50/50

Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
50/50

This topic intents to measure the possibility for God's existence or at least to discuss that possibility.
Although it questions the science and scientific theories, the topic might not be accepted in the "Science" section of this forum.
I'll leave it to the moderators to find the right place for it.

The Universe

There were two theories about the nature of the Universe:

1) 1 There is no moment of creation and the Universe is ever existent

2) 2 There is moment of creation, therefore the Universe has beginning

The evidences do not support the first theory, because it is obvious that the Universe expands, which leads the science to the conclusion that there is a moment in which the expansion started.
That moment is considered to be the birth moment of the Universe.
That is how the Big Bang theory took place in the modern science.
However there is a weak point in the Big Bang theory.
Due to the quick cooling matter in the Universe we should not observe such equally distributed matter in the observed Universe.
There is also problem with the mass of the Universe and its gravitational force related to the speed of expansion and its eventual end.

Alan Guth came with new theory called Inflationary Universe which corrects three major points in the Big Bang theory one of which is: there wasn’t “explosion process” but the Universe inflated in “a fraction of a second”. According to the theory the inflation was possible thanks to the “repulsive gravitation”.

In both theories the Universe got its “birth” from a stage called Singularity.
Singularity is scientific taboo and the laws of physics are helpless for its explanation.
We can only say that Singularity is the Universal stage where is no time, space and matter.
Knowing that the matter is motion we can say that Singularity is Absolute Rest or… NOTHING.
Mind the NOTHING word!
We use that word to express lack of presence but in an absolute meaning NOTHING is unexplainable notion, because it is not only lack of presence but also lack of space for any presence.

Now, as we all can see a scientific theory is making us to believe that the observed Universe appeared from NOTHING.
Actually we don’t really believe it, because we don’t think about it.
We have the evidence of an existence and we are happy with it.

We don’t notice the lack of evidence for the assumption of “repulsive gravitation”, because it makes sense in explaining evidence – equally distributed matter in expanding Universe.

We don’t also notice something very illogical:

Obviously the “repulsive gravitation” must be greater than the one we know; otherwise the expansion wouldn’t take place. If so, why the “repulsive gravitation” is not evidently present and working IN the Universe?
It can only be explained if it is placed outside (!) the Universe or to avoid the stupid “outside” word we can use the less stupid expression “the repulsive gravitation only applies to the Universal borders” (correct my English if wrong).

We know that the science uses highly sophisticated abstractions to fit the theory to our understanding; such as “the Universe expands in itself” which is suppose to explain the question “in what space the Universe expands?”

The above abstraction does not explain the NOTHING notion due to the fact that in NOTHING there are no borders.
What do I mean?
Imagine that the Universe did not start from NOTHING but from the possibly smallest particle or even fireball if you prefer so. I’m quite sure that this is much easier to imagine than the birth from NOTHING.
A material particle has properties one of which is “end” which end we call “border”.
If we have border we have space and time to travel in direction opposite of the border.
We need very abstract explanation to accept that a border is possible only from inside but never from outside of material volume (the Universe in this particular case)

We can only make sense in explaining all this if we assume that a border is possible only through observation or conscious understanding about it. That would mean that since there is no consciousness out of the Universe, no outside border exists even if the Universe has the size of a fireball or the size of the smallest known particle.

Now we can correct the theory by saying that the Universe needs consciousness in order to exist in itself even when it is as small as the smallest imaginable particle.

Let’s talk about this before we move forward.

 [Update by Truden] This entry is part of a concept which is to be found in the first four pages of the topic.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote: I

greek goddess wrote:

I believe you when you say that you invented your theory on your own.

 

I just posted the videos

a) to show that there are some similar ideas out there

b) to help explain to other people some of what you are trying to say, and

c) to confirm that this is in fact what you are trying to say with part of your theory.

It wasn't meant to be an attack. Just for the record.

No offense taken Smiling

I watched the first video and I like the guy but neither he nor me are the first to have that questions.
The difference between that guy (and all religious people) and me is that he thinks that Spirit was INCREDIBLY intelligent and I say that it was incredibly unintelligent.
Remember, I don't say that Spirit deliberately created the universe, but the Universe is result of observation (mental description of observed subject). Which actually says that the Universe is not creation but appearance.  


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
POINT OF EXIT

POINT OF EXIT


We are at the point of exit which comes with the end of the arguments.
I can expect more discussions on my statement, but there is no way to refute it.

Until you prove me wrong atheists don't have the right to claim more than 49% possibility for God's non-existence.

Why 49%?
Wasn't it 50/50?

It was, but not anymore.
There is no way for science to prove that brain produces awareness.
How is that?
Because any evidence must be approved by awareness.
Matter can not approve itself without awareness, while awareness is self-evident.

- - -

Humans intellectuality grows, concepts changes as the intellectuality grows, but the truth is always present and unchanged.
Many thousand years ago Enoch talk about the observers with different words and conceptions.
Then Buddha talk about the Spirit with different word and conceptions and after Him Jesus talk about the Spirit and the awaken Son with different words and conceptions.

Today I talk to you and that is prove that I respect you as grown intellect.
Otherwise I wouldn't waste my time to do it.

Everything is known to you, my friends and it is delivered to you as light, sound, smell, touch and taste.
You have nothing more to observe.
Start looking for the exit.

- - -

I came in this forum because I found your attitude as deserving respect.
It will be valued much higher if you pin this topic at the top of your forums and let everybody know that you have unarguable statement about the possibility of God's existent.

Let it be only possibility.
Every belief which tends to certainty create delusion on top of which Religion takes place.
I'm forgiving person but I wouldn't forgive myself if my knowledge creates RELIGION.

Thank you for showing respect and acceptance and for giving me the real pleasure of being your opponent.

Love to All
Truden


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:

Truden wrote:

POINT OF EXIT


We are at the point of exit which comes with the end of the arguments.
I can expect more discussions on my statement, but there is no way to refute it.

Until you prove me wrong atheists don't have the right to claim more than 49% possibility for God's non-existence.

You have the burden of proof dumb ass.

Your argument is empty garbage. When you pulled "spirit" out of your ass, did you wash your hands?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:

aiia wrote:

Your argument is empty garbage. When you pulled "spirit" out of your ass, did you wash your hands?

 

There are many ways to pull out Spirit if you don't think with your ass.
Assume the non-material awareness is Spirit and is first (before the matter).

This is what actually the topic discuss - need of awareness for the existence of the matter.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm glad you finally got

I'm glad you finally got around to explaining it all...

I still dont' get how you can come to the 49 number factoring in that there is not a sliver of evidence to support your case. 


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: I'm glad you

Tarpan wrote:

I'm glad you finally got around to explaining it all...

I still dont' get how you can come to the 49 number factoring in that there is not a sliver of evidence to support your case.

 

It is self evident, Tarpan - you are thinking.
Read the topic again and you'll see that I don't need to provide evidences, because matter is impossible without awareness.
Now you must provide evidence that matter produces awareness, but as I say it is impossible, because all evidences must be verified by awareness.

NOTE: I might be not commenting as often as before.
There are difficulties to access this web site from my IP address.

 

Cheers Smiling 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Tarpan

Truden wrote:
Tarpan wrote:

I'm glad you finally got around to explaining it all...

I still dont' get how you can come to the 49 number factoring in that there is not a sliver of evidence to support your case.

 

It is self evident, Tarpan - you are thinking.
Read the topic again and you'll see that I don't need to provide evidences, because matter is impossible without awareness.
Now you must provide evidence that matter produces awareness, but as I say it is impossible, because all evidences must be verified by awareness.

NOTE: I might be not commenting as often as before.
There are difficulties to access this web site from my IP address.

 

Cheers Smiling

I don't believe that this justifies assigning a percentage chance of it being correct.  I don't believe you can provide weight to an argument based on a lack of evidences.  Weight should really only come into the question once some evidences have been provided.


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
I agree with

I agree with Tarpan...

Truden said, "Read the topic again and you'll see that I don't need to provide evidences, because matter is impossible without awareness."

This is coming at things from completely the wrong angle!

All our observations of what we perceive as "reality" point to consciousness being a product of matter - not the other way around. When someone is brain-dead, they are UNconscious. If a portion of someone's brain is removed, the functions that that portion controls will be lost - memory, feeling in parts of the body, automatic reflexes, etc. We also see examples of matter lacking consciousness (for instance, a rock), but no examples of consciousness lacking matter.

Given these reasons, it is more plausible to think that consciousness is controlled by matter. There is evidence for it. Any other theory that wishes to compete needs to have its own evidence backing it. Truden, you haven't provided any evidence.

Because there is NO evidence supporting the hypothesis, "Matter comes from consciousness," and numerous pieces of evidence supporting the hypothesis, "Consciousness comes from matter," it is more likely that the latter statement is true. As a couple people have just pointed out, the burden of proof is on YOU to give us reason to believe that matter comes from consciousness.

A lot of the arguments you have presented are like that, where you just start spouting statements as if they were fact, and then claim the burden of proof is on us to disprove it. People don't just make things up like "Maybe the moon is made of cheese. I'm right! You can't disprove that it's made of cheese, so I'm right!" There is no evidence for this; it's merely speculation. And somebody else may think the moon is made of salami, and no one can disprove that either - which one is right? This type of arguing gets you nowhere closer to the truth.

The correct way to approach the subject is to ask, "What is the moon made of?" and then set out in search of the right answer. We can send people to the moon, who bring back specimens of moon rock, which are then analyzed to determine their chemical content.

You are approaching logic and argument from the wrong way, and furthermore, putting a percentage on something that you have no evidence for. You're saying, "Consciousness is outside time and matter! I'm right! You can't prove I'm wrong, so I'm right" and automatically assuming you're right, when you have no logical reason to come to that conclusion. There may be no direct proof that you're wrong, but there is no direct proof that you're right,  either.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I think this may be one of

I think this may be one of the best decisions I've ever made 

Vessel wrote:
I was typing a reply, but thought better of it.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: I don't

Tarpan wrote:
I don't believe that this justifies assigning a percentage chance of it being correct. I don't believe you can provide weight to an argument based on a lack of evidences. Weight should really only come into the question once some evidences have been provided.

Tarpan, you have no theoretical chance for evidence that matter produces awareness.
I need to provide evidence only if I present a theory.
My statement is NOT THEORY.
It is self proven.
What must I prove and what evidences do you need?

P.S. I hope the problem with my proxy is gone now and I can follow the conversation.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Tarpan, you

Truden wrote:

Tarpan, you have no theoretical chance for evidence that matter produces awareness.
I need to provide evidence only if I present a theory.
My statement is NOT THEORY.
It is self proven.
What must I prove and what evidences do you need?

P.S. I hope the problem with my proxy is gone now and I can follow the conversation.

I'd say it's far from proven.

First, provide empirical evidence, not inferred philosophy, demonstrating consciousness that is not linked to matter.

Then we'll consider it.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote: All

greek goddess wrote:
All our observations of what we perceive as "reality" point to consciousness being a product of matter - not the other way around. When someone is brain-dead, they are UNconscious. If a portion of someone's brain is removed, the functions that that portion controls will be lost - memory, feeling in parts of the body, automatic reflexes, etc. We also see examples of matter lacking consciousness (for instance, a rock), but no examples of consciousness lacking matter.


Dear, all that you know from before is gone now.
I think you don't understand the importance of my statement.
It can not be refuted and everything that contradicts it proves itself wrong.
In other words everything which does not match my statement is false.

Brain is involved in the process of thinking as aerial, conductor and interpretor.
Brain does not produce awareness.
 

greek goddess wrote:
Given these reasons, it is more plausible to think that consciousness is controlled by matter. There is evidence for it. Any other theory that wishes to compete needs to have its own evidence backing it. Truden, you haven't provided any evidence.


Evidence for what???

greek goddess wrote:
Because there is NO evidence supporting the hypothesis, "Matter comes from consciousness," and numerous pieces of evidence supporting the hypothesis, "Consciousness comes from matter," it is more likely that the latter statement is true. As a couple people have just pointed out, the burden of proof is on YOU to give us reason to believe that matter comes from consciousness.


You are completely off.
Where did I say that matter comes from consciousness?
Listen dear, you didn't read carefully.
The point in the whole think is that awareness through observation makes the existence possible for it(the awareness) own self. If awareness does not observe matter it will be only self-awareness.
Matter can exist (after knowing the concept of "existence&quotEye-wink but what is the use of it if it is not observed and "made alive" or in other words making the awareness live in material surrounding.

Again, you have no clue of what I presented in this topic. 


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote: I'd say it's

BMcD wrote:

I'd say it's far from proven.

First, provide empirical evidence, not inferred philosophy, demonstrating consciousness that is not linked to matter.

Then we'll consider it.

 Makes no sense after everything I said.
Consciousness OBSERVES matter - observer and observed object.

They are separated by the meaning of the "observation".

And since matter is existent because of the observation it is out of the observer and appeared to the observer as separate.

 I already told you that the mind is deceived by its own conceptions and created meanings.
Think deep.
There is no way to refute it because it is self protected as mathematical equation.

 


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
OK, let me make it easy for

OK, let me make it easy for you guys.


The awareness is always present end existent because if it is not, there won't be observer to use the five senses for observation.
I guess this makes it easy and kind of provides evidence for awareness without matter.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: OK, let me

Truden wrote:

OK, let me make it easy for you guys.


The awareness is always present end existent because if it is not, there won't be observer to use the five senses for observation.
I guess this makes it easy and kind of provides evidence for awareness without matter.

Not at all, as using the five senses requires matter. Sight is dependent upon the structures of the eye, and the reflection of light off of matter. Scent is dependent upon molecules interacting with the olfactory receptors of the nose, etc.

You have also not shown that awareness is always present. 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Truden wrote:

OK, let me make it easy for you guys.


The awareness is always present end existent because if it is not, there won't be observer to use the five senses for observation.
I guess this makes it easy and kind of provides evidence for awareness without matter.

Not at all, as using the five senses requires matter. Sight is dependent upon the structures of the eye, and the reflection of light off of matter. Scent is dependent upon molecules interacting with the olfactory receptors of the nose, etc.

You have also not shown that awareness is always present.

Whatever you say. At the end you need awareness to be aware of the observation. If you don't have awareness, all material dependencies, eye structures and sophistications around the five senses will be useless.
Awareness is needed to use the senses and it has to be present and waiting for observation.

We can go like that in circles forever.
I'm done with this "evidence".
Just think step by step and try to get out of the mind trap.
It is all clearly evident.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: It is all

Truden wrote:


It is all clearly evident.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but obviously, it's not, or you wouldn't have people telling you they don't see it the way you do, and wanting proof. 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote: Truden

BMcD wrote:
Truden wrote:


It is all clearly evident.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but obviously, it's not, or you wouldn't have people telling you they don't see it the way you do, and wanting proof.

It is your mind momentum which is playing you dirty games.
I'm sure (especially about you) that you can understand it, but you are in a mind rush now.
Think about it in solitude and mind peace and you will get it clear.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It is your mind

Quote:
It is your mind momentum which is playing you dirty games.
I'm sure (especially about you) that you can understand it, but you are in a mind rush now.
Think about it in solitude and mind peace and you will get it clear.

That's a pretty cock post.  Perhaps you should find somewhere else to push your tripe becuase clearly no one here is buying it.