The Great Jesus Swindle, Greatest lie ever told.

No matter what you think of him, there are a few indsputable facts about Jesus:
1) He really did exist
2) He managed to really piss off the Jews and Romans and was seen as bit of an activist
3) He really was crucified by the Romans. Both the Romans and the Jews have records of this, but as far as they are concerned that was that.

That being said, it is entirely up to you as to whether you choose to believe in the rest of his story i.e the resurrection and him being the Christ figure.
But as an activist I am sure he would not be pleased with the Haters of one eyed evil folk like the Westboro heretics. Jesus was all about hanging out with the unpopular folk and giving them hope - something that got him ultimately killed.....

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

Believe what you want as well. Right back at you.

Okay well then I'm just gonna go ahead and keep believing the old very basic sciency stuff they taught me in 5th grade 30 years ago. Hope that stuff is still right. But I know some people aren't really into sciency stuff, so that's cool.

en.wikipedia.org...

"The electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena one encounters in daily life, with the exception of gravity. Roughly speaking, all the forces involved in interactions between atoms can be traced to the electromagnetic force acting on the electrically charged protons and electrons inside the atoms. This includes the forces we experience as "pushing" or "pulling" ordinary material objects, which come from the intermolecular forces between the individual molecules in our bodies and those in the objects."

reply to post by tinfoilman


I fully support science and facts, not pseudoscience and beliefs. I asked you a few questions and you never answered them. I expect a response, or else I'll just have to accept the possibility that you either don't care or you don't know.

What about the remaining 1%? If atoms aren't solid either, then that leaves 0% left. Are you saying that solids don't exist? At all?

Answer the questions. Tell me directly that solids don't exist so we can end this at that, unless you have some sort of way to go around it without actually answering the question.

reply to post by Condemned0625


I cannot and would not tell you that you aren't a person, because right here and right now, my subjective experience of reality is that I, too, am a person. I'll try to articulate myself better because I feel I've failed to do so and I apologize for that.

There are two distinct (but related) things we're talking about. 1) One is the possibility of an ultimate, objective, irreducible reality, and the possibility that whatever that is isn't consistent with what we subjectively experience as reality. In that context, it's possible - by my standards at least - that none of this matters and the personality I think of as "me" may not even be real for all I know. 2) The other is that subjective experience that we perceive and call reality. In that context, I can't help but experience reality as this personality that I call "me," and feel the feelings I feel, and perceive the things I perceive. The two are distinct from one another, but are related in that they both pertain to reality.

All I've been saying is that, personally (just for me, not applicable to anyone else,) I have no way of proving to myself whether the two are one and the same; i.e. I cannot prove to myself - by my standards - that the subjective, perception-based reality we appear to be experiencing is 100% representative of whatever the objective, ultimate, irreducible reality may or may not be. If they're different at all.

Your standards are different. Because your standards - your criteria, if you will, for establishing facts and proofs - differ from mine, we perceive these possibilities differently. That's all.

I hope you understand that I have no problem with that. I am not trying to persuade you that you are wrong, as I don't believe you are wrong necessarily. By my standards, all I can say is, "I don't know." By your standards, you do know. And that's fine.

I'm sorry you feel this discussion was not worth your time. You see, even though I can't prove I exist by my standards or that any of this is real or matters at all, I still (because of the second of the two distinct things I mentioned; the subjective reality context, from which "I" cannot escape, regardless of whether those definitions or perceptions are even accurate or real ultimately) am (or appear to be) experiencing whatever it is that is real as this subjective reality we're sitting in (or appear to be sitting in) having this discussion, and whatever the nature of "me" is demands I try to be cordial and respectful. So for what it's worth, I for "my" part, have enjoyed discussing this with you and you sharing your perspective on reality with me. Thank-you (whether there is a me to thank you or a you to thank ultimately or not...)

TL;DR version: "Maybe none of this is real. But just in case it is, thank-you for discussing it with me."

Peace.

reply to post by AceWombat04

I cannot and would not tell you that you aren't a person, because right here and right now, my subjective experience of reality is that I, too, am a person.

Subjective experience of which reality? Ultimate reality or non-reality disguised as reality? By the way, the second one doesn't make sense because if that was the case, then that one would be the ultimate reality instead of the first one, but that also makes no sense because then you're back at the first option and the second option couldn't exist. The only option left is reality. We could go on and on about this, but I'll keep exposing the loopholes in your concept until there's none left. Anyways, it was discussed and that's it. I'll leave it at that.

reply to post by Condemned0625


It depends on what you mean by solids. If you mean it as something you can touch, well you can only touch something because of the electromagnetic field around it. You don't actually touch the atoms as any basic elementary science class already knows.

Even if you could "touch" the atom per-se, you wouldn't feel it because the body doesn't sense touch that way. It senses touch through the electromagnetic interactions between your atoms and the object's atoms. If you mean a solid as not passing through it, the only reason you can't pass through it is because its field repels your field. If that were gone you'd go right through it just like dark matter and energy does.

That's what I'm saying. the 1% isn't solid in the way that you think it is solid. You can't touch it. It is solid in that it has 3 dimensions and has a density of some kind, but when you're talking about atoms you're talking about density which is different. Not what most people consider a "solid" that you can touch.

reply to post by tinfoilman


So you're admitting the existence of one type of solid while denying the other? In order for any object to have any kind of shape (cube, sphere, triangle), it must be made of solid matter. Are you suggesting that atoms aren't even solid matter? What about the particle collisions in the Large Hadron Collider? They collide atoms in their particle accelerator, so they must be solid since they're colliding. When I emphasize solid, I'm talking about dense objects that are made of tightly packed atoms. You can't justifiably tell me that my computer desk is no more solid than the gatorade in my cup. You didn't really answer my question. I'll ask one more time: Do solids exist or not?

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by AceWombat04

 

Subjective experience of which reality?

The subjective experience of what we appear to be experiencing at the moment. The subjective experience we call "this reality." i.e. that which appears, based upon perception, to be real. An example would be the couch you say you know exists because you can see it. That is subjective reality. You experience it as real subjectively.

Ultimate reality or non-reality disguised as reality?

Which is why I said the possibility of an ultimate, irreducible, objective reality. Since we cannot, at the moment, arrive at a reality that is not reliant on our perceptions to confirm, and we have no means of proving our perceptions might not potentially be in error, we cannot arrive at an objective, irreducible reality. We cannot arrive at an unquestionable, irreducible - as Baudrillard might say - "desert of the real."

By the way, the second one doesn't make sense because if that was the case, then that one would be the ultimate reality instead of the first one

Why? On what basis? Based on what criteria? I don't have an objective means of determining that.

but that also makes no sense because then you're back at the first option and the second option couldn't exist. The only option left is reality.

And what is that? What is "reality?" And how can you prove that whatever meets those criteria are real beyond your own perceptions and observations which could - potentially - be in error? That's what I'm saying.

We could go on and on about this, but I'll keep exposing the loopholes in your concept until there's none left. Anyways, it was discussed and that's it. I'll leave it at that.

If you feel you have "exposed loopholes" and that serves you, then so be it. As I said, I understand and respect your opinion, and we can agree to disagree.

And again, "Maybe none of this is real. But just in case it is, thank-you for discussing it with me."

Peace.

reply to post by Condemned0625


Like I said it depends on what you mean by solids. The other 1% of atoms is made up of and held together by other forces like the strong and weak force. That's not really a solid you can touch either. The farther down you go you see it's all just made of different forces and energy. We don't really know if any kind of real solids exist.

But we know the kinds of solids you were talking about earlier don't exist. When you said that you know your couch exists because you've sat on it many times? Actually you haven't. That kind of solid doesn't exist. You've only sat on the magnetic field around the couch that's generated by the atoms in the couch. You've never actually sat on, or touched your couch.

It's just an electromagnetic field. We think it's produced by atoms, but truth is it may not be. That field per se and the atoms themselves may just be the result of a protection of the information stored in the holographic universe somewhere onto something else. We have no technology to tell the difference yet.

EDIT:
Also, when you say atoms collide in a particle accelerator, it just shows you don't get the concept. They don't collide like you think they collide. It has to do with their forces pushing and pulling on each other. The same forces that hold the atom together and push the electron out into its orbit. The electron isn't hanging out there on some string. They didn't build a steel frame to hold up the electron on every atom.

It's just like the solar system. There are invisible forces pushing and pulling and holding it all together. Then you look at a planet, it's not solid either. It's 99 percent empty space and made of atoms. You look at the atoms and they're not solid either. They're made of subatomic particles held together by different forces. You go down deeper and you find quantum particles and waves that randomly go in and out of existence and exist in more than one place at the same time. Then you just keep going.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Forget about the holographic universe theory. I'm not even worried about that at this point. You're telling me that I never really sat on my couch, nor in this chair for that matter due to the electromagnetic field around its atoms. I'm already aware that there are electromagnetic fields around atoms and subatomic particles. Here's the problem: If the field didn't exist, you suggest that I would pass through the couch. Now, answer this question: Would the atoms in my body pass completely through the couch's atoms (as if they're nonexistent) or would they pass through by simply pushing the other atoms aside? An example of that is putting your hand in water. You're not passing through the molecules, you're just pushing them aside.

Do you suggest that we add "the electromagnetic field around the atoms of" to the beginning of every statement that describes interaction with something? Instead of "I'm sitting on my couch!", I should say "I'm sitting on the electromagnetic fields around the atoms that make up my couch!" or "I'm not really driving my car, I'm just moving the atoms in the steering wheel and gas pedal by pushing on the electromagnetic fields around the atoms in them with the electromagnetic fields around the atoms in my hands and foot!", right? You and I both know which versions of those statements are shorter and most common.


By the way, I'm talking about material solid. If your answer to my question is "Yes, your hand would pass through the atoms themselves.", then that is an example of immaterial and sort of suggests that they don't even exist to begin with.

reply to post by AceWombat04

"Maybe none of this is real. But just in case it is, thank-you for discussing it with me."

Sure. Maybe none of this happened and you never actually wasted my time and it was all a delusion that tricked me into thinking my time was wasted by someone who supports a theory that supports this statement. Goodbye.

reply to post by Condemned0625


If you feel I've wasted your time, then I apologize. That was not my intention. From where I sit (no pun intended) we've just been having a polite discussion regarding our different standards for determining facts and truths. I don't harbor any ill will or negative opinion of you just because we disagree. (And again, the reason I bother making such a statement even though "none of this may be real," is because "it could be and subjectively I experience it as though it is, regardless of whether it really is or not.")

Peace.

reply to post by Condemned0625


From what we know, without the forces that hold matter together, most likely the atom wouldn't even exist. Cause the atom is not a thing in itself. It's made of smaller particles as well that are held together by other forces. But hypothetically from what we know, the atoms in your body would pass right through the couch's atoms.

They wouldn't push them aside, or go around them without those forces because without those forces most likely your hand couldn't move the atoms in the couch out of the way. Also, since those forces that would repel don't exist in the couch anymore they can't block your hand from going forward. So it only leaves one conclusion. You would most likely pass right through them.

Now we're pretty sure dark matter exists and it has this exact property. It passes right through.

reply to post by AceWombat04


I just thought of one more thing that I need to say and I want you to think hard about it later on. If reality possibly doesn't exist and we're just being deceived by our senses into believing that a reality exists, then how can the "false detection" by our senses even happen in the first place if reality doesn't exist? By that definition, the false detection or detection of the "false reality" shouldn't exist either. If everything around us wasn't real, then our false perception of it wouldn't be real either. There would be no perception at all, not even a false perception because reality would be nonexistent in the first place. Think about that. Don't try to refute it. Just understand it and think about it.

reply to post by tinfoilman

From what we know, without the forces that hold matter together, most likely the atom wouldn't even exist.

I was hoping you would say that because now you've just created another problem that I can address. If the atom wouldn't exist due to the nonexistence of the field, why would the atom need to exist in the first place? It seems as if the electromagnetic field doesn't even require the atom within it to exist since the atom supposedly can't exist without it. Therefore, all objects would only need to be made of electromagnetic fields, but that would render all objects invisible and probably nonexistent due to the lack of atoms. You see my point? Now let's address the next problem.

Cause the atom is not a thing in itself. It's made of smaller particles as well that are held together by other forces. But hypothetically from what we know, the atoms in your body would pass right through the couch's atoms.

What about the smaller particles? Those aren't things either? What about the forces? Are those things or not?

"But hypothetically from what we know..."

Hypothetically? I thought you were absolutely certain about this. I'm not asking for assumptions based on hypotheses. I'm asking for facts. When you said 'hypothetically', you basically said that it's highly conjectural and not well supported by available evidence, whether you intended to or not. I'll just give some definitions for that word too just in case you try to get around it.

dictionary.reference.com...

reply to post by Condemned0625


Okay, I think I see now where we're getting our wires crossed. What you just said is actually the basis for what I've been saying, which tells me I've failed to be articulate again and for that I am very sorry. I think I know how to word this, now.

I never said reality might not exist. I said that what we perceive as reality might not exist. It's clear that something exists, or, as you said, the information forming the perceptions we have wouldn't be present in whatever our "minds" are in the first place. Something exists that results, ultimately, in this experience we call reality (all the things we see around us. The couch in our original example.) And whatever that may be, is ultimately "real." It's what that is that I have doubts and questions about.

Is it literally what we experience/see/touch/taste/smell/feel? Or is it something other than that; perhaps something we can't even conceive of or comprehend, which results in those subjective sensations/perceptions/experiences? I don't know, because I can’t prove anything without the use of my perceptions. That's all I'm really saying. I don't know. Calling me "reality-agnostic" would probably not be inaccurate.

Here's one example of a possible reality that could, for all I can prove, potentially exist other than what perception tells us exists at first glance. Hypothetically, imagine a system of information that in its true form doesn't at all resemble the reality we see around us every day. Now imagine that somewhere within that system of information, interactions or processes of some kind - we don't know what, because in this hypothetical thought experiment, we're dealing with a reality we can't necessarily even imagine or begin to understand because it's an entirely different paradigm than the one we're used to - produce some sort of emergent behavior resembling what we call consciousness.

From the subjective perspective of that emergent behavior, it is a living thinking human being experiencing everything we do from day to day. From an objective perspective though, it isn't even "real" in the traditional sense. It's an emergent behavior resulting from something totally unlike it; something that doesn't even resemble what it "thinks" it "is."

That's just one possible scenario that we can't prove isn't the case. There are others, and my main point is that there could be ones we can't even begin to imagine in the slightest. If any of those are the ultimate, irreducible reality, we wouldn't know it. We couldn't perceive it necessarily.

So I completely agree with you that something exists. It has to for this experience to be unfolding right now. But what that is? I don't know. I can't prove the couch exists. I can only prove something exists that results in the perception of the couch, whether that's literally the couch, or something completely different. Something existing, somewhere, in some form, doesn't necessarily mean the couch as we perceive and experience it exists. (Then again, maybe it does.)

Does that make sense? If it doesn't, and you don't believe that's even remotely possible, then that's fine. I can respect that. But I hope I've articulated my reasoning for saying I don't know one way or another, at least. And please believe me when I say I do respect your opinion and that this isn't some sort of angry debate for me. We're just talking, that's all. (If we're here at all. )

Peace.

reply to post by Condemned0625


Your first question, why would we even need the atom to begin with? We don't need anything. Why do we need the universe? Just because something is there doesn't mean that it makes sense or it couldn't be done another way. Remember, science doesn't answer the question of why. It only tries to answer how.

Anyway, some people think everything is just made up of an electric or electromagnetic field or force. It's an offshoot theory of the electronic universe theory. That the atoms aren't atoms, but they're just another configuration of an electric force that we perceive as atoms. So it may very well just be what you say.

You're using the straw man that the atom is held together by a single force. It's not, there are different forces in play. The atom isn't held together by the same force that the atom itself creates. Perhaps that's why we need atoms.

But the basic idea that why can't everything just be made out of one fundamental thing? That's the idea of quantum theory or string theory. That everything is actually made up of quantum particles and waves and everything around us is just how we observe those particles or that even the quantum particles themselves are made up tiny multidimensional vibrating strings and everything just appears out of those strings.

Anyway, you're attacking my hypothetical, but that's not very fair. The hypothetical was, what would happen to the atom if the forces that hold the atom together didn't exist. Of course you need a hypothetical for that. You can't prove what would happen to an atom if the forces to create the atom didn't exist. Then the atom wouldn't exist either. There's no way to test that. So you have to use a hypothetical to imagine that the atom still exists. This should be pretty obvious. If it's over your head I'm sorry.

reply to post by AceWombat04


And what do you think that "something" would be? Does my couch have any other purpose besides being used as support when sitting? Why would it need to be a projection of something else? No matter how many times you articulate it, the problems still remain. You're not solving the problems with your statements. All you did was change your use of words and explain it all in a slightly different way without even solving the problems that make the entire theory questionable and improbable.

reply to post by tinfoilman


No, no, no. I am NOT making a strawman fallacy. I never claimed that the atom was held together by only one force. I know what the 4 forces of nature are and I know they are fundamental interactions. Do you do this to people very often? Underestimating the intelligence of intelligent people and accusing them of BS they never did?

Anyway, you're attacking my hypothetical, but that's not very fair. The hypothetical was, what would happen to the atom if the forces that hold the atom together didn't exist. Of course you need a hypothetical for that. You can't prove what would happen to an atom if the forces to create the atom didn't exist. Then the atom wouldn't exist either. There's no way to test that. So you have to use a hypothetical to imagine that the atom still exists. This should be pretty obvious. If it's over your head I'm sorry.

Of course you can't prove it. Does that mean your hypothetical is a fact? Guess what I do when I can't find any evidence and can't test something: I admit that I don't know. I don't resort to hypothetical explanations and imagination. I don't see any point in any furtherance of this conversation if you continue to misunderstand and accuse me of actions that never happened. You've done that at least twice, possibly thrice if my memory is correct. Will there be a fourth time?

reply to post by Condemned0625


I don't know what that "something" could be. That's my entire point. I don't know.

The couch doesn't have to have a purpose other than for us to sit on it in order for it to not exist literally as we perceive it. The "something" that exists doesn't have to be "the couch" in order for it to result directly or indirectly in our perception of the couch.

It isn't a theory. It's just a possibility I consider and which I can't disprove. That's all I've ever suggested it was.