PROBABILITY OR POSSIBILITY OR JUST IMPOSSSIBLE

[Unification]

Good point, you could fit a zillion immaterial deities into it. And still have room for leprechauns.

According to a material world, all of those exist as reality in the universe somewhere. I suppose you indirectly believe in all of them without being consciously aware of that.

 

[Unification]

Pure horse puckey.

I understand why you don't want to engage with consciousness. You don't know what to do with consciousness. So you ignore it. First you can’t measure consciousness. You can’t weigh it. You can’t put a ruler up against it. You can’t time it. It doesn’t fit into the things that you like to get a hold of and measure. You can’t put numbers against consciousness. If you want to ignore it, and avoid it, that's your choice. It is horse puckey and has no value and is worthless to you because you cannot grasp it.

So there seems to be no need for you to explore consciousness. And yet, this is the interesting thing, consciousness is the one thing of which we are absolutely certain. And we can doubt everything else.

 

[McBell]

I understand why you don't want to engage with consciousness. You don't know what to do with consciousness. So you ignore it. First you can’t measure consciousness. You can’t weigh it. You can’t put a ruler up against it. You can’t time it. It doesn’t fit into the things that you like to get a hold of and measure. You can’t put numbers against consciousness. If you want to ignore it, and avoid it, that's your choice. It is horse puckey and has no value and is worthless to you because you cannot grasp it.

So there seems to be no need for you to explore consciousness. And yet, this is the interesting thing, consciousness is the one thing of which we are absolutely certain. And we can doubt everything else.

Such praise for your gap.

 

[Sapiens]

I understand why you don't want to engage with consciousness. You don't know what to do with consciousness. So you ignore it. First you can’t measure consciousness. You can’t weigh it. You can’t put a ruler up against it. You can’t time it. It doesn’t fit into the things that you like to get a hold of and measure. You can’t put numbers against consciousness. If you want to ignore it, and avoid it, that's your choice. It is horse puckey and has no value and is worthless to you because you cannot grasp it.

So there seems to be no need for you to explore consciousness. And yet, this is the interesting thing, consciousness is the one thing of which we are absolutely certain. And we can doubt everything else.

I suspect that I know a bit more about the neurology of so-called "consciousness" than most. There is no basis for your belief in it save that you believe in it, and I reject that sort of circular illogic. If you are absolutely certain of consciousness, with no evidence, then I'd like to talk to you about the purchase of a slightly used bridge into Manhattan.

 

[Unification]

What a load of BS.

The Discovery Institute (DI) is organisation made by creationists, trying to masquerade as scientific movement. It was this DI that started the ID movement.

Have you read the Institute's manifesto? I am referring to the Wedge Document?

Here is the link to a copy of the Wedge Document. It leave no doubt in anyone might that Discovery Institute is religious organisation, and the Intelligent Design is nothing more than hoax perpetrated by bunch of creationists. They are attempting to use politics, law out, PR propaganda to get schools to teach science classrooms and rhey have absolutely nothing to do with science.

Read the Wedge Document and tell me that DI & ID have nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with religion, especially with the Protestant creationists.

Behe's Irreducible Complexity is not even a "testable" or "falsifiable" hypothesis, that have rejected for peer-review because it is not testable, because Behe could never provide any link between Intelligent Designer and nature, because the Designer is not testable.

Call it what you will, but the word "Designer" is nothing more than another name for "Creator".

No scientists recognise ID or the discovery institute as being "scientific".

The Wedge Document leaves no doubt to their religious agendas.

The rest of your reply are also loads of craps.



ID is not based on science because it has been supply no evidences to support their creationism.

Evolution is based on the studies of biodiversity and on genes (along with mutations), and on how those genes are passed on, through parents to offspring, over x-number of generations.

The description and explanation have everything to do with selection that are naturally occurring - through hereditary, hence genetics. None of explanation explicitly or implicitly suggest deity or Intelligent Designer being involved.

ID is based on wishful-thinking that some beings been involved in creation of organic matters, and yet with no evidences to support this Designer, other than using mental contortions to twist science to fit in with make-believe logic.


More craps.

Reality is not based on mathematics.

And science is not based on mathematics. Although maths are way to better understand or aid science, science don't rely on them as much as they are rely on EVIDENCES.

Maths rely on PROOF, while science rely on EVIDENCE.

EVIDENCE is what make science "objective". EVIDENCE is what distinguish science from maths.

I've never read anything from the DI, nor do I really care to. I will check out that link though, since you've kindly sent it. Thank you, friend. All what is being done is labeling and applying ID to an institute and religion.

Reality is based on conscious experience, infinite potential, information in motion.

There would be no such thing as anything, science, mathematics, evolution, genetics, evidence, proof, etc. without conscious experience.

What's nice to me is gradually seeing a worldwide shift in consciousness, collectively. It's gradual but it's happening. Divide and issues stem from the subjective, subconscious mind. A change internally for life collectively, for a human, a shift to more conscious state of minds is what anyone should care for. The physical and material world, closed-mindedness, ego's, pride, as well as religious dogma and doctrine pose as threats. The change happens internally.

 

[YmirGF]

The change happens internally.

Then again, some are given to riding their fancy over the moon.

 

[Bunyip]

According to a material world, all of those exist as reality in the universe somewhere. I suppose you indirectly believe in all of them without being consciously aware of that.

Nope.

 

[Bunyip]

Pure consciousness.

What does that mean?

 

[Sapiens]

What does that mean?

I already told you: "Pure horse puckey."

 

[YmirGF]

What does that mean?

Like this, I suppose, only less physical...

 

[gnostic]

I've never read anything from the DI, nor do I really care to. I will check out that link though, since you've kindly sent it. Thank you, friend. All what is being done is labeling and applying ID to an institute and religion.

Because the Discovery Institute and it's Intelligent Design were started by (Protestant) creationists.

You are applying the "intelligent" and "consciousness" to some make-believe "spirits" just as the ID followers do with their God aka Creator aka Designer.

You are no different to the people of the Discovery Institute. You have the same mindset as they do and you applied exactly illogic as they do. And their Intelligent Design is not science; it is a religious belief, and they believe in the creation as given in Genesis, except they are trying to sneakily swap god's title as "Creator" with "Designer", in the hope they can sneak Creationism into school science classrooms.

Their manifesto - Wedge Document - made it quite clear they are not science organisation, but they are trying their hardest to deceive everyone they are.

You say you don't care to know anything about Discovery Institute, and yet you the same argument and same tactics as they do.

ID has never been accepted by scientific theory, and yet you claimed it is, just as they do. You clearly have aligned yourself with intelligent design, and if you have align yourself with the discovery institute, because they were the who started ID I the 1st place.

So why should I (and anyone else for that matter) believe anything you have to say?

 

[gnostic]

There has never been any evidences to support that consciousness exist outside of brain.

But if you want to use word, like "proof", then mathematically, there are no such thing as consciousness existing out of the brain.

Only people who are delusional or high on drug, or religious fanatic believe in external and higher consciousness.

 

[Unification]

Because the Discovery Institute and it's Intelligent Design were started by (Protestant) creationists.

You are applying the "intelligent" and "consciousness" to some make-believe "spirits" just as the ID followers do with their God aka Creator aka Designer.

You are no different to the people of the Discovery Institute. You have the same mindset as they do and you applied exactly illogic as they do. And their Intelligent Design is not science; it is a religious belief, and they believe in the creation as given in Genesis, except they are trying to sneakily swap god's title as "Creator" with "Designer", in the hope they can sneak Creationism into school science classrooms.

Their manifesto - Wedge Document - made it quite clear they are not science organisation, but they are trying their hardest to deceive everyone they are.

You say you don't care to know anything about Discovery Institute, and yet you the same argument and same tactics as they do.

ID has never been accepted by scientific theory, and yet you claimed it is, just as they do. You clearly have aligned yourself with intelligent design, and if you have align yourself with the discovery institute, because they were the who started ID I the 1st place.

So why should I (and anyone else for that matter) believe anything you have to say?

I'm not asking anyone to believe in anything. Please stop assuming and labeling. That is a larger problem in the world than any conditioning that the DI, religion, science can do.

There is a difference between what something "is" and how the billions of subjective minds define that something. All what is indirectly being done is applying a certain organizations definition of ID as false, and since that own organizations definition is false, than ID must be false too. It's easy to attack. There are also better words for "ID." If ID is instantly fixated and labeled to an organization, of course it's easy to attack ID, but what is really being done is attacking an organizations definition of ID, not ID itself. Taking a step further, ID is being soley fixated to the DI, and then myself is being fixated to DI. Anyone can do that. It's like saying since science was wrong about something, science must be false. It's truly weak reasoning. The word "God" for instance is brought up, and panties get in an assuming bunch, that religion, creationism, ID, belief, faith... Are already assumed and predetermined in ones mind and attached, labeled, fixated, and assigned to all of the false definitions. It's an easy and weak attack. if anything, I'm asking for anyone to be more consciously aware of what they say and do, and to try not derive to conclusions and assumptions based off of emotion or agenda. It's truly better to eliminate what something is NOT than assuming what something "IS."

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Since earth is just another way of conveying the concept of matter, and heaven is a way of conveying consciousness we have in both of these concepts the potential for the consciousness of God to become form. The polar opposites of consciousness and matter are the divine masculine and the divine feminine, and because of these possibilities, self aware consciousness can be born through the limited expression of concrete, linear consciousness.

The entire universe is based on opposites.

What's true for all of life and the cosmos, and what we all have in common, is what I'm concerned with.

Ridding of an ego, assumptions, etc... Consciousness is the only thing we can be certain of.

Expand please. Thank you.

 

[Unification]

There has never been any evidences to support that consciousness exist outside of brain.

But if you want to use word, like "proof", then mathematically, there are no such thing as consciousness existing out of the brain.

Only people who are delusional or high on drug, or religious fanatic believe in external and higher consciousness.

There really are evidences, and scientists are finding themselves more and more forced to view that the brain is a receiver of consciousness. It's hard to let go of this for the material believer, just as it is for a dogmatic and doctrinated mind to let go of religion. No different.

More assumptions. It's evident that some and all have different levels of consciousness. The brain and body are not exempt from scientific laws. A delusive mind itself and scientific laws prove evident that the ones who claim others as delusional, based on material science, are delusional themselves and unconscious to that awareness.

 

[McBell]

A delusive mind itself and scientific laws prove evident that the ones who claim others as delusional, based on material science, are delusional themselves and unconscious to that awareness.

source please

 

[Unification]

source please

To that I'll ask you, if the brain can only duplicate what already exists in the universe somewhere and have the inability to create something from nothing, what would the physical/material energy to create a delusive thought be called? Any delusive thought wouldn't be able to exist unless it exists somewhere in the universe. Unless it does exist and there is a type of delusive energy. It would be creating something delusive out of nothing, which would be an impossibility to the fundamental scientific physical laws of nature. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where does the physical/material energy come from to create a delusive thought I'd it doesn't exist and is not true?

 

[Unification]

To that I'll ask you, if the brain can only duplicate what already exists in the universe somewhere and have the inability to create something from nothing, what would the physical/material energy to create a delusive thought be called? Any delusive thought wouldn't be able to exist unless it exists somewhere in the universe. Unless it does exist and there is a type of delusive energy. It would be creating something delusive out of nothing, which would be an impossibility to the fundamental scientific physical laws of nature. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where does the physical/material energy come from to create a delusive thought I'd it doesn't exist and is not true?

Just something to think about.

 

[McBell]

To that I'll ask you, if the brain can only duplicate what already exists in the universe somewhere and have the inability to create something from nothing, what would the physical/material energy to create a delusive thought be called? Any delusive thought wouldn't be able to exist unless it exists somewhere in the universe. Unless it does exist and there is a type of delusive energy. It would be creating something delusive out of nothing, which would be an impossibility to the fundamental scientific physical laws of nature. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where does the physical/material energy come from to create a delusive thought I'd it doesn't exist and is not true?

This is your source?

Sad really.
That you would make such bold empty claims.

 

[Unification]

This is your source?

Sad really.
That you would make such bold empty claims.

I already know how and why the potential for this exists.

As most do, avoiding it only leaves the alternative evident truth, which is out of ones comfort zone and would go against ones "own beliefs" yet be evident. Just as one attacks religion and dogma, when ones own delusions are shown, they avoid and hide, and have emotional and illogical responses with zero substance.

The question asked, please answer. Thank you.

 

[outhouse]

Sad really.
That you would make such bold empty claims.

One after another.

Never provides sources