If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 73

First Previous

page

119

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Vintage.Wine

@Vintage.Wine

Goldie

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Hi Vintu 😉. First of all, I have a request for you. Please don't mix up my replies to other posters. You see, there are various views here and I am replying to them. Others offer different hypothesis than you, so I discuss that. You have some other hypothesis and I discuss that with you. So, don't reply to my replies to others if they don't match your theory because I am replying to theirs.

Freethinker 😆

My reasons behind doing so were pretty obvious ..You went poof for like a couple of days ..As if the GOD abducted ya abruptly for being agnostic ..😆 ..So to keep both the debate and my interest in it going I was left with no choice but to present the same set of questions ( That you didn't answer ) to other erudite here for evaluation by them. ..But anyways I ll remember this request by you and enact your suggestion ..the next time you go missing .. 😆

You are welcome to present hypothesis. But with some observable evidence or something else. Do you want me to accept hypothesis just because? Should we start accepting any hypothesis anyone proposes just because? If you want your hypothesis to be recognized, show ho its a improvement over the current model.

Well I guess I presented ya with my observations ..and only then built my hypothesis around that ..I gave ya several examples which defo weren't shonky, ..So I bet they needed recognition ..and that's the very reason the others here chose not to consider them trivial and Pignore 😆

Tat is just mixing up things that don't mix. Here is why.

First, numbers are just concept. They don't exist by themselves. Does 0 exist? That is a question that makes no sense. You may ask does 0 ball are on table. Which means no ball are table. Understand? <<<<<   So you admit that the numbers are conceptual ..There is nothing real about them ..And you still believe in em .and make the math your religion .. 0 is something that doesn't exist ..1 and 2 DO Cause you can count objects as 1, 2 and so on...My question was about the wide use of ZERO as the number to fumble around the equations to reach a conclusion that dismisses the existence of something that you believe doesn't exist .. The theory though would die of quickly if proper consideration is given ..the ZERO it is ..that the math resorts to LIVING / EXISTING ...Someone rightly said ..' Those who live by the sword ..Die by the sword' ( Must be some drunken prolific philosopher ..Who looked at everything candidly 😆 ) So ZERO is the killer here ..that invalidates your math ...

Second, you yourself say that I exist in 0D and then say dimension less. 0D is a dimensions, so no I am not dimensionless. So, rest of your post is wrong as it was built on wrong premises.     Now this is a huge contradiction by you ...In your statement before you said ..ZERO doesn't exist ...And now you are like ...0D = ZERO D does 😆 ..Make up your mind mate ..Whats your exact stance .Decide that first ..😆 Again ..Its pretty evident that you didn't rad my argument carefully .. I said ...There is a SELF within YOURSELF. ..that exists in a dimensionless state .Not that your body exists in that way ...The SOUL it is ...The Energy ..which has no dimensions ...

Really? That is soul? That is just due to blood still being with oxygen and shock. I do not know the exact process but it is certainly biological not supernatural. And reflex actions are not handled by brain but by spinal cord. Which was still intact.   <<<<<Ahahahaha 😆 ..Seriously I didn't get ya there ..And I bet even you didn't get ya either ... A SHOCK a Reflex Action ? That lasts for 15 minutes ? REFLEX Actions are instant ..So the body moving for 15 minutes was defo not a reflex action ...By the way ..Spinal Cord is a carrier of signals .It doesn't generate none.. When the Brain disconnects the spinal cord becomes as worthless as a long electric cable in in a distant MASAI Village where there is no electricity ...😆 The cable that can only be used by the children there for Rope Skipping fun ... 😆

We don't what thoughts are, so can't really go about attaching dimensions to it, can we?
^^^ The same holds true for the GOD and the SOUL ..Since we don't exactly known what they are ...But we know that they exist ..Like our thoughts we can't attach any dimensions to none ..Point proven again ... 😊

They are considered point objects. They don't exactly exist, more like we know the probability of where it might exist. They are proposed under the standard model. You can read up on it if you wish.

^^^ ..Hahaha .. ..Point objects don't exist ..The electrons around which the whole Semiconductor concept revolves ..inevitable component of every single circuit...Even that doesn't exist ? ..So science is built around the things that don't exist ...😆 ..If you can accept that .You must accept other sciences too ( The spirituality ) which are based upon things that are not apparent to one's eyes ..One can't be partial like that towards science ...NO Hell ..😆

He believed, never said that something definitely exists.

Of course, any liver you will get will be 3D. 😆 But looks like you need a dimensionless liver from your posts. 😉

Tee - Hee ! ..That's what has been my argument ...I am trapped in this BODY of mine ..I was trapped in another in my earlier life ..and knew called myself as Someone else...Built mountains of emotions around the existence of that body ...Loved and Hated many ...Experienced pain and Grief ...and left that body one day when it became nonviable to feel such emotions ..Emotions and other feelings that are solely attached to the BODY ..I want myself to be freed of that cycle of living the life over and over again ...Which means I wanna achieve the refinement, the purification which is much needed for me to dissolve again ( And become a part of ) in the energy which I'm a part of ....MOKSHA ...Karma is associated with desires ..Even the hidden ones that all of us have ..And a state is achieved when no need for KARMA is felt ..When all desires diminish ..The cycle ends there ..and one gets purified nuff to live in a Dimensionless / Body less state again ..😆

Otherwise the life for many who refuse to understand this become the same as the Solomon Grundy tale ...

Solomon Grundy born on a Monday ... Christened on a stark and story Tuesday,
Married on a gray and grisly Wednesday ... Took ill on a mild and mellow Thursday,
Grew Worse on a bright and breezy Friday... Died on a gay and glorious Saturday.. 😆
Buried on a baking..Blistering Sunday .. That was the End of Solomon Grundy

Hic !!

Vintu 😛

PS: As before ..My quotes are in Black + RED ..And yours are in BLUE

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

After all this complex discussion. Is it possible that the answer is something simple? Occam had that one interesting Razor.

Also, If certain faith perspectives consider karma and souls essential to the existence of a God, wouldn't they try to prove/discuss karma and soul as a preliminary to discussing the existence of God.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe when we figure out everything, it ties up so nicely that it seems simple. Currently it does not look so simple, given that there could be so many possibilities that started the Universe. And how can something come from nothing or if not how can something always exist. Those questions just boggle the mind.

Karma is a justification for action right? That makes sense after we came. But here we are talking about origin of Universe.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
so why did you start the debate if you know it's not provable? It's one thing for others to think its not provable, but why start a topic on something where you know?

Because many people behave as if they do know for a fact that God exists.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
i think it was pretty concrete as examples go, unless you found things like distant-cause vague.

Of course it is vague, the whole theory is. And I gave you many examples too. People sometimes are not punished for crime. And just because a bad thing happens after you do a bad thing does not mean it was linked. Correlation does not equal causation. And even the correlation is not always there.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
coming back to your example of good stuff happening to bad people and vice versa, do you think it's totally random? Hope you don't because that's how primitive man thought- they thought things like earthquakes etc were pretty random too. Or worse, these occurrences were just the whims of the Gods. Hopefully we know better now. If nothing else, we at least believe that there most likely is a scientific explanation for it that we will one day unearth. We cant hold up forecasting weather or earthquakes etc just because we think we dont have all the explanations.

my point is if it's not random, and we can guess that there's an explanation for it (even if not known today), then it can only be for cause that we cant measure or see. Our minds are especially attuned to relating immediate cause-effect. Perhaps your good guy did something bad in the past, and vice versa? Logical?

And you are still of the primitive thought that disrespecting an earth's idol which you assigned to be God brings earthquake? Or that we should burn the "witches" because they bring bad Karma? As I said, action will have effect. But saying that some divine interrupts many random things is just naive.

I would give an example of a child with cancer. What did he do wrong? Now very predictably, you will jump to reincarnation for help. He did something bad in previous life. OK then, one more argument. Let's go back to time when souls started coming to Earth. There would have been a start right? And nobody had any karma, good or bad. We are talking about beginning. And there would be a time first sin would have been committed. The very first one. Nobody had bad karma back then. The perpetrator will get bad karma then. But what did the victim do? If he had no bad karma till then, why did something bad happen to him?

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
actually i see that line of thinking at work everyday in the markets. Folks see good news and cant understand why the stock tanks. And vice versa. They forget what has been built into the price based on past news. They are great guys to have around if you are looking for suckers. Hope you get my point.

Even the stock markets can't be predicted certainly. And it is due to the actions of certain people, companies and traders. Sometimes unexpected things can happen. Nature can interfere in company's work. Or an employee could do something bad. Attributing it to karma is stupid. And when we talk about life of people, there are so many factors every instant that suggesting a divine process is there calculating every permutation and combination and then making thisngs happen is just naive. When we can see that it does not happen.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

But the problem of origins is still not solved. How did the lab God come about? Who simulated the simulator?

I think every theory runs in this problem. Whatever path we choose, backtracking becomes problematic. So, the thing is can something come from nothing? Or has something always existed? And why does something exists rather than nothing?

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: Aya.
@Freethinker

You don't believe in Karma ?

If you have to ask that, I would suggest reading the thread first. 😆

Quote

Aya.

@Aya.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

If you have to ask that, I would suggest reading the thread first. 😆

It's just a simple question !

I don't feel like reading the whole thing.

You guys write long long essays ! 😆

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
i was talking about 2 things- being able to create things in lower D AND having a limited perspective if we are trying to look for higher D. I used simple geometry to explain those aspects conceptually. You then suggested no such thing was possible because you see pixel depths everywhere, sending folks here in a search for dimensionless objects. First off, the example was meant to convey geometrically how lower D can be obtained. If you think the lowest common denominator is 3D, the same geometric principles would still hold if we went from higher D down to 3D, which should have suited your 3D orientation. I just happened to use 3D/ 2D because I thought that would be simpler to visualize, did not know you'd get into pixel depths and such.

Again, you cannot talk about creating in two dimensions. Whenever we study 2D in algebra, you will encounter things like, assume there is a plane with equation such and such and there is a line. It will not ask you to create things there, as it is not possible to manipulate things directly in 2D.

FYI, Dimensionlessness was suggestion of Vintu.

And rest is just making up. I didn't say 3D was lowest denominator. I said a being in certain D already exists in lower ones which means they were already there. So he is not the creator.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
now here's also why it's sounding so cute. You seemingly accept things like singularity. That's math too. There's no real-world dimensionality to it. If there is, let us know. Yes, there are some physicists today who believe it had finite extent. But given how ready you have been to buy into math equations (even ones that ignore inconvenient infinities), why then quibble over other results such as the geometric slicing example i gave? Sorry but i found it odd that you were asking for physical counterparts for certain things while not requiring the same when it came to other results like singularity.

Again, did I say that 2D does not exist? No, I said we cannot manipulate the objects in it directly. Don't know why you can't understand the difference between the two statements. That applies to singularity too, we can't manipulate it directly. Both of them exists but we can't manipulate them directly. Get it now?

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
Hope this clarifies things.. I just think the points above were very basic.

I have clarified the basic point already, but you just don't seem to understand what I am saying. You have made a wrong interpretation of what I said and are just repeating it blindly.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I understand your stand, you are operating on the same principle as I do that some things are indeterminate as of today.

I am pursuing leads. You are not coming up with any leads on your own and/or shooting down leads. If two people are working together on solving a crime, one person can't let the other do all the dirty work and still expect to get paid.

This thread was not to deal with metaphysics. It was just to get people on the same page, which I think you all agree now, that we cannot say God exists in view of current knowledge. Metaphysics is another topic and I will be very happy to give some theories of my own. There we can discuss and point out merits and demerits in the ideas and what seems likely. But there too, I would like people not just dismiss everything as "unreal" and it is all maya. That might be a possibility, yes, but that just ends the discussion because nothing can be developed on that idea.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: Aya.
It's just a simple question !
I don't feel like reading the whole thing.
You guys write long long essays ! 😆

That's what hampers the thread, discussing things which might have been already discussed. At least read 5-10 pages back to get a gist of what has been done and what hasn't.

And no, I don't believe in Karma.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.
I would like to replace the word universe with existence and the word God with Observer. I am more comfortable that way.

That would give me 2 possibilities:

Existence + Observer
Existence - Observer

Could there be existence without an observer? I haven't seen anything in science or philosophy that would say otherwise so for now I would like to go with the supposition that existence is impossible without an observer.

if existence implies observer then no observer would mean no existence. So that would rule out my second possibility for me.

But do you define the observer to be conscious only? Or particles can be observer too? If that, your questions boils to can nothing exist? That's what I said in one of my posts too. If nothing is there, can there be existence? Can "nothing" exist or something has always existed? What is "nothing"?

Quote

1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 ... 119