Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

a reply to: Nothin

Was that a quantized quantum leap, quantoming a quantumality ?

What ? Quantum verb form ?

Silly hairless apes, all of us. LoL !

I will skip the questions in that paragraph and call your conclusion truth.

Below and beyond, religions and those common descriptions of God : is there an unspeakable quality, similar to the unnameable Tao ?

What the unnamable Tao is, so is the unspeakable.

Can we vibe and resonate on that ?

We can live live in it.

Here and now is Fire.
Here and now is Spirit.
Here and now is Holy.

a reply to: Nothin

If you're going to miss the point this badly by focussing on some word usage in my rather trivial sidepoint, that you apparently also didn't get(understand) very well (or perhaps chose not to and read something else into it), I guess it's best to just ignore the whole sidepoint about skipping "what he saw as" in that wikiquote altogether.

It was just a reminder for an alternate potential reading of that quote to reduce the chance of getting a false impression which those heavily affected by what the South Park writers refer to as "The Agnostic Code"* are more inclined to get from that wikiquote as it is.

*: which comes in many forms in this system of things and is promoted heavily, it relates to what I sometimes refer to as the philosophy of vagueness, the notion that we can never be 100% sure about anything, with the attached idea that it is therefore not possible to know or discover any fact/truth for certain; very convenient for those who want to sell unverified philosophies, pseudoscience and other nonsense as something worth looking into, even when logic demands that what is proposed cannot be so, cannot be an accurate/truthful reflection of the reality/truth of the matter, or cannot be the reality of the matter. Such as in the case when someone proposes a paradox to be the truth/reality of the matter or an accurate/factual/correct/truthful description of it:


Not that I really want to correct what you were potentially reading into my sidepoint, but just to clarify:

The "fact of the matter" I was referring to is: "It [Schrödinger's cat example] illustrates . . . the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics . . ." (quoting from wikipedia) The fact is "the [logical] problem" "it illustrates", not "the Copenhagen interpretation" itself. So no one (single) thing or subject in that first paragraph

went from interpretation, to opinion, to "Fact of the matter"

As you put it.

The way wikipedia has phrased that could just give certain types of people (those not understanding what it means when an interpretation, idea or belief/opinion leads to a paradox/contradiction/absurdity/error/mistake/nonsense) the impression that it's only a problem in Schrödinger's opinion. But it's also a problem in actuality or reality, it's not just his opinion. The truth/fact of the matter and the problem is that the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong/in error/mistaken/contradictory, as demonstrated by applying logic and common sense, as used by humanity to discover all sorts of interesting facts/certainties/realities/truths for centuries and as used by Schrödinger in his cat example. Such as the fact that E=MC^2 and those facts described by Newton in the law of gravity, which have stood the test of time and are not in any way refuted, negated or superseded by later discoveries concerning gravity by Einstein and others, including those working in the field of quantum physics (another false impression amongst those who think Newton's law of gravity is somehow outdated or something, no longer relevant, or proven wrong or inaccurate with later discoveries).

As explained in more detail before how one can tell.

Mind you, logic and common sense is not only vital in ascertaining the truth of a matter, it is also vital in rational conversation and communication. It has served humanity well but only for those who use it properly and are willing to accept what truths it 'tells' or 'teaches' us, figuratively speaking. Those who do not twist it to serve their own purpose (such as to promote or defend myths/false stories about reality with faulty arguments and twisted logic, or a severe lack of common sense shining through what is being said, or asserted is the case, or might be the case as the agnostic promotes their unverified philosophies/ideas, even when they are logically incoherent and cnnot be the case, i.e. impossible, a word that is anathema to any diligent writer or promoter of said unverified philosophies/ideas, pseudoscience, nonsense, science-fiction entertainment, and the devout believer of the notion that anything is possible, etc.).

a reply to: Pachomius

Dear everyone, no need to dwell all the time inside your brain,

I am of the opinion that I live within the 25-140 hz gamma waves within my brain. Especially the 40 hz, necessary for perception, cognition, memory, imagination, and honest intelligent productive thoughts. My brain is the physical structure that houses the moving and active gamma waves.

outside your brain you cannot do something like random mixing of sand and gravel and cement and water, and come out with a live bouncing baby.

My days as a professional mud mixer are past, along with the frightening, fun, exciting, and adventurous activities which contribute to the emergence of a live baby. The two activities are physical activities but the goals and ingredients are quite different. There is some amount of sweat common to both.

Thank you Pachomius for providing this thread. I have enjoyed the productivity immensely so far. The best 110 page thread that I've participated in in 10 years.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance


Funny story about Cat Stevens.
He converted to Islam because he wasn't familiar with the joys of the California Pacific waves.

It just so happens that right around that time I was on a nude beech in Malibu reading the Koran.

Pachomius wants us to come up with random chance.
Cat Stevens and me in Malibu. That's random.

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: Pachomius
...
Science more support evolution:
...

Evolution—Myths and Facts
Is Evolution Logical? (Awake!—2000)
When a Fact Is Not a Fact (Awake!—1987)
Chapter 1 Life​—How Did It Start? (Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)
Chapter 4 Could Life Originate by Chance?
Chapter 6 Huge Gulfs​—Can Evolution Bridge Them?

“Solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Heb. 5:14) Synonyms for right and wrong are true and false/in error/incorrect (and some of the other synonyms mentioned in my other commentary; a synonym for myth is false story, the opposite of a truth/fact/certainty/reality).

Sadly though, it's likely you won't be willing to even try to digest the 'solid food' (for your mind, see text under my accountname) in the links above,

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.*” [Greek: my'thos; KJ: “myths”] (2 Tim. 4:3,4)

But the links are not just for you.

a reply to: whereislogic

a synonym for myth is false story, the opposite of a truth/fact/certainty/reality).

Since the term myth is widely used to imply that a story is not objectively true, the identification of a narrative as a myth can be highly political: many adherents of religions view their religion's stories as true and therefore object to the stories being characterised as myths. Nevertheless, scholars now routinely speak of Jewish mythology, Christian mythology, Islamic mythology, Hindu mythology, and so forth. Traditionally, Western scholarship, with its Judeo-Christian heritage, has viewed narratives in the Abrahamic religions as being the province of theology rather than mythology. Meanwhile, identifying religious stories of colonised cultures, such as stories in Hinduism, as myths enabled Western scholars to imply that they were of lower truth-value than the stories of Christianity. Labelling all religious narratives as myths can be thought of as treating different traditions with parity.
wikipedia - Myth

A myth is a narrative. Labeling as myth does not effect the value of the narrative.

a reply to: pthena

Random chance is meaningful coincidence meent to be.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

I don't know. Ask Yusuf Islam.

He'd be like: "What? Never heard of 'im".

MONO




I will not waste any more time and labor with talking to intellectually naive posters here, except to tell them to investigate the fact of their having a brain, into which Elon Musk one day soon will embed within a chip - for them to think more honestly, intelligently, and productively.

Until then my opponents here are into nothing inside their brain but fictions of no efficacy at all, even if they feel themselves vacuously so smart.


.

originally posted by: Pachomius
MONO




I will not waste any more time and labor with talking to intellectually naive posters here, except to tell them to investigate the fact of their having a brain, into which Elon Musk one day soon will embed within a chip - for them to think more honestly, intelligently, and productively.

Until then my opponents here are into nothing inside their brain but fictions of no efficacy at all, even if they feel themselves vacuously so smart.


.

Then take your ball and go home already, as if you aren't desperate for validation. Only took you 100+ pages to figure out what kind of forum this is.

originally posted by: Pachomius
... a three legged frog, of course inside your nutty brain swamp.

If you still feel that you are so smart, then explain to me what is your concept of random chance? .

Jacques, the three-legged frog inside my nutty brain swamp, sends you his best wishes, in the form of blowing cute little froggy bubbles.

Am not so smart : but don't think that any believers in causality, are too keen on 'random-chance', no ?

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Nothin

Was that a quantized quantum leap, quantoming a quantumality ?

What ? Quantum verb form ?

Silly hairless apes, all of us. LoL !

I will skip the questions in that paragraph and call your conclusion truth.

Below and beyond, religions and those common descriptions of God : is there an unspeakable quality, similar to the unnameable Tao ?

What the unnamable Tao is, so is the unspeakable.

Can we vibe and resonate on that ?

We can live live in it.

Yeah : you're probably right. We are immersed in it, connected, and it just is. Not separate : but one.

Wouldn't it be nice to get some of the others here, interested in the unnamable, and unspeakable ?
The great mystery, that we all share ?

a reply to: whereislogic

From out-of the massive verbosity of your broadcasts : does it not seem plausible that many would miss the central point, if one there is ?

My unknowing impression : is that WIL may also be a believer in logic/facts/certainties/realities/truths, yah ?

Are these not mostly products, concepts of the mind ?
In other words : believing ones own thoughts ?

What is underneath the mind ?
Deeper, above, below, and beyond all of the tricks of the mind ?

Are you not interested : in finding a way to present your idea of God, that no-one could deny ?
Do you think writing long proselytizing broadcasts, and mocking your mates here, will help ?
Can you look beyond dogma and doctrine, and a belief in 'facts' ?

That's right : you spend enough time with us, and we are all mates now.
Wasn't expecting that, eh ? LoL !

Let's not focus on what separates us : ok ?

Can we retain the spirit of the thread, ( even if the OP has pushed most of us away for now ), and see if we can find only one tiny speck of agreement about God ?

a reply to: Nothin

It's not the idea of God they deny. They simply think they are alknowing.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Go evolve

a reply to: Nothin

Didn't mock anyone.

If you take issue with my usage of the word "nonsense", I explained when that word is appropiate with my listing of the synonyms for paradox.

I can't really think of much else you could have interpreted as "mocking your mates here". Was it the South Park videos? Those were used for entirely other purposes than mockery, although of course, the writers are mocking agnosticism in that comedy cartoon. Cause that's part of the humor they are trying to sell. But that's not the reason why I shared them. I was talking about a very real phenomena there that I described as the philosophy of vagueness. Which I find an appropiate quick terminology given what I explained what I'm referring to with that (and to not have to explain it every time in such detail, just a shorter way of referring to that notion/philosophy/idea/belief).

My comments are also not all that long or verbose, not that it should be an issue if someone doesn't have a short attention span or doesn't prefer short unsupported, unexplained, unelaborated claims, assertions and expressions of opinions/beliefs that defy logic and common sense but happen to intrigue, be agreeable to or 'tickle the ears' of those who prefer these; or if someone doesn't prefer meaningless blah-blah.*

*: Again nothing to do with mockery, that is the appropiate honest terminology for some commentary on ATS. The term fits best for those who are trying to be honest about it, which is what I'm doing in all my commentary, including when I'm referring to something as nonsense or pseudoscience. Or myths for that matter.

Honesty is underrated and not appreciated enough in this world, especially when it's affecting people's sensibilities concerning their beliefs/ideas/opinions. Or when it exposes their own mockery of "beneficial teaching" (2 Timothy 4:3,4; see quotation earlier) as they do and demonstrate the Isaiah 5:20 thingy.

“The scoffer does not love the one correcting* him. [Or “reproving.”]

He will not consult the wise.” (Proverbs 15:12)

Isaiah 5:20,21:

20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!

If you have difficulty in distinguishing mockery from honesty, this is mockery:

Do you think writing long proselytizing broadcasts, and mocking your mates here, will help ?

I've bolded the most scoffing/ridiculing terminology. The latter part is just painting something negative (bad) on my honest (good) commentary.

Proverbs 26:23-26

23 Like a silver glazing over a piece of earthenware

Are affectionate words from* [Lit., “fervent lips with.”] an evil heart.

24 The one who hates others disguises it with his lips,

But inside he harbors deceit.

25 Although he speaks graciously, do not trust him,

For there are seven detestable things in his heart.* [Or “For his heart is completely detestable.”]

Not that it isn't a nice concept to focus on that which we can agree on, but can you agree that by referring to all my commentary as "proselytizing broadcasts" you were scoffing at my commentary, having a ridiculing effect especially on those who have been conditioned to see proselytizing as a behaviour that is 'beneath them', so to speak, they look down on such behaviour and disapprove of it; often associating a person who in their eyes is proselytizing with someone who is brainwashed, conditioned and indoctrinated by "dogma and doctrine", not able to "look beyond dogma and doctrine" (as you put it), with nothing worthwhile to say, not worth listening to, and automatically downgrading anything they might have said or might say in the future? Often also having the effect or accompanied by the attitude of looking down on the person they perceive as proselytizing (religion), while they ignore how often they themselves are already proselytizing their beliefs/opinions (even when it's deliberately done in a subtle manner where they deliberately phrase things in such a way to make it appear that they are not proselytizing). And why say "broadcasts" instead of simply "commentary"? What was the purpose or reason you did that? Are you willing to be honest about your motive to say it like that?

Btw, I covered the subject of God, and the definition or meaning of that word, on page 10 already. The question concerning God's existence I spoke about on page 8, somewhere in the middle of the thread (after page 30 at least), and my comment from a few days ago.

a reply to: Nothin

Wouldn't it be nice to get some of the others here, interested in the unnamable, and unspeakable ?
The great mystery, that we all share ?

Yes. That would be nice.

Words don't reach it.

There's this inside joke that a few of my pals and I had,
from a time when we were stoned.
One of us was tapping another on the shoulder
and saying "Here. Take this cloud."

So every once in a while when there were no adequate words, one of us would say, "Here. Take this cloud."

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You mentioned Santa Claus in this thread couple pages back.

I wrote a story today. The Dissapointment Check it out.

a reply to: pthena

What a lovely, morning-after, CampyFire™ kinda story ! LoL ! !

Deep in the fire : no words, no lies, no bs.