Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jason.Marshall, Jan 16, 2015.
Well said now this is the power of freewill.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
We crave expansion it's in our very design to touch the limitations of our existence.
1. Note the word "latent"
2. Given mass and energy as already "expressed" (no longer latent).
In any case, both work by the mathematical function.
A fractal does not need intelligence, only iteration (self-similar duplication)
Yes, and this metaphysical spirit (potential) always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction (energy efficiency) or "conservation of energy".
And therein lies the problem. The Internet is not sentient but understands the mathematical language of the url CODE (the mathematical address of the website)
Do you not understand what the word "fictional" means?
Try a thought experiment: Pretend, just for a moment, that God isn't actually real. Can you do that?
Okay. What next.
Does that take away your reason for living?
If I pretended it did, it would.
And why is that?
Ok, then let me pose a slightly different question; If it were proven that God is a purely mathematical potentiality, and humans are just evolved complex numbers (mathematical expressions), would you lose your reason for living?
I've no idea.
In the same way that if I ran down the road flapping my arms, pretending to fly. I would be flying.
I would question the proof.
Why would pretending that God doesn't exist take away your reason for living?
a) That was not the question.
b) On what grounds would you question the proof??
Ok if I created a virtual universe that you live in it certainly could be defined this way by mathematics or code but code is still art designed by a creator.
Because you defined an incomplete code of the creation as you always will from your side 'spacetime' you can never define a complete form 'objective conclusion' .
What wasn't the question?
On the grounds that I don't see complex numbers walking around, talking, playing sport etc.
That wouldn't be the reason. The reason would be based on my pretence. Just like I would be flying, if I pretended to be.
It was clear enough and I am still waiting for an answer. "I don't know" is not answering the question.
The same as you don't see complex numbers creating a rainbow or a Fata Morgana?
Instead you see a physical expression of God walking around, or in the rainbow?
Do you wear corrective lenses? Optometrists mathematically correct your eyesight!
You did not watch the link I provided, did you? Too bad, it might have helped in "overcoming resistance".
You'll be waiting for a really long time.
Jan has turned deflecting and ignoring inconvenient questions into an art form.
I presume that the proof would be based on either evidence or argument, not on experience. I would question such proof.
I did watch the video, but it didn't explain the origin of anything.
Nothing you have said so far accounts for origins. For example you claim that consciousness simply emerged, which explains nothing.
Separate names with a comma.