundamental assumptions that have not been formally proven.. BUT the restriction I imposed earlier implies that we can experience and test what these assumptions imply... and that contradicts your position because you
are claiming an entity which is, in a way, unmeasurable.

So I suppose if we disagree on this point, then we are really disagreeing on whether that restriction is a requirement or not

In science, the things in this world are sorted into two different bins: "potentially true" and "for sure wrong". The things that we've tested and we know are wrong are in the second bin. The things we haven't had a chance to check out yet, OR if we have and so far so good, go in the 1st.

These are very simple examples but I'm just attempting to illustrate how the two ways of thought are based on entirely different premises.

All of that is very necessary for science to make progress. I agree completely.

In religion, the bins are radically different. There is a "potentially true" bin and a "for sure true" bin. So, for example, in Hinduism "Eating beef is wrong" is in the "for sure true" bin... but "eating pineapples is wrong" is in the "potentially true" bin.

I will think about this.

In any case, in science, in order to properly sort everything into the two bins, you need to make every claim you make falsifiable. In science, elements only move from the "potentially true" bin to the "for sure wrong" bin. Of course, you might ask, but isn't something like Theory of relativity "for sure true"? In everyday language and because of the probability of it being true, yes, but technically no. If one day, say after building a really sensitive particle collider, we run some weird test, and it goes against what the theory of relativity predicts somehow, then it might be time for the theory to move to the other bin. You do the test again a couple times, and if it holds up, then you put the theory of relativity into the "for sure wrong" bin. And the thing is, you always leave the possibility open for anything moving from bin 1 to 2. That is essential. That's why falsifiability is so important. What is also important, is the fact that you can't move from bin 2 to bin 1... (unless you made some sort of mistake with the collection of the data when you made your initial claim of it being not true.)

That's why I put that restriction in there and claim that it is necessary.

It is necessary for your system to have meaning. Another assumption you make is that your system is the only one that has real meaning. Which, of course, there is no evidence for at all. A smart person could even make a case that many of the other systems people have used to explain the universe have as much, if not more meaning.

The difference between me and you is that you make assumptions which are not falsifiable.

All the assumptions I make are based on centuries of research and deduction done by other people.. all of whom have followed this process and made falsifiable assumptions that could be tested. I have great faith (and there is no irony in that) that so far, science has been able to sort the world into our 2 bins with near 100% accuracy.

Religion cannot say the same thing about its way of sorting the world into bins. The sorting is arbitrary.

Again you assert your assumptin that science is the only sytem that adds meaning.

So while some people might prefer to look at the world with the bins that religion provides because it lays down more fundamental and clear foundations for reality.. I choose to take the more sensible route and pick the system in which the bins are sorted with near perfect accuracy. It might tell me far less about the fundamental aspects of reality (ie. I couldn't tell you how the universe was created, or if it was, how life started, etc.), I feel that I at least know, for sure, that the things that I know are false, are false. This doesn't include things like God (he's in the potentially true bin, but probability rate doesn't seem very high right now), but it would include something like "The Theory of the World being on top of a giant turtle"

Yes science has shown us that much of what religion has said about the physical world is not true. But keep in mind that science is only as accurate as its tools allow it to be. If through some new technology, we could alter ourselves so that our senses only saw matter as quarks and gluons, what would be real?

 

[Swedishguy]

I wouldn't even say that I know it. And it's not an opinion. I am defining Absolute Truth as such.

So you are saying Absolute Truth is so obvious that it no more needs any more evidence? You're wrong in that case, everything needs a thinking critter, like a human, to be considered as Absolute Truth. You're statement won't guarantee that.

 

[beingofone]

beingofone
I have demonstrated that your experience is in constant momentum or infinite flux.

Warpus:
What does that even mean? Can you try to use more descriptive language? A lot of the phrases you use appear as incoherent philisophical mumbo-jumbo that don't actually mean anything.

The same mechanism that allows you to observe the universe in a singularity.

C = dA + A ^ A

or:

1/0 = 1 - singularity of consciousness.
0/1 = 0 - undefinable infinite flux of experience.

Experience is never repeated and therefore; infinite potential of development and expansion.

beingofone:
1) It is not a closed system because your consciousness is in a state of infinite momentum that NEVER repeats its experience.

Warpus:
I agree that I'll never experience the exact same thing twice, but I don't see where you're getting this 'infinite momentum' and 'open system' stuff from.

Because; your reality is in a constant state of infinite 'spin', change, or flux.

I asked you to answer this question.
"Where does reality begin and your perception end."

I said, if you answer this question, you would have your answer.

Will you answer this question please?

We are born, our consciousness begins, we die, it ends.

You are making many assumptions. Begin with your very own experience or that which is verifiable and can be falsified. Not in a lab, but your day to day life.

You are trying to interject your memory into the present. You are also trying to use predictive analysis to snatch reality from its grasp into your preconceived formula.

Did you experience your birth today?
Did you die today?

There is a finite amount of experiences in between those two points - all the experiences are technically different from one another, but there is only a finite amount of them.

The premise is plural and then unified. The only reality that is possible in all possible worlds is your consciousness as there is nothing else that can be a unified set and excludes it as being a subset.

As I said "start with yourself" then you can know with accuracy what is true in all times and places.

Who you are would be the only experience of what is as you cannot separate the observer or experiencer of reality from reality in and of itself. That is to say, the full set of the universe must be the perceiver not what is being perceived.

This is the tricksey part of perception, it is to easy to project what is being perceived as distinct from the one perceiving. This is the beginning and not the conclusion as when the logic goes full circle it ends up where it began, with the observer.

Unless we see behind the appearance and go to the root cause and effect. The resolving of the enigma is in the understanding that there is no being, not even a supremely great being, there is being in and of itself.

This means there is experience in a state of flux and a perceiver that has no memory, experience, or objective observation of beginning or end. Therefore, it is beyond appearances including in the mind.

We could say it begins at birth, conception, or at some point but this is a projection as it is beyond any logical construct. None has ever witnessed the beginning or entry of consciousness.

The perceiver has never an end and continues ever present. It has no memory, experience, or objective observation of an end. Therefore, it is beyond appearances including in the mind. It transmutates itself into perpetual consciousness. None has ever witnessed the end or cessation of consciousness.

It`s not an optical illusion. It just looks like one.

This implies to me that consciousness is a closed system, if I'm even understanding the context of the word 'closed' you are attempting to use here correctly.

Unless the source were beyond thought, then it defies the "thinker". Consciousness transcends thoughts.

If the fundamental framework of all reality is energy, how much energy is there to receive in our experience?

You are still making the assumption that the reality you now experience has a finite source; this is a gigantic supposition by science and has no comparison in modern systems of the very physics models that are used by science.

In other words; it is the gigantic flaw of biological science itself. It is such a gaping hole in logic that it becomes almost impossible to see because the hole in the logic is of epic magnitude and the dots are never connected. And so, assumptions are interjected despite realities protest to the contrary.

You can project your thought beyond the feedback loop, that is where the theory of thought being self contained begins to break down.

It is clarified with very simple questions.
Does your reality ever pause?
Where does reality begin?
Does your experience ever exaust itself?
How many realities do you experience?

We experience the infinite and because of are powerful ability at abstract thought we hypercomplexify its beauty and grace. It is inexaustable in its momentum and it is the reality of your experience.

I would call that God - what do you call it?

So "Your consciousness is self-evident in its experience" = "I think therefore I am" ? Yeah, I'll agree with that, but once again, how does that imply the supernatural?

If we divorce ourselves from our own reality - we will never find the inexplicable.

In other words; if the source of the supernatural is not 'out there somewhere.' Where else might it be hidden? Perhaps God hid himself in the last place we look.

Go with me on a hypothetical for a sec.

If God were to make himself you, he might ask questions like:
"Where did I go"?
"Do I really exist"?
"Who and what am I"?
"When did I begin"?
"Who made everything"?
and so on.

"It is the nature of God to hide himself, and the wisdom of kings to seek the matter out."
-- Proverbs

Supernatural - unexplainable by natural law or phenomena. You are arguing that this exists.

If we live in a universe that is beyond boundedness, in a state of eternal momentum, everything is a possibility.

A conclusion of logic, not blind faith.

You can never have all the facts. That is impossible.

And you cannot focus on everything in your awareness; now that, is impossible.

Yet it is the reality you experience. You are still aware of an uncountable amount of 'things' and all done in a finite amount of time.

I can know of assurity that I am experiencing infinite change and my perception or observation of the flux never changes, from every memory.

This is why we use science to build models of the Universe - that way we can forsee what will happen given initial conditions and have a general idea of what is possible and what isn't. If something happens that disagrees with one of these models, we know that the model is wrong, or that what you witnessed didn't actually break the model - but you think it did because of incorrectly interpreted data.

The prediction is what you will be doing tomorrow, you make an intelligent decision and plan your day.

Random intervention does not interdict your planning and predictive power. It only means you must adapt.

In the very adaptation, you use intelligent design to make predictive power.

There; proof of intelligent reality and it has verifiable predictive power and therefore; intelligence in your design of tomorrow.

If I'm walking home from work late at night and I see shadows out of the corner of my eye and the first thing my mind screams is "GHOST!", I am likely going to discard that as a misinterpretation of the facts because "GHOST!" does not fit any established model of the Universe that we have.

I would say; "what I do not understand, cannot possibly be true" - is a serious flaw in logic.

Introducing the supernatural because we don't understand a process is intellectually dishonest, imo.

And denying, like most (atheistic) scientists do, that we live in a state of infinite momentum that can transcend the functional laws, is hiding under the covers. Unless of course, we are talking about abiogenesis and then it most certainly is true - but excludes God.


If the universe is not bounded and in constant eternal 'spin'. It pushes the envelope and stretches all known laws. The Darwin theory uses this very premise as its base.

For all intents and purposes I can assume that I am reading this post. Why would I assume otherwise? There is nothing weird going on here that breaks an existing model of the Universe. If it did, I might stop and think if I'm being delusional.

Exactly Warpus; start there.

Understanding that I'm reading this post and "talking to God" or "seeing a ghost" or "having an (actual) out of body experience" are two entirely different things. The first doesn't break any models of the Universe we have, the last 3 do.

None of these experiences would "break" the laws of the known universe. It just shreds any blind belief in "the supernatural cannot possibly be true" model.

It could be that what is commonly refered to as the 'supernatural' is just laws we do not have theory for - it does not mean it is not possible.

I would trust my experience beyond what anyone else thinks - that is freedom.

beingofone:
You had an interpretation of his perspective based on your very own perception.

Warpus:
Exactly.

He has his reality and I have mine. By analyzing both of our interpretations of the event we can perhaps come closer to the actual truth. The more people that participate and the more data we have, the better we will be equipped to get closer ot the truth.

If you are looking at a white pony and say:
"See that white pony"?
And the guy next to you said "there is no white pony"?

Would that make the white pony evaporate?

If the guy next to you said "I see the white pony."

Would that make the white pony 'more real'?

beingofone:
It is about your raw experience and what you can determine for yourself with what is self evident.

Warpus:
Ahh, but things that may seem 'self evident' might actually not be. Our instincts are usually right, but they do get things wrong from time to time. That's why it's wise to invite others to share in the experience and analyze the data with you - so that we can get a clearer picture of what is actually going on. This is especially true if these people are scientists who specialize in a specific field and who have the experience necessary to make claims about the event at hand.

It would not change your experience no matter how many 'experts' were called in. Your consciousness is true in all possible worlds.

If we're talking about me looking at a boiling kettle, then I can safely assume that the water is boiling, etc. I know what is happening because existing models of the Universe explain it well. It is when something unexplained happens that we should invite peer review and not rely on our senses alone.

You know the kettle is boiling because of experience - not scientific models.

Science only attempts to utilize knowledge for predictive power. If they rfer you to a boiling kettle - you must - recall the experience of it to compliment the theory.

beingofone:
Do you remember your first moment of awareness?
Have you solved all philosophical dilemmas of existence?
Do you experience any angst with your very own existence?
Do you survive, and if so why?

Warpus:
No, no, yes, and yes. I survive because I choose to try to survive. I could give up and commit suicide if I wanted to.

I don't see how any of this is supposed to imply the supernatural.

If you cannot remember your first moment of awareness, when did you begin?
If you have not yet found the riddle to existence - keep looking and keep your mind open.

No, science is a methodology that scientists use to make theories like that. It is simply a way of doing things.

It doesn't do things on its own.

Exactly - and priori knowledge or intuition demonstrates an integration with the universe beyond a spacial point.

beingofone:
You cannot know reality by discarding what does not fit into the model.

Reality does not answer to the behest of what we think it should be or what it is supposed to be like.

You must approach reality with your eyes wide open.

Warpus:
If an event does not fit an established model that has so far been very successful at explaining existing data, then we must either assume that the data is faulty, or build a new model that explains the old data as well as the new data.

Simply assuming that the supernatural is involved whenever this happens doesn't help and is counterproductive.

Who is experiencing the universe that has existence?

What is the nature of the experience of the universe?

Because you can hold a concept in your mind about the universe does not at all mean that thought is the universe?

A model is not the universe - its just a model, not reality itself.

The universe is not a concept - it never has been nor ever will be. It can only be experienced.

Logic by its very nature needs comparisons to define its models - reality defies all models.

There is only a single consciousness experiencing the universe and demonstratable by observation, experimentation, and has predictive properties.

The openness of the quantum world conveys a feeling of liberation. One might see the promise of messages -- perhaps a benign guidance -- from the depths of the universe, which affect our fate even though we do not understand them. And there is excitement in being part of a universe that is creative and where the unexpected and even the inexplicable constantly come into being.

-- Schäfer

This is the paradox of Alladin`s lamp. The Container could be said to be your body and the Genie your consciousness. It is full linkage with reality rather than mere truncated association.

Your consciousness carries with it all of the dynamics of the 'ultimate or total' of the world including time.

 

[punkbass2000]

So you are saying Absolute Truth is so obvious that it no more needs any more evidence?

Fundamentally, it cannot be evidenced. Any evidence would be part of it. But no, that's not what I was saying.

You're wrong in that case, everything needs a thinking critter, like a human, to be considered as Absolute Truth.

Again, I think you're missing what I'm saying. I am defining Absolute Truth as such. Whatever you're experiencing is whatever you're experiencing, ipso facto. If you're thinking of whether or not it needs to be considered as truth, then you're referring to relative truths, like my coffee cup is black, the Egyptians built the Pyramids, etc.

 

[Swedishguy]

@Punkbass2000: I still don't get it; what are you saying with that statement when?

 

[punkbass2000]

That your experience is Truth, fundamentally. When I say my coffee cup is black, it's relative truth for many reasons. First of all, it's temporary. I will have other cups of other colours, etc. It will one day break, and cease to be a cup. But, more importantly, you are not experiencing my black coffee cup presently. Descriptions of reality are not reality. You are only experiencing the words on the screen.

 

[warpus]

There is one problem with saying science doesn't make claims that can't be falsifiable. You can't test the big bang theory or how life went from rocks to organisms.

Every single claim that the big bang theory makes is falsifiable. It makes predictions that can be verified and have been.

I would also like to point out that if matter is uncreatable then there is no scientific reason the universe should exist. There is a faith reason for god to exist and then to derive the universe from that but how do you get something from nothing without an unscientific reason.

I agree that existence is still a big mystery. However, that is no excuse to immediately bring the supernatural into the picture.

The reason i said you can't test the big bang is cause its a one time event or at least one time per universe and if the universe were to unbang there would be no one to test the theory.

We can't test the theory directly like you propose, but we can test to see if the predictions made by the theory hold true. If they don't, we throw the theory away and replace it with a new one, or replace a minor assumption with another if that was the case. Just like I explained in my long post top of page 5.

Also because life exist already it would be hard to test evolution because you would never be sure if your presence and the life you bring to the environment is what you are seeing or if it was new and it would take millions of years and we don't live that long. Not even sure if mankind (human race) will live that long.

First, evolution makes no claims about the creation of life.. it makes claims about how life evolves and how natural selection is involved in the process. Second, it makes predictions that can be tested. In other words, it is falsifiable.

Bolding mine. Why should all assumptions be falsifiable? Would that be an assumption on whcih you build your view of things? Would your definition of what reality is also be a base assumption? Keep in mind that my model is not restricted by your constraints. I include your model within mine, but add additional elements that are currently outside of your model and that are not subject to the constraints of your way of thinking.

They should be falsifiable so that we can sort things into the bins with near-perfect accuracy just as I explained. Your view of the world is bound to have elements that have been sorted incorrectly, due to the lack of the restriction of every claim being falsifiable. Therefore your view of the world might appear to be more fundamental and far-reaching, but mine will always be more precise in what it claims and predicts (even though those claims might not be as profound as yours).

It is necessary for your system to have meaning. Another assumption you make is that your system is the only one that has real meaning. Which, of course, there is no evidence for at all. A smart person could even make a case that many of the other systems people have used to explain the universe have as much, if not more meaning.

I think it is a sensible system to use because it ensures that things are sorted into the bins with near-perfect accuracy. (sorry for repeating this point over and over, but I feel it's important) A system to replace science would have to have an arrangement of bins resulting in a similar (or better) sort success rate as well as the ability to say more about the world than the system we currently have. Your system fails that regard since elements are sorted into the bins arbitrarily, meaning some % must be sorted incorrectly.

Again you assert your assumptin that science is the only sytem that adds meaning.

No, I just think science sorts elements into the bins near-perfectly, whereas religion sorts elements into its bins arbitrarily.

I think that religion's setup of the bins is flawed, in that regard.

Yes science has shown us that much of what religion has said about the physical world is not true. But keep in mind that science is only as accurate as its tools allow it to be. If through some new technology, we could alter ourselves so that our senses only saw matter as quarks and gluons, what would be real?

Yes, science is only as accurate as its tools allow it to be. However, this does not mess up the bin-sorting-system at all. It just means that the more technology and tools we have at our disposal, the better data we can collect, the more analysis we can make, and the more elements we can move into the "for sure wrong" bin, getting a better view of the world as a result.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your second point. So I put on a pair of special glasses and I see the atomic makeup of my table, for example? Sounds like that is something that would helps us collect better data about the world, and thus progress scientific knowledge.

Experience is never repeated and therefore; infinite potential of development and expansion.

Yes, and?

I asked you to answer this question.
"Where does reality begin and your perception end."

I said, if you answer this question, you would have your answer.

Will you answer this question please?

I can only perceive. To me, reality is perception. However, I realize that there is an 'actual' reality out there and that my perception is simply an incomplete view of it. Thus it is sensible to gather more data about reality, via science, to get a better perception of it.

You are making many assumptions. Begin with your very own experience or that which is verifiable and can be falsified. Not in a lab, but your day to day life.

You are trying to interject your memory into the present. You are also trying to use predictive analysis to snatch reality from its grasp into your preconceived formula.

Did you experience your birth today?
Did you die today?

The first memory I can remember was when I was around 3 years old. However, I realize that I was alive before then, and so I must have had experiences and memories before that. My parents tell me that this is true.

I haven't died yet, but people who die no longer move, communicate, or think. They are dead. Based on what we know, consciousness ends at death. If you have evidence to the contrary I would like to see it.

That is to say, the full set of the universe must be the perceiver not what is being perceived.

I disagree, I think that there is an 'actual reality' out there that we perceive. What I have in my own head is simply my own perception of reality, which I call 'reality' because I'm lazy. You have yours. Bob has his. If we compare these perceptions and study them we can get a better idea of what reality actually is.

None has ever witnessed the beginning or entry of consciousness.

That's because the brain grows from 1 cell to trillions. This takes time. The buildup of consciousness is not instantenous, but it is rather gradual. You start with one cell, then you have two, so on, eventually the brain is complex enough to do this, to do that, at some point you can start forming memories, etc. It is not a black and white system. It is shades of grey.

You are still making the assumption that the reality you now experience has a finite source;

So you're saying that the desk that I have in front of me right now might not actually be here? The desk does not actually exist, it only exists in my mind?

In other words; it is the gigantic flaw of biological science itself. It is such a gaping hole in logic that it becomes almost impossible to see because the hole in the logic is of epic magnitude and the dots are never connected. And so, assumptions are interjected despite realities protest to the contrary.

Explain to me why you think that reality is perception, instead of an actual real 'thing' outside of our minds.

We experience the infinite and because of are powerful ability at abstract thought we hypercomplexify its beauty and grace. It is inexaustable in its momentum and it is the reality of your experience.

I would call that God - what do you call it?

I call it existence. I call it life.

I'm eating a bagel right now. The experience is infinite in nature. I am experiencing the infinite of my bagel. However, it's just a bagel. It is not God.

In other words; if the source of the supernatural is not 'out there somewhere.' Where else might it be hidden? Perhaps God hid himself in the last place we look.

So we are God?

Go with me on a hypothetical for a sec.

If God were to make himself you, he might ask questions like:
"Where did I go"?
"Do I really exist"?
"Who and what am I"?
"When did I begin"?
"Who made everything"?
and so on.

Yeah, and? I am going to ask these questions no matter who or what turned him/herself into me. Asking these questions is human nature. It does not prove anything.

If we live in a universe that is beyond boundedness, in a state of eternal momentum, everything is a possibility.

A conclusion of logic, not blind faith.

Not so. Pigs can't fly, for example... unless you put them on a plane.

There; proof of intelligent reality and it has verifiable predictive power and therefore; intelligence in your design of tomorrow.

Yeah, I vaguely plan out my tomorrow. I know I'm going to probably go to work, eat something, hang out with a friend. So? We all plan things, this isn't a huge revelation.

I would say; "what I do not understand, cannot possibly be true" - is a serious flaw in logic.

I didn't say that.

I'm saying: "If I don't understand it then I will not make assumptions about it". You do. I think that is a serious flaw in logic.

And denying, like most (atheistic) scientists do, that we live in a state of infinite momentum that can transcend the functional laws, is hiding under the covers. Unless of course, we are talking about abiogenesis and then it most certainly is true - but excludes God.

So you're saying we should include the supernatural, just because? There is no proof that it actually exists. If it were, scientists would be trying to figure out how to fit that into our existing models. They're not, because there is no such proof.

None of these experiences would "break" the laws of the known universe. It just shreds any blind belief in "the supernatural cannot possibly be true" model.

No it doesn't.

You're just assigning the supernatural to something you can't explain. It is much like the ancient Greeks who could not explain volcanos, so they attributed these natural disasters to God.

Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean it's supernatural in nature

If you can prove that it is supernatural in nature, go ahead.

I would trust my experience beyond what anyone else thinks - that is freedom.

It is freedom. But to ignore centuries of research and trumping it with a couple seconds of experience, is beyond ridiculous.

If you are looking at a white pony and say:
"See that white pony"?
And the guy next to you said "there is no white pony"?

Would that make the white pony evaporate?

If the guy next to you said "I see the white pony."

Would that make the white pony 'more real'?

If I see a white pony and my friend doesn't then obviously one of us is wrong. Either I am seeing things that aren't there, he can't see something that is there, or the pony has some sort of a cloaking device that only affects him. Or perhaps I have vision that can penetraty pony cloaking device technology.

The nature of the pony remains the same regardless of how we perceive it.

It would not change your experience no matter how many 'experts' were called in. Your consciousness is true in all possible worlds.

It wouldn't change your experience, but it might make you realize that your perception of events was flawed.

I saw a UFO once. My friend saw it too. We were both high though, so we kinda thing we dreamt the whole thing up.. Your perception can fool you, and not only when you're on drugs.

Science only attempts to utilize knowledge for predictive power. If they rfer you to a boiling kettle - you must - recall the experience of it to compliment the theory.

Of course. But if something strange happens.. Say.. You put the kettle on, water boils, you take the kettle off the stove and start making tea.. but then you realize that the water is cold. That seems to contradict an existing model of the Universe, so this should be investigated further. You do not assume that boiling water yields cold water, as your experience would have you believe. Either your experience was flawed somehow, or something weird is going on. Perhaps there was something in the water.. Don't you see how your perception can fool you?

If you cannot remember your first moment of awareness, when did you begin?
If you have not yet found the riddle to existence - keep looking and keep your mind open.

The base of my awareness grew from 1 cell to trillions and so I don't expect there to be 1 defining moment of a jump from non-awareness to awareness. It was a gradual process.

Nobody's solved the riddle of existence yet. Yet there are those who bring in the supernatural to make it easier to find a solution, even though there is no evidence that the supernatural exists.

A model is not the universe - its just a model, not reality itself.

The universe is not a concept - it never has been nor ever will be. It can only be experienced.

Logic by its very nature needs comparisons to define its models - reality defies all models.

There is only a single consciousness experiencing the universe and demonstratable by observation, experimentation, and has predictive properties.

The models we make to explain the universe approximate reality. We make a model that approximates reality and then test to see if the approximation yields results that match up with reality. If they do, so far so good, if they don't, our model must be flawed.

 

[mdwh]

There is one problem with saying science doesn't make claims that can't be falsifiable. You can't test the big bang theory or how life went from rocks to organisms.

You are presumably confusing "falsifiable" with "reproduce it in a lab". The big bang theory is falsifiable.

I don't believe we know how life started, so I'm not sure what you mean there? Any theory on how life started must be falsifiable.

I would also like to point out that if matter is uncreatable then there is no scientific reason the universe should exist.

Clearly the universe does exist. The question is how it got here. Science is a description of the universe - not the other way round. Hell, if that means energy was created out of nothing, then so be it. But we don't yet know what happened. Waffling on about God is completely irrelevant and meaningless, unless you have a falsifiable theory on that - I might as well say "The magic pixies did it". It's not so much a question of whether magic pixies exist or not, but simply that such an answer clearly is not an explanation.

Also because life exist already it would be hard to test evolution because you would never be sure if your presence and the life you bring to the environment is what you are seeing or if it was new and it would take millions of years and we don't live that long. Not even sure if mankind (human race) will live that long.

Evolution is falsifiable. Once again, you are confusing that with reproducing it in a lab.

I bet you've never seen a baby grow into an old person, but are you telling me there is no evidence that this happens?

 

[Birdjaguar]

They should be falsifiable so that we can sort things into the bins with near-perfect accuracy just as I explained. Your view of the world is bound to have elements that have been sorted incorrectly, due to the lack of the restriction of every claim being falsifiable. Therefore your view of the world might appear to be more fundamental and far-reaching, but mine will always be more precise in what it claims and predicts (even though those claims might not be as profound as yours).

I think it is a sensible system to use because it ensures that things are sorted into the bins with near-perfect accuracy. (sorry for repeating this point over and over, but I feel it's important) A system to replace science would have to have an arrangement of bins resulting in a similar (or better) sort success rate as well as the ability to say more about the world than the system we currently have. Your system fails that regard since elements are sorted into the bins arbitrarily, meaning some % must be sorted incorrectly.

No, I just think science sorts elements into the bins near-perfectly, whereas religion sorts elements into its bins arbitrarily.

You are missing my point. I do not question that your bin system has some advantages. I have been trying to identify some assumptions that underlie your approach: it is sensible, more accurate, falsifiability is important, to not use such a system is flawed. The most basic assumptions that we make will determine most of what is built upon them and how we interpret things. Yours are no different. Human nature encourages us to think our ways of thinking are more correct than those of other people. Hence:

I think that religion's setup of the bins is flawed, in that regard.

Yes, science is only as accurate as its tools allow it to be. However, this does not mess up the bin-sorting-system at all. It just means that the more technology and tools we have at our disposal, the better data we can collect, the more analysis we can make, and the more elements we can move into the "for sure wrong" bin, getting a better view of the world as a result.

Learning what is "for sure wrong"

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your second point. So I put on a pair of special glasses and I see the atomic makeup of my table, for example? Sounds like that is something that would helps us collect better data about the world, and thus progress scientific knowledge.

Let me try again. We depend upon our senses to tell us what the world is like. If our senses were different then how we viewed the world and what we thought was real would change. Dogs, cats, bears all have similar, but not the same sensory connection to the world. Reality to a bear is different than it is for you (or me).

If human vision was such that we only saw quarks and gluons, then what we thought as real would be very different. Matter would consist of 12 "particles" and nothing more. Almost all of what you define as real now would no longer be real, and yet all that has changed is how we see things. All the accuracy and precision so painstakingly accumualted is now clearly identified "for sure wrong". I never was real.

One's definition of reality is totally dependent upon the sensory input used. As those sensory inputs change, what is real changes. The reality that you claim you measure so accurately is only accurate within the context of tools ands senses used. Measuring and naming things is an act of convenience for us. Nothing more.

Science/reason is a way of looking at the world, and one which has proved to be very useful and productive. But in is also has blinders. It assumes that its two bins are the only ones that have utility. Can it test to see if that is true?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Beingofone, do dogs, chimps, fish, whales, plants or worms have consciousness?

 

[beingofone]

warpus:

beingofone
Experience is never repeated and therefore; infinite potential of development and expansion.

Warpus
Yes, and?

Oh nothing I guess - just common ordinary infinite momentum of experience of consciousness that defies all systems categories.

Nothin remarkable going on, I know.

I can only perceive. To me, reality is perception. However, I realize that there is an 'actual' reality out there and that my perception is simply an incomplete view of it. Thus it is sensible to gather more data about reality, via science, to get a better perception of it.

Do you experience a whole or partial reality?

Are you a whole person or a partial person?

The first memory I can remember was when I was around 3 years old. However, I realize that I was alive before then, and so I must have had experiences and memories before that. My parents tell me that this is true.

Yes; and before that, and before that, and before that?

I haven't died yet, but people who die no longer move, communicate, or think. They are dead. Based on what we know, consciousness ends at death. If you have evidence to the contrary I would like to see it.

Its all over the place - but it would be rejected because it does not fit into the 'model'. I has been testified to and an abundant amount of eyewitnesses, not just the Gospels, I am talking last hundred years.

Start asking others you know if when someone they knew passed if there was anything nonordinary that happened. Ask em - you will get your answer.

beingofone
That is to say, the full set of the universe must be the perceiver not what is being perceived.

Warpus:
I disagree, I think that there is an 'actual reality' out there that we perceive. What I have in my own head is simply my own perception of reality, which I call 'reality' because I'm lazy. You have yours. Bob has his. If we compare these perceptions and study them we can get a better idea of what reality actually is.

Where is "out there"?

beingofone:
None has ever witnessed the beginning or entry of consciousness.

Warpus:
That's because the brain grows from 1 cell to trillions. This takes time. The buildup of consciousness is not instantenous, but it is rather gradual. You start with one cell, then you have two, so on, eventually the brain is complex enough to do this, to do that, at some point you can start forming memories, etc. It is not a black and white system. It is shades of grey.

Uh huh - fascinating, it just does it all on its own, without a leader cell to read the 'blueprint'.

What is this very intelligent "IT" that does all that?

You know like; ITS raining, ITS creating consciousness, ITS reality, ITS putting together trillions of cells in all the right body parts and so on.

I always wondered why most scientists just use IT as kinda like a placeholder, yet this IT is soooo smart, we cannot understand IT.

But they seem to be sure, that without doubt, IT cannot possibly, under any circumstances, be God - because we already know ITS an IT.

beingofone:
You are still making the assumption that the reality you now experience has a finite source;

Warpus:
So you're saying that the desk that I have in front of me right now might not actually be here? The desk does not actually exist, it only exists in my mind?

How do you know a desk is there?

Explain to me why you think that reality is perception, instead of an actual real 'thing' outside of our minds.

Tell one thing that exists that you have no knowledge of?

beingofone
If we live in a universe that is beyond boundedness, in a state of eternal momentum, everything is a possibility.

A conclusion of logic, not blind faith.

Warpus
Not so. Pigs can't fly, for example... unless you put them on a plane.

Uh huh - and amino acids, water, and electricity does or does not spring trillions of independent cells into brain matter?

I did not say we do not have functional laws.

Have you ever seen an elephant hiding in a tree?

See how good they hide?

I call it existence. I call it life.

I'm eating a bagel right now. The experience is infinite in nature. I am experiencing the infinite of my bagel. However, it's just a bagel. It is not God.

I know what you mean - most people know they experience the infinite without me sharing it with them. They usually tell me "talk to the hand" - thats kindergarden stuff.

Yeah - everyone 'knows' they are experiencing the eternal - kid stuff.

So we are God?

Even if you were to see God face to face, where would the experience of it be?

If God were to make himself you, he might ask questions like:
"Where did I go"?
"Do I really exist"?
"Who and what am I"?
"When did I begin"?
"Who made everything"?
and so on.

Yeah, and? I am going to ask these questions no matter who or what turned him/herself into me. Asking these questions is human nature. It does not prove anything.

Yeah okay - carry on then.

I am running into time constraints so - good journey to ya Warpus.

Birdjaguar:

do dogs, chimps, fish, whales, plants or worms have consciousness?

Yup; but at a lower state.

The consciousness singularity that is coming soon to a theater near you, will be like a super consciousness.

An example would be if a mouse suddenly experienced human consciousness.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Do dogs, chimps, fish, whales, plants or worms have consciousness?

Yup; but at a lower state.

Ok how about cells, molecules and atoms?

 

[Quasar1011]

Nobody's solved the riddle of existence yet. Yet there are those who bring in the supernatural to make it easier to find a solution, even though there is no evidence that the supernatural exists.

King Solomon solved the riddle of existence.

Ecclesiastes 12:12-13
"Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them.
Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body. Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man."

Yet there are those who bring in the supernatural to make it easier to find a solution, even though there is no evidence that the supernatural exists...
I saw a UFO once. My friend saw it too. We were both high though, so we kinda thing we dreamt the whole thing up.. Your perception can fool you, and not only when you're on drugs.

UFOs are evidence that the supernatural exists! The overwhelming evidence is that UFOs are real, but that they are not physical. The best evidence we have is that beings from another dimension are piloting such craft. Your seeing a UFO while being high, fits right into the pattern, my friend!

 

[BasketCase]

But in any such system (or any system which attempts to model reality somehow) all fundamental assumptions should be falsifiable.

Random thought I had while reading this:

The theory that matter is made up of indivisible particles (we know them as atoms) was first proposed thousands of years ago; that matter is composed of some fundamental unit that cannot be divided further without changing its properties. (before this, the going theory was that a piece of iron could be chopped into smaller pieces forever, and the pieces would always be iron)

When the idea of the atom was first proposed, there was no way to verify it; it was not falsifiable.

Yet it was true.

Opinions?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Random thought I had while reading this:

The theory that matter is made up of indivisible particles (we know them as atoms) was first proposed thousands of years ago; that matter is composed of some fundamental unit that cannot be divided further without changing its properties. (before this, the going theory was that a piece of iron could be chopped into smaller pieces forever, and the pieces would always be iron)

When the idea of the atom was first proposed, there was no way to verify it; it was not falsifiable.

Yet it was true.

Opinions?

So people were sceptic untill it was possible to falsify the theory. Nothing wrong with that. I could think of many examples of theories which also weren't falsifiable and were indeed proven to be bogus.

This example does not indicate that all theories proposed are going to be scientific one day just because it happens sometimes.

 

[Quarky]

Does god exist? It really doesn't matter.

1) god knows everything
2) god knows what I had for breakfast this morning.
3) god knows what I had fur lunch
4) god knows what I will have for dinner.

If that is true, then if god exists, we have no freewill, and are therefore not responsible for our actions. Therefore, god created us knowing how we will live and where we will end up (heaven or hell). So we either have freewill, or a god, and a creator that creates people knowing that they will end up in heaven or hell right from the start (and all the evil that that entails).

Even if people doubt 4), you must remember that time is a property of the universe. If god created the universe, he must be outside it, and therefore unaffected by time (unless god *is* still affected by time in which case he sat around for eternity twiddling his thumbs before creating the universe?), which means that everyone that has/is/will happened/happening/happen is all the same. From god's perspective there would be no difference between past, present and future.

The whole deity concept is so out-dated and easy to blow holes in that it is remarkable that anyone believes it anymore.

There is more evidence that the moon is made of cheese than there is for god (we can see the moon).

There is more evidence that Santa Claus is real, than for god (he at least was considered by many to be based on a real person, St Nicolas).

Someone picking up the bible and using it to justify god, is little different than someone in 2000 years picking up a Superman comic and saying that he was real...

Don't be afraid to think things through!

 

[warpus]

The most basic assumptions that we make will determine most of what is built upon them and how we interpret things.

Of course. That's why the assumptions made in science that we assume to be true have never been proven false, or are based on assumptions that have never been proven false. On top of that, a lot of data is collected and tested against the prediction made by the theory we're studying. In religion assumptions are made arbitrarily, not based on any sort of deductive logic. This is why I think building a worldview on religion is flawed - due to the arbitraribility (this is a word, right?) of the assumptions.

Yours are no different. Human nature encourages us to think our ways of thinking are more correct than those of other people.

Yes, it does, that's why in science we rely on peer review to ensure that our way of thinking is actually correct, and not just sheer fantasy.

Let me try again. We depend upon our senses to tell us what the world is like. If our senses were different then how we viewed the world and what we thought was real would change. Dogs, cats, bears all have similar, but not the same sensory connection to the world. Reality to a bear is different than it is for you (or me).

We have sensory equipment that is vastly different and far more powerful than the human senses: xray telescopes, microscopes, etc. We can use all of this as tools when collecting data to make sure that the data we collect as humans does not have a measurement bias, due to the limits of our senses. A bear will experience reality in a different way than us, but it's observing the same reality we are. Using the sensitive equipment we have developed we can tell far more about an atom or a far-away galaxy than a bear can. I don't see what's so exciting about a bear being able to experience things differently. Sure, it does, but we're not about to start using bear eyes in our labs.

If human vision was such that we only saw quarks and gluons, then what we thought as real would be very different. Matter would consist of 12 "particles" and nothing more. Almost all of what you define as real now would no longer be real, and yet all that has changed is how we see things. All the accuracy and precision so painstakingly accumualted is now clearly identified "for sure wrong". I never was real.

We would be looking at the same reality with different eyes - we would have different initial reactions about the world, but if we took the time to look at and anlyze the data we would come to the conclusion that the underlying reality is exactly the same. We might be approaching reality from a different angle in this example, but we would be arriving at the same conclusions.

One's definition of reality is totally dependent upon the sensory input used. As those sensory inputs change, what is real changes. The reality that you claim you measure so accurately is only accurate within the context of tools ands senses used. Measuring and naming things is an act of convenience for us. Nothing more.

Reality doesn't change as the sensory inputs change. I can 'look' at the world with a very sensitive hearing aid. I can put it outside the window of my apartment and listen in to the world. Then I can look at the same world with a telescope. I will be gathering two entirely different sets of data that appear to contradict eachother in many ways.. However, reality never changes.

Science/reason is a way of looking at the world, and one which has proved to be very useful and productive. But in is also has blinders. It assumes that its two bins are the only ones that have utility. Can it test to see if that is true?

It doesn't assume that - but it assumes that the way the bins are sorted are useful because they are sorted with near-perfect accuracy. That is key. Since the accuracy is so precise, we can use the bins to make profound predictions about the Universe.

Arbitrarily sorted bins don't tell us anything about the Universe. It might as well be all random.

You can test out the scientific way of sorting bins in a thought experiment. Assume everything starts off in the "possibly true" bin and then run tests and slowly move things into the "for sure wrong" bin.

I can post a specific example later, but I've got to get ready for work.

 

[warpus]

Oh nothing I guess - just common ordinary infinite momentum of experience of consciousness that defies all systems categories.

Nothin remarkable going on, I know.

That doesn't even make any sense. Can you clarify what's remarkable about it? (I'm assuming you're being sarcastic here)

Do you experience a whole or partial reality?

Are you a whole person or a partial person?

I'm a whole person, but I'm obviously not a super-sensitive array of sensors designed to analyze the Universe. I am not going to get a complete picture of things just by looking around and listening.

Yes; and before that, and before that, and before that?

Well, how far do you want me to go back? I don't remember any of my memories beyond a certain point, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Its all over the place - but it would be rejected because it does not fit into the 'model'. I has been testified to and an abundant amount of eyewitnesses, not just the Gospels, I am talking last hundred years.

If there is so much data supporting the theory that human consciousnes survives death, why had noone been able to formulate a falsifiable theory as to how how it happens?

But let's start at the beginning - point me to a study that conclusively showed that human consciousness survived death, please.

Start asking others you know if when someone they knew passed if there was anything nonordinary that happened. Ask em - you will get your answer.

Data gathered from emotional individuals experiencing immense amounts of pain would not be very useful.

Where is "out there"?

Beyond our bodies.

Uh huh - fascinating, it just does it all on its own, without a leader cell to read the 'blueprint'.

What is this very intelligent "IT" that does all that?

You know like; ITS raining, ITS creating consciousness, ITS reality, ITS putting together trillions of cells in all the right body parts and so on.

I always wondered why most scientists just use IT as kinda like a placeholder, yet this IT is soooo smart, we cannot understand IT.

But they seem to be sure, that without doubt, IT cannot possibly, under any circumstances, be God - because we already know ITS an IT.

Uhm. Human DNA contains all the istructions necessary to build our bodies from 1 cell up to a fully functioning human adult. If you want to say that DNA is God, then go right ahead, but personally I think that is an absurd notion.

How do you know a desk is there?

Because nobody has shown me data to suggest that it might not be there, and others have confirmed that they also see it.

Tell one thing that exists that you have no knowledge of?

There are plenty, but I obviously can't tell you about them as I have no knowledge of them.

Just because I don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Uh huh - and amino acids, water, and electricity does or does not spring trillions of independent cells into brain matter?

Once you understand how the process works it's still amazing.. but understandable.

King Solomon solved the riddle of existence.

yadda yadda

UFOs are evidence that the supernatural exists! The overwhelming evidence is that UFOs are real, but that they are not physical. The best evidence we have is that beings from another dimension are piloting such craft. Your seeing a UFO while being high, fits right into the pattern, my friend!

I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but UFOs are simply unidentified flying objects. The vast majority of them have been since identified, so they aren't UFOs anymore, but there is still a % that we haven't figured out. It doesn't mean that it's aliens, or God, or Buck Rogers.

Random thought I had while reading this:

The theory that matter is made up of indivisible particles (we know them as atoms) was first proposed thousands of years ago; that matter is composed of some fundamental unit that cannot be divided further without changing its properties. (before this, the going theory was that a piece of iron could be chopped into smaller pieces forever, and the pieces would always be iron)

When the idea of the atom was first proposed, there was no way to verify it; it was not falsifiable.

Yet it was true.

Opinions?

If it had been written in terms of a theory.. a theory which made predictions, then it would have been falsifiable.

It was simply a piece of philosophy back then, making no predictions.

If it did, it would have still been falsifiable, even though the ancient Greeks would not have posessed the equipment to run the tests.

String Theory is falsifiable even though we don't have the equipment to tests many aspects of it yet.

EDIT: whoa that was messed up, i fixed it up