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

[Ben Dhyan]

Correct, because what you are saying in incomprehensible. You don;t seem able to break it down into factual statements that anyone can comprehend, so, it's called woo woo.


Welcome to being a human being with language ability.


"the real is forever beyond the conceptualization"

This is such an excellent example of your woo woo nonsense.

Could it be you are trying to say something like the idea of an appleyour mind conjures is not any specific apple that is growing on a tree somewhere, it's just the general idea of what we understand are apples?

If so, how is this problematic? I understand the general idea of apple is not an actual apple.

If not, then you get even less credit.


More woo woo.

I'll tell you what, here is a challenge for you, ut all your woo woo into a real life example. Show us with adequate detail how your woo woo works.

So if I explain to you that if you think of an apple, your imagined apple is not actually an apple, do you think that is woo? A real apple you could eat, but your dualistic mind could never create a conceptual apple that is an edible physical apple. The real apple is on the other side of the concept of a real apple.

 

[F1fan]

There is nothing wrong with the dualistic mind wrt being creative in mortal life, that's the whole purpose of it. However it will never in all eternity enable a person to apprehend absolute reality,

Well don't worry about it, because humans die.

And explain what "absolute reality" is and how it differs from "ordinary, everyday, budget reality", you know, like going to work, paying bills, sex, eating, etc.

only a mind in the non-dual state

OK, what is the dual state? And how does this differ from the non-dual state? Use facts.

can realize the underlying unity of all that exists.

Describe this unity, use fascts. And how does a person only realize it in the non-dual state, but not the dual state?

 

[We Never Know]

Did you just compare your god to magical leprechauns?


Anyhow, false dichotomies aren't going to help your case.

My god? Lmao.

You deserve a double face palm for that comment.

 

[F1fan]

So if I explain to you that if you think of an apple, your imagined apple is not actually an apple, do you think that is woo?

No, that is something obvious, and something I figured out long ago. Some might not think about this, but functionally their minds operate knowing it. Our brains learn to understand certain shortcuts and use them without deliberate thought.

A real apple you could eat, but your dualistic mind could never create a conceptual apple that is an edible physical apple.

This falls into the "no shi*t" category.

The real apple is on the other side of the concept of a real apple.

Do you really think any of this is profound? This is like first year college philosophy. Been there, done that.

Even a 10 year old knows that they can't eat an apple in their imagination. They know they can only eat a real apple. Now they might not be old enough to understand all this abstractly, but they know it from practical experience.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes. It is any time a religious person claims that the universe is created by their God.

Something or someone outside the laws of physics, caused the physical world to spring into being. The universe cannot create itself when it did not exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you believe a universe sprang into existance without any mechanism whatsoever, including time?

Read the post again that you are replying to.
Does it say anywhere anything at all about how the universe originated?

We have little idea of what time really is - it's perhaps the ultimate mystery of physics (forget dark matter, dark energy)
Yes, the big bang as Hoyle mockingly called it - is a fairly new concept, springing from the work of Hubble.

1931 isn't what I would call "new".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The effect of the Big Bang is the universe itself, no?

The big bang doesn't address the origins of the universe.
It's about the (continued) expansion thereof.

Never heard that expression 'painting the bullseye around an arrow.'

Really?

I like it a lot. It illustrates a common fallacy quite nicely.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Reality is always in the now, whatever you think is reality, whatever you do is reality, regardless of opinion, regardless of your conceptual opinion. You don't believe in spirit, that is reality, you believe in spirit, that is reality.

You aren't making any kind of sense.

Reality is that if you jump from the Empire State building, you won't live to tell the story.
And believing otherwise isn't going to change that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Human opinion, Christian and Atheist is just that, reality is on the other side of any and all opinions. But if a human mind is able to be still and free from thought, it ceases to have any opinion on anything, reality is present directly, not a thought about reality, not a conceptualization, but non-dual reality.itself.

Literally none of that word salad is relevant to the post you are replying to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Reality does not depend on beliefs, it just is.

Right, so why do you seemingly keep arguing otherwise?
So... if you have beliefs and wish to know if they are accurate, then the only way to test them is to poke reality and see if it matches your beliefs.

ie, you require empirical evidence.

 

[rational experiences]

I've learnt human men apply the theme my human man's word use. My human man's word use then worded explanation.

Life is mutual equally owned says a man yet then says...but I don't own what a woman human does.

Who asked for your commentary?

Just that self advice says hence there is no number to self a man's being representation. Words thoughts beliefs.

By the presence of a human woman.

First you have to exist to assert any type of human consciousness.

Basic self advice. I don't need a degree....wait a minute you used degree first in calculus. Then you awarded yourself as self congratulatory.

Fake use of explaining by men who only needed group support to begin fakery.

For if a man said humans own electricity just by human mans word use he first said mass did.

Now did just a man today misuse the word term electricity. Claiming a human had it bodily owned by chemical explanations?

Yes he did. Misuse con by the word also. Not just the word is science.

So a long time ago the theist human was determined by consensus of meek family. Living non threatening non violent and loving. He was a liar as the theist of science and life's human destroyer.

We were never wrong the meek.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would argue that one can tell if something is design even if he has no prior knowledge of manufacturing

Depends to what extent you mean that.
Not having knowledge of a certain type of manufacturing, but having knowledge / experience of other types of manufacturing, would not necessarily be an obstacle.

Off course, there are objects that are very obviously not natural. Any human from the last 10.000 years would surely recognize instantly that an iphone or a car is not a natural object.

However, humans from as recent as, say, the dark ages would not necessarily recognize a randomly shaped yet intentionally designed carved rock from a naturally occuring one.

Hence why I said that it is a combination of understanding what nature generally can do and being able to recognize signs of manufacturing.

Yes, there are certainly situations that one isn't able to recognize the signs of manufacturing, for a variety of reasons - ignorance being the most obvious one. At that point, one is only left with ones understanding of what nature can and can't do.

Note here how being ignorant of knowing what nature can and can't do, runs the risk of ending in a false positive where one thinks it is designed simply because one does not know how nature might have accomplished it.

This is how we end up with gods throwing lightning bolts, controlling the tides and storms, controlling sunset and sunrise, controlling the volcano's and earthquakes, etc.

Or is this another case where you don’t affirm nor deny anything ?

There really is no need for this party-poopin' passive aggressiveness.

How did the first archeologist of the world who discovered the first carved rock, knew that it was designed? (if he had no prior knowledge on how carved rocks are supposed to look like?

Your hypothetical makes no sense.
Archeologists would know very well how carving would look like. Carving is something humans have been doing ever since homo erectus figured out that stones can be fashioned into cutting tools.

And I just told you above that a person who doesn't know about carving would not be able to tell the difference between a randomly shaped carved rock and a naturally occuring one. And if that is the case, then archeology is not a job that person will be doing.

If an Alien ever finds the Roseta Stone, would he be capable of concluding that the carvings where design?

Depends on the alien.

If the alien is like a cat or a fish: no.
If the alien is an intelligent being so advanced that he managed to travel lightyears across space to get here: yes. That alien will likely instantly realize that it's a written language.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

well you are assuming without evidence that something before the big bang existed

Dude....

How many times must he repeat that that is not what he is saying?
Why do you insist on doubling down on strawmen?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Something or someone outside the laws of physics, caused the physical world to spring into being.

This claim requires evidence.
Got any?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All I am saying that god (or unicorns) are better that something known to be impossible

You don't know what is impossible in advance.

Many things that were deemed to be impossible in the past are very possible now. Common even.
And vice versa: many things deemed possible in the past, turned out to be very much impossible.

Pointing out that something is not shown to be impossible, is a very very poor way to support your claims.

If someone knocks your door, a “unicorn” would be a better explanation than that a married bachelor

A married bachelor is impossible by definition.
Whereas what you are calling "impossible" in context of cosmological origins, is not impossible by definition. It is primarily "impossible" in your mind because you don't comprehend it. Kind of like how it was "impossible" for the flow of time to be relative connected to speed / gravity, until Einstein explained it.

You are calling it impossible, because your mind through common sense can't conceive of it. It's not sensible to you. But off course, you don't know what is sensible in advance.
That you can't conveive of it only means that you can't conceive of it. Not that it is "impossible".

It might be impossible. It might be wrong.
It might also not be.

Do agree with this specific point? Yes or no?....... just joking I know you will not answer to this question, directly you would rather change the topic and make a completely different point

And again with the juvenile passive aggresiveness.

 

[PruePhillip]

This claim requires evidence.
Got any?

Sure have - we are here.

 

[PruePhillip]

Read the post again that you are replying to.
Does it say anywhere anything at all about how the universe originated?



1931 isn't what I would call "new".

Yes new, there's plenty still alive today who were taught the universe is eternal and unmovable. Including Einstein actually - and my grandparents.

 

[leroy]

You have no point. The scenario you offer has never happened, it’s not likely to happen, and frankly just implausible and ridiculous. If you find a gear in Antarctica that is many hundreds of millions of years well that’s gonna be a question for scientists. But as it is this hasn’t happened, it’s unlikely to happen, so it’s not really relevant to anything.

Then please do not answer to my comments, if you will not address the point being made in that comment

 

[leroy]

No, that is pretty explicitly NOT what I am assuming if I am saying that the universe has no cause.

It *would* be what I was saying if I said the universe DID have a cause.

Ok then the big bang happened without a cause ? ... you are still assuming causless events without evidence

 

[leroy]

It would hardly be considered conclusive evidence. A LOT of alternative explanations would have to be eliminated before design would be supported.

Well those alternative explanations can be tested