Originally posted by badmedia
You mean that which created the universe and is the only actual observer that is and always will be? It is impossible for such to not exist, if there
is no observer then there is nobody there know it doesn't exist. If there is no afterlife, you'll never know 1 way or another. Because you will
not be there to observe it. The very act of being there to observe and "know" if there is an afterlife requires and afterlife to view it. I always
giggle when people say - we'll know when we are dead, because the only way to know is if there is an afterlife. If there was no consciousness and
nothing to view creation, then it would not be known to exist. The very act of observing is separate from the creation itself.
Or, there's the possibility that the universe would be here anyway, and always has been here... and you're just putting the importance on
observation because you seek to find a meaning on WHY the universe is here.
The universe is here. observer or not. Although we could apply the same logic to god... if god was always here... than who was here to observe him?
Without observation there's no reason for him to exist right?
LOL thats funny, I mention that it doesn't take consciousness to observe, and you go off on Artificial Intelligence.
I never once said anything about AI... nice straw-man..
I'm sure you don't think mice are conscious beings... but they not only have the ability to observe, they have the ability to learn from those
The father is pure consciousness. He is the sum of all consciousness past, present future and all of creation, that which is known and
beyond. The father is the only observer in the end.
Says you? right? apologetics at its best. Invent gods to fit the new realms science shows you. what happened to the 10th dimensional god? is he
Pure consciousness has no physical being? than how did he walk with moses?
But you do not realize the difference between patterns running based on the logic given, and the actual ability to understand and observe.
That which is not conscious is unable to learn new logic.
What does this have to do with the scientific method? are you just talking jibberish now?
In the middle ages there was the black plague... The people at the time didn't understand it, thus, they said god was punishing them...
now, we know what caused it, how it was transmitted, and have in fact narrowed down that the plague entered Europe from a port in Italy, aboard a ship
that came from Asia...
If you don't incorperate the new knowledge into your data set... you end up with "god dun it"...
in 2000 years, Christianity in particular, has refused to add new data to their data set... in the situations where it was impossible to ignore the
new data, they change the definitions of parts of their religion... or start claiming it was all symbolic and figurative.
Well I hope you don't bring up psychology, as it is only able to recognize behavior patterns, not consciousness itself.
We've been through this before. We can recognize the chemical interactions in the brain, and watch thought happening on a screen... science will
eventually completely map the mind... and will be able to show you exactly what you're saying consciousness is...
They already have video game controls that you wear on your head... you interface with the game via pure thought... now that is reading consciousness
fairly well I would think.
The fact that you decide to assign some sort of divine attribute to conciousness and the fact that you have absolutely no understanding of what it is
(scientifically) does NOT mean that it is truely divine in nature... this is just using "god" to explain the unexplainable... and isn't a real
But what you fail to understand is that consciousness is not part of the creation.
Has to be because you've discribed god as pure consciousness... and he said "let us create man in our own image". This was the rationality you
used when explaining why god isn't "man shaped".
Nifty little contradiction you have going there.
If you see yourself as only flesh, as being only a creation and result of this universe, then you are blind to the truth. Only if you realize
your true self(consciousness/soul) can you understand why I say what I do.
LOL classic! If I don't agree with you, something must be wrong with my thinking, and I'm somehow inferior to you...
This is actually a pretty common christian response... and you wonder why other religions despise christianity.
Where are these magical molecules that have consciousness in them? You see yourself as being flesh and see yourself as machine. And yes,
your body is from the dust of the earth, it is from the creation and it is a machine. But you are the driver, and if you can't understand that,
then you will never understand me.
I've said this before... you're the one saying you have all the answers... (especially with the whole consciousness thing) Not me... I say its
foolish to make the leap... and will instead wait for science to run its course...
There's no shame in admitting that you don't understand something. For some reason, believers have to attribute misunderstanding to "god"
So we will not find agreement as long as you associate yourself as being flesh rather than soul/consciousness.
Oh we could agree, if science someday finds facts supporting your myths, I'll add that to my data set, and re-evaluate my positions.
But please tell me, to what are the electrical signals in your brain presenting this reality to?
Other chemicals and electrical impluses in your brain... interperited by receptors. You're starting to assign value to something because its a warm
How does an electrical signal become the image you see? If it goes from light to the eyes, converted into electrical signals which go to the
back of the brain, to what is that image presented to?
Optical receptors in the area of the brain that controls vision
To what are feelings presented to? Isn't it beyond just a signal telling you something is happening? If all these things like free will
and such are illusions, then to what are the illusions to?
Christ, we could go at this all day... but it doesn't change the fact that just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it can't be
explained. I swear, If science comes up with a way to create "consciousness in a jar", you'd find some other reason to explain your situation...
It's not man's flaw that we can't generate a random number that can be predicted.
really? You can prove randomness doesn't exist? I'm sure you're the chaos theory expert now?
[qutoe]It's just because the program has to follow a pattern and logic given to it. It has to take a number, apply equations and such to it to
arrive at the random number. We can make them random enough that a person can't tell the difference, but because it is based on logic it can be
Than explain the electron... There are two things we can be sure of when it comes to elections... 1) Its specific location and 2) It's path and
where it will be in the future...
Unfortunately, you can never know both at the same time... this has been something Quantum physics has been trying to tackle for a while. that
appears to be pretty random to me... and the best thing... is its randomness in the universe... not man made.
Science doesn't know why yet, but it is against the laws of quantum to be able to accurately state both assertions about any given electron. BUT,
just because science doesn't understand why, doesn't mean they don't recognize it as a fact.
The best they can do to get random numbers is to take in something which is unknown and then base the equations off that. We can get random
enough to suit our purposes, but it's never truly random.
Ok, I'll concede that point... Randomness is precieved in nature... it might very well be that nothing is random, and its truly just a complex system
that is governed by a set of rules in the universe...
I can concede this point, because it might very well be true... BUT if it is true, man will find the answer through science. This is what the
"Theory of Everything" is going to achieve.
It may only seem random because we are looking at physics the wrong way.. (I have a few... unconventional views when it comes to physics... don't ask
). But, if it is the case that there is no randomness... than everything follows a specific set of rules in the universe... so specific in fact,
that any "dabbling" by a supreme being would upset the balance, and cause a butterfly effect across the ripple of spacetime.
In effect, if there truely are no random numbers... god is powerless to act in our universe, or it will come unraveled.
[edit on 19-2-2009 by nj2day]