When/ how did you become an atheist?

Besides I believe in science not religion. Im not exclusively limiting my belief system to science because were talking about a concept thats not a closed system. Science can only be done in closed systems.

Religion has too many boundaries, contradictions and the concept itself bleeds with absurdity since this religious reality would render existance to be meaningless in the most respects especially in the sense that it is all some "test".

I'll even go further and explain to you why science isnt applicable relating to the question at hand.

Through science we understand what appears as solid is not. (Exchange of "data" from senses, enviorment and various triggers)

That the universe at some point was "contained" and somehow expanded or continues to expand.

That something "physical" even if it appears "still" is essentially energy in constant motion.

These three points among many more lead me to believe that I cant approach the question of what is the premise of origin without considering one thing.

This could just be a *possible perspective* based on our senses and the data available. This could all just be an "illusion".

Infact its most likely an illusion because quantum physics does not seem to conform to the "natural" laws of science though it can be said it makes the composition for these constructs to exist in the first place.

There is a "universal" science that applies to the natural and the "un-natural" I would suspect its (acceleration, constant motion) the intergration of the physical and consciousness is some consequence of this constant motion evolving itself to be more efficient. Under this pretense I believe there is a god but not many would define the construct of evolving matter as such.

I just cant see how a monkey could throw a bunch of auto parts against a wall and eventually make a car.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My bad. I had a migraine and wasn't thinking straight that day. Basic high school edumacation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

bah ahah hah ahah

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where is you EVIDENCE to support the idea that existence could be an illusion?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We could be living in a computer simulation. It's possible. In fact, it's more likely than not. Consider that in the future, if we can simulate a universe, there could be many more copies existing than the actual universe.

 

Are you trying to say the theory that the universe computes is evidence for a belief in god? I could go along in principal that the universe computes. But to attribute wholesale or individualistic intelligence is untenable as it is a, without evidence, b, unproven.

Ok to theorise, but we can't prove it. To discuss this as philosophical possibility has intellectual benefit. But to wholeheartedly BELIEVE your theory, and refuse to present it as a possibility is a tad hopeful. Hopeful that we are going to a, buy it, b, not blow your stance out of the water.

I have a theory too. But I do not pedal it as fact.

No evidence to support this. Is this a fanciful theory or fact?

You are not a god, and are restricted to the observable. 'Think' is to strong a word. 'Think that maybe' is more the appropriate phrase?

Ok, so now you are saying you do not believe your belief. Sounds very mixed up. You would get a much better response here, from members like myself and Sciwriter if you worded your whole theory in a more possible-maybe-type way.

You have got to get a handle on reality, and waht it means for your stance within, and the way to present it externally. Then you would be able to have a more meaningful conversation here.

 

Yeah, sure, could be. But it needs to presented as a maybe and not as a belief, or even a fact.

For a claim to be made it needs support of evidence of substance. Cobbling together something and presenting it too strongly will result in no assessment of its potential, and instead a knee jerk 'shut the hell up'.

 

There is no emperical evidence supporting that reality is an illusion since it would negate the point of the assertion.

Relativity has to decieve us in order to exist.
Our reality can verywell be a mere illusion. Physical properties are soley determined by subjective thought from our senses and the material we interpet to be physical due to its properties and our interactions with this property that has evolved to current extents.

Your eyes have the power to absorb an immense amount of sights. Relative distances, colors, speeds, and weight can all be instantaneously determined just with the eyes alone. They absorb all of this matter and send it to the dense matter right behind them and this creates a still image. The process of absorption, brain taking a picture is what creates the illusion of existence.

The eyes take in the information, the brain has to create a picture. The brain is too dense to process motion in the micro levels and it has to process one frame at a time. Our bodies are able to move faster than this process that’s why when you watch a kinetic dancer his motion seems blurred. He is moving so fast that your brain cannot keep up and stores a series of images that are hybrids of two frames hence the blur. If a high-speed camera sensitive to true properties was present, since it stores frames at a rate faster than our brains, it would be able to capture the true watery motion.

[ENC]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hGhjFGKdTEM[/ENC] Watch this bee.

We have to use a sensitive high speed camera to capture this motion. The true speed of true interactions cannot be said. We think we’re moving along at a certain pace due to relativity when we’re actually not going anywhere. It takes a a lot of energy to create our seemingly fluid motion just as it takes a lot of energy to create the seemingly fluid motion you see above
Air or space is the baddest substance out there. Remember the faster our high-speed camera or artificial eye moves, the slower the motion. In actuality, the truer the motion. If we had a camera that could capture an infinite number of frames we would never see the actual motion. The bee would seem to sit in one place our entire lifetime. Now what if we lived in this state for an eternity? Our perception of the world around us would jive with the images captured by or infinite-frame capturing camera. We would see every last movement the bee made if we sat there forever. Even if the film was a two-second jaunt atop a flower if shot a camera that recorded in an infinite frame rate would play it back for infinity. Matter of fact it would still be recording it as you watched it. Don’t even try to wrap your head around that. We literally cannot, that is why we have this relativity thing going so we don’t have to. If it wasn’t for relativity we would just sit in one place forever or explode in a millisecond.

The faster our camera captures images the slower they appear to move. In its frame could be a humming bird, a snail and jet. If the speed of the camera is fast enough, when you watch the film back all three of these objects will not seem to move at all. They just stay still for eternity. If the camera moves ridiculously slow, say one frame every one billion years you would get to see how evolution really works. You would see the true nature of our LIVING celestial bodies. Imagine viewing our solar system at this speed.

Consciousness and interpretation have to exist for the universe to appear the way it does.

But is the way we percieve something make it an absolute? Is the universe truly the way it is? Or one possible interpretation due to our senses??

Could an ant ever truly understand the world?? Is a good analogy if well ever truly understand reality. Its not meant to be understood. It would negate free will and render everything to be meaningless.

 

I think you took what I said to the extreme. I agreed with you on your post almost in it's entirety. All I was meaning to point out was that the scientist that has faith, that is humble, is aware of the limits of human perception is different than the arrogant atheist that is self assured of his supposed infallibility. The scientist that isn't, has not belief beyond what can be perceived by his senses and beyond that what can be measured, reproduced, calculated, and predicted. This was not meant to be an attack on all scientists or all empiricists. I was just pointing out the differences in the willingness to employ reasoning in the lack of empirical evidence. For when we speak on matters of faith, do we not have to leave behind matters of evidence and science?

The blind man who believes there is only one earth and one star, the sun, because that is all he can feel upon his skin, is the atheist. The blind man that has faith that there may be many more because he has an open mind and can imagine a universe with more though he cannot see more, has no way of perceiving any others, but only has faith that it may be possible, is the theist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

 

It is inevitable (intelligence) if you believe in evolution.
If you believe the anthropotic principle explained by sheer probability you must also consider god in the equation. The universe computes ??? Is there a better description of god.... I think not. Perhaps I'll steal that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I whoreheartedly believe in god, not the theory itself. Its mere speculation to elevate ourselves from "I dont know so your stupid if you ascertain something as the truth" Lets elevate or stay away from the religious subfora if your not interested in progressing the ideas.

So does science. Illustrate how I pedaled it as fact if every possible moment I could I included that nobody knows, its mere speculation and that it is simply a belief in god that I hold as true.

Fanciful theory that is more sound than one you can conjure up, perhaps....

Nope we are all god. Omnipotent is oxymoron basically. Doing anything would negate meaning I suspect experience transcended from contigent matter were based on and god is the source of origin, in my interpretation.

Screw Sciwriter. He is even more off base than athiests who dont have an opinion. We essentially have the same beliefs and are arguing about labels. God had to be. Nothing can explain the dynamics of survival, will and consciousness especially in a vaccum state.

I suspect you have a handle on reality? Care to enlighten us?

 

Without evidence to support a creative intelligence's means of control (transfer of data between matter to maintain a scheme) it is going to be hard to move your theory away from theory to believable fact.

This is based on the idea that an observer affects a change in quantum states. There are other interpretations of the evidence as D highlighted yesterday.

You can't present this without a smile on your face. A god could be everything, but i for one do not want to eat my neighbour lol. I have learned that this is wrong. Where is free thought in all this? And where is the straight jacket? I wouldn't want you as my neighbour LOL.

The mind constructs dream imagery in absence of the strong sensory input of the day. The mind uses this time to process and store (change the nature of the storing) of the days input. To say dreams are evidence to anything outside the laws of physical reality is just uneducated.

How about that.

Evolution isn't the study of consciousness.

But you can't prove it is all god, so no one here is listening to you.

I am unable to pin down a coherent point to this questing. If I ignore the incoherence of the extra in brackets, then I can answer that if reality was different then chances are anything meaningful within said altered reality would be composed of aspects different to this reality. Does this answer your question??? (where is Dwayne?)

Again you are hoping, and believing without evidence. You have cobbled together BITS of science and BITS of religion to make one incoherent whole.

I am still not getting a formed picture of your theory so i must assume there isn't one, and you are just 'stream of consciousness' waffling.

Is reality the ultimate state? No way of knowing. Maybe something more complex and efficient exists out there in infinity. Just don't base your psychology on incomplete evidence. One must always maintain and project a healthy scepticism.

 

I am not here to enlighten anyone with a possibility.

You HAVE pedalled this theory as fact with the wording you have used. They fact you rescind this now is great.

But to then say you wholeheartedly believe in god shoots you down once more.

My theory is much more comprehensive than this mixup of science and fringe philosophy used to fudge the science, coupled with borrowed theist teaching.

 

Beliefs have to be based on facts? It cant be reduced to logical reasoning infered from contemporary understandings and truths?

Furthermore, what is your belief relating to the premise of reality?? Is it the convinient position "I dont know so shut the fuck up for thinking you know something even though your not ascertaining what you know as truth" ?

Who cares does it make his alternative interpretation anymore valid than mine? Who is to say? A particle is not sufficient in observation it has to be a conscious system.

See myabove post about the strong sensory input and how brains interp. it


How about that.

How do you know? How are you sure?

You are. I dont care.

Incoherence? Speaking of which. Your reply doesent make much sense.

Which is better than nothing? Or a irrational reservation because of labels and association?

Sure. Can you explain how a vaccumn state creates said "streams of consciousness" or furthmore can you explain how come our brain (you and I) arent conscious of an event untill after it takes place?

I do maintain healthy scepticism. I dont ascribe to any belief exclusively. Say something that makes more sense and you got me.

 

Obviously not just obstructions eh?

Cite an instance or retract this statement. I dont rescind anything.

Do you have a belief ? My concept of god is irrefutable in my eyes. Sadly you disagree. If you dont have a better theory that negates god as unnecessary than I would rather not hear from you.

PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US

 

An all powerful and all knowing God that doesn't intervene is just as guilty as one that does (and still causes mass anguish and destruction). If there was an all powerful being I hold him responsible for not aiding in "molding" this hellhole we call the Earth. If there was a God, HE created this world, HE designed us as individual beings, and therefore he's responsible for all suffering. The freewill thing is BS.

He's equivalent to father neglecting his duties as such, and stands by while his children get tortured and slaughter. But oh he's loving and caring. There's no possible argument you could give me that absolves him.

 

JuNie this will absolve him/her--IT DOES NOT EXIST!

 

If you wish sciforums members to take you seriously you have to base your belief on proven facts.

You offer no proof. And you are still mixing up. Do you believe your belief, yes or no???

You can't use an unproven interpretation to base a theory on, not if you pedal it as fact, or believe in it. How can we take you seriously when you say you believe your theory?

I am not listening to your theory because it isn't fully formed. I am listening to your words but they make no sense. This in effect is not sinking in. So in that sense I am not listening.

how could it when it is replying to the nonsensical?

So you are saying you believe your theory. this is not science.

Explain the relevance then I will tackle this. It is only relevant to your belief. Science is about uncovering facts.

Again you are saying you do believe. Then you are saying you don't. Mixed up. Very.

 

A lot of anger here. You should look to make your life rewarding.

 

This is pedalling your belief as a fact. For you to say you believe in this unproven BS, you must be asserting this is a fact.

I have had enough of this BS. Seems all you have is BS.

There are stalwart theists on this forum who present better than you.

Later.

 

:m:

What would intervention look like? Regrowth perhaps for some would be sufficient in terms of a reaction? For me the implications of what is neccesitated for life could be considered a reaction. We basically live off death. If you want god to manifest as an entity and help save the world I would rather be asleep or "not conscious" because that would negate "free will" and the world would eventually blend the values of good and bad untill they were obsolete happy fat california cows singing and all. Like a dream being an emulator instead of whats being emulated which would kindof suck ass afterawhile if we were to lets say dictate what will happen in the dream completely as a system. What if this was one out of infinite reality systems based on interactions that will always evolve relating to contigent matter and its expansion with its mirroring of layers forming different properties. Like life and death really being nothing but entropy/energy and relativity in a purely biological experience eventually we go back to the vaccum state and collapse again...which is instaneous not eternity and resurface.

Would you rather keep your children ignorantly blissful? Or give them the true low down in lieu of certain consequences that will result from doing so...

 

Even a foolish child can grow up when he knows what Pain is.