cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[mikkel_the_dane]

Profound!

Or a reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So where is his mind, in the actual non-existent non-reality? If so, how can you answer him?

Incoherent!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But they are all one with universe, because is what is real.

Incoherent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So my electric bill that I just got in the mail is not real? Excellent so I can just not pay it and my electricity won’t get turned off? Hey but that’s OK because electricity isn’t really either right?

Yeah and religious people are real and act differently than you, thus they are not wrong for how the universe works,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Or a reductio ad absurdum.

Latin, golly, really profound!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Incoherent!

That is also you as one with the universe, because it is in the universe as one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Latin, golly, really profound!

You know what. We do think differently and yet we are one.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is also you as one with the universe, because it is in the universe as one.

Ok Michael, it's my bed time, catch you later.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You know what. We do think differently and yet we are one.

Sweet!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheists have no creed. Some believe that science can explain it all. Actually I lie, this "atheist" did say that there was a possible god and it ended up being a deist idea of God, a God who got things going and stepped away. He also said that if God existed in the universe and did things then science would be able to detect that.

So... you're just going to double down on this anecdotal, vague and anonymous atheist opinion and not even going to bother to give us a name or a citation or something traceable at all?


Color me unsurprised.

Science should have stopped at the BB with God as the creator.

Why? Because that happens to be your a priori belief?
We've covered this already. Just because you already believe it, is not a proper justification.

As it is, Occam's Razor has led to more question and problems than it has fixed.

More vague empty assertions without any merit or weight whatsoever.

And the interesting thing is that God has evidence for His existence.

So you keep claiming.
Are you planning on sharing this evidence any time soon?

Scientists can never find out the truth of their speculations on that sort of thing.

How would you know that?
You couldn't possibly know that.

This is the poison that religion has become in your mind.
The comment above about how "science should have stopped at BB with god as creator", along with this one here, illustrates it clearly.

You literally are advocating for investigation, learning, progress, inquiry, questioning.... to STOP and instead to "just settle" on YOUR a priori belief of "god dun it".

This is why people tell folks like you that you are anti-science.

The only thing that can come from it is educated guesses which are in part based on the assumption that there is no God who has created it all.

There is no such assumption as I, and others, have explained multiple times already.
Further evidence that you are simply not listening and are only interested in doubling down on your a priori belief and willful ignorance.

oh well....

And as I said there is evidence for a God in what the Bible says.

So you keep claiming.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So... you're just going to double down on this anecdotal, vague and anonymous atheist opinion and not even going to bother to give us a name or a citation or something traceable at all?


...

Well you are one as you treat T=0 as a fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Truth is that which is real, False is that which is not real.

But how do you know what is real, unless you can somehow poke reality and confirm it to be real in reality?

The mind in a non-dual state is one with the real, the mind that perceives reality in a conceptual manner is in maya, in a state of duality, it is not true.

I don't understand this word salad.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you be more coherent?

What part are you having trouble with?

Again, ask any christian to describe to you "holy spirit" or "spiritual energy".

Likely you will get MANY different answers. Take any of them that feels "right" to you.

Now ask a physicist to describe what "dark energy" is. And put that description next to the description of "spiritual energy".

I guarantee you that they will be nothing alike and that in light of those definitions any attempt from you to try and claim that they are one and the same "because both are said to be omnipresent", will likely only trigger uncomfortable laughter.


And you know it.

So just drop this charade.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But how do you know what is real, unless you can somehow poke reality and confirm it to be real in reality?



I don't understand this word salad.

How do you observe real as e.g. a cat? What is the properties of real? Or the properties of confirm? I demand observational evidence of the observed properties.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your mind is in a state of duality, you believe or disbelieve in things. Reality does not depend on beliefs, it just is.

What a random thing to say as a reply to that post.

Try actually responding to the points raised.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The 'effect' is the physical realm.
From whence cometh its cause?

Dude..................................................

If there is no cause, then the universe is not an effect.

This is extremely silly. You are just labeling the universe an "effect" just to then say "therefor, there is a cause".
This is ridiculous. First identify and establish that a cause actually exists/existed and THEN you can say it's an effect.

You are trying to paint the bullseye around the arrow.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then the universe had no beginning?

The beginning of the (expanding) universe = the beginning of time.
Space-time includes time. They are essentially the same thing.

Consider a simplistic analogy of a coin.
The universe is the coin.
Space is one side. Time is the other side.
You can't have a coin with just one side.
If the coin exists, the sides exist.

Same with space/time - the universe.

This was the objection Fred Hoyle had about his new term 'big bang'

Big bang cosmology isn't "new" today. Try updating your knowledge.

 

[PureX]

The physical universe is clearly an effect, as everything in it is effected. And not only that, but the overall effect is organized, complex, and purposeful. It is an ordered, active and purposeful expression of existence.

The problem for us, as humans asking about a cause, is the we are part of the effect, and so are limited to it and by it. We have no access to any aspect of the possible cause.

 

[wellwisher]

Fictional writings are stories, based on cause and affect; plot, about imaginary places, people and things. These can be woven with realty; historical fiction. Fiction can be written in a novel, made into a play on stage, or made into an action thriller movie with special affects. As we go from novel, to play, to block buster movie, external data; for the senses are added to introspection; reading, to make it more realistic for those who lack imagination, and therefore need external stimulus to get the same fiction buzz.

This ultimate external expression; hit movie, adds the most external sensory data for your eyes and ears, so you can better empathize with the pictures painted by the author. If it is just a book/novel, only the words of the author can be used to help you paint a picture in your mind and imagination. But not everyone has that ability; turn words into the imagery needed to create the inner fictional world of the author, without external data, beyond the words.

Religious works, which are part nonfiction and part fiction; symbolism and parables, work the same way, pushing different buttons of the mind and heart that can expand the mind and heart. But being a book of many short stories, not all can get the full affect. Some need more external stimulus.

If a religious book was turned into a hit movie or series, with special affects, actors and music, to give some people the extra external data, expected by science; need to see to believe, then the charisma of faith could expand. Not all people can self visualize from just words. Science needs an external movie, so it can see the special affects to believe.

In the modern world of media, I have noticed that there is less hard factual news; non fiction, and more opinion being sold as factual news; fictional. There is this fictional overlay onto reality, being sold as reality; Trump is finally caught red handed (for the 100th time). Multimedia data and discussion is then added, to give it more external sensory data; more staging for the fictional play du jour. This fictional overlay shows that more people than you think have some form of faith, albeit in odd fictional things. This might be helping some develop the base charisma of faith, needed to know spiritual things.

 

[leroy]

There are no gods known to exist. There’s no logical or factual basis to assume any exist.



How ironic.

(@Polymath257 made a similar argument)

So what I made an argument that you keep ignoring

Your hypothesis is known to be impossible (and I explained why)

We don’t know ig Gods are possible or not

Therefore God(s) is a better hypothesis that yours