When one puts couple words together It doesn't imply that it is logic. You can ramble on all you want However one thing you failed to proof in the video was why atheist are materialist . If you going to imply something please have enough evidence to back it up.
Not sure where you expect to get by using over-generalizations, fallacy logic arguments... Perhaps you prefer that your perceptions are framed "in another physical world".
@tristenmc I have no answer since: 1) I have no need to offer or answer fallacy logic based questions, 2) I am not the "creator" you refer to, and 3) I do not expect or demand proof from the "creator" you refer to.
You lost me at "atheists are materialistic people."
Well, you must remember that Biblical Judeo-Christian God was literally making himself quite known to the people, being seen and heard by many individuals, and performing such actions as parting the Red Sea and opening up the Earth to bury some people alive at random.
Every god idea I have read is logically unverifiable (lu), by definition it can't be disproved. Much like undetectable adorable purple aliens control human governments; they are quarrelsome, hence governments go to war. I know this because they favor me and put the info in my mind.
You can't disprove this statement because the aliens are undetectable. Hence, to answer your question, find me a definition of a god that can be disproven. Otherwise, it, like every lu idea and gets dimissed.
So from what you have said, I am correct by stating that it is illogical that we should see some proof of a diety. So therefore much of the video I responded to has serious flaws in it's premise.
"Yes, many atheists are materialists. Can you give me a compelling reason why this position is inadequate?"
Because our reality consists of things that are non-physical in nature. A few examples of things that everyone admits exists in our reality that are not physical : Information, Consciousness, Subjective Experience, Dreams, Imagination, Communication, Learning. . .to name a few.
Everything you just listed has a material cause. Dreams are a product of brain chemistry. Information is a product of brain chemistry and either the spoken or written word. Consciousness, again, brain chemistry. Imagination, again, brain chemistry. Learning, brain chemistry, eye mechanics, and a host of other physical, material elements.
You have a serious misunderstanding based on your limited reality view, but I will attempt to help you. When you look at brain chemistry and say that is the cause of information, you have to explain by what mechanism. Let me help you with that, there is no law of chemistry that explains how information is translated to meaning. Because after all, information is not the media, it's the message, the meaning, the significance of it.
It's like saying that you can explain the workings of the computer as just simple electronical signals. Well all of that information on the computer is put there in an organized way by a consciousness that can interpret the information. Computers are symbol processors not information processors. If you don't believe me, ask your computer to summarize and rephrase this paragragh. It can't because it cannot extract the information. . .but YOU can.
I used to be a computer programmer; I understand programming very well. Computers are machines. Everything that comes out of a computer is the product of material and human programming.
As to neurology: our neo-cortex is responsible for rational thought. Are you suggesting that thought without a brain?
You've avoided the question: can you give me an example of something that does not depend on material?
Everything that we know about neurology is based off of an assumption that thought is created by neuro net of the brain. As a MRI tech, I very familiar with this line of thinking. But it has it's serious flaws. For one, there are levels of brain activity that we consider conscious, and levels that we consider unconscious. The problem is, there are people that are very conscious in these states (such as experienced meditators) that they shouldn't be. .
So that makes you wonder, how come? How come, one person is conscious in this state, and another person is not. Another problem with this line of thinking is the whole problem of neuroplasticity. Which basically means that the brain is ever changing based upon thought. Meaning thought can change brain. But wait a minute, didn't brain create thought? So how can brain create thought, but that thought turns right back into brain. Do you see a problem here?
Thought is the organization of synapses. Synapses make new connections and reorganize. Changed ideas are a product of this. No mystery there. And, the materialist position is still sound: thought is a product of the brain.
What do you suggest: thought is out there floating around and landing randomly on individuals. If so, what evidence do you have.
You still haven't provided something that exists that doesn't depend on matter.
"What do you suggest: thought is out there floating around and landing randomly on individuals."
Really I'm just poking around your reality view. You see the thing with information and communication is that it is not just confined to the brain. Individual cells communicate. And the strange thing about that is that they work with purpose outside of themselves. In other words they use teamwork. This is how arteries can reroute such as I have seen . .
many times. For example a lot of times the basilar artery in the brain will stenos and to compensate for that, flow is recreated from one of the other internal carotid arteries to supply that blood. All of that is not by accident.
Just to build and construct a 3D being from conception requires a considerable amount of information as well. After all, you don't want your liver cells to be in your toe.
Yes, cells react to one another; they are matter. Teamwork is a group of material elements working toward a common goal. Everything you have discussed is matter or the product of matter.
No one says evolution is accidental: natural selection is not random selection. You might want to actually learn the materialist position and the science of evolution.
You still haven't provided something that exists outside the material world. You can't.
Your question makes no sense at all. Here are the the basics of natural selection: 1) organisms mutate randomly, 2) a beneficial mutation gives an organism a better chance of survival, 3) this mutation will be passed on giving offspring a better chance of survival.
It is quite evident that you don't know anything about biology or about the materialist position. That is lazy and dishonest.
Still waiting for something that exists independent of matter.
And you have not answered adequately how cells communicate utilizing information when at first you said "Information is a product of brain chemistry." When I told you cells utilize information, you changed your mind and said "Teamwork is a group of material elements working toward a common goal." Well to have a goal you have to communicate. You used to be a computer programmer, you know computers don't come with purpose. How did cells get purpose?
I didn't change my mind; I ignored your inappropriate use of "information." Cells do not use information in any meaningful way. The react to one another chemically.
Computers were designed and produced by humans; organisms are a product natural selection. You're comparison is a false analogy.
If you are going to argue for or against something, know the facts, know the terms, and know how to make solid arguments. You just seem really ignorant and irritating.
DNA and RNA direct chemical reactions; the use of "information" in this context is not the same as how humans use information. Humans use information primarily to communicate ideas. "Information" in DNA requires no interpretation or no author. DNA is pure chemical reaction. You are using the word in a human context, which is a false analogy.
And, you're avoiding the whole point of the original argument: what substance exists independent of matter. You keep avoiding that.
1.Code is defined by the rules of communication between and encoder (a "writer" or "speaker") and a decoder (a "reader" or "listener") using agreed upon symbols.
2. DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.
3. DNA's code has much in common with human language and computer languages.
4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 Mathematical Theory of Communication model. The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
On a cold day, you perceive the cold and react to it in two ways. Your conscious mind reacts and thinks, "I need a jacket." Your metabolism reacts automatically to the change in temperature and shivers. Your mind is analyzing information, the body reacts to automatically "information."
That is the difference you're ignoring.
Still waiting for a substance that is independent of matter.
Since you clearly cannot refute 50 plus years of biologists and scientists saying that cells utilize coded information, we have come to an end to our conversation. I would suggest you look more closely into biology or mathematical theory of communication for references.
"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day." Norbert Weiner, MIT Mathematician and father of cybernetics
Dreams are not a physical world; they are a result of brain chemistry, which can be understood. In fact, there is a large body of research on dreams.
I suggest you look into the scholarship about dreams before comparing and contrasting god ideas to neural chemistry.
A question for you, what evidence do you have for the existence of god(s). There is plenty of evidence for how the brain creates dreams, so don't hide behind your badly constructed dream argument.
First of all, the point of the video was to ask you, what evidence would be sufficient for you. As with most who have watched this video, it immediately strikes a belief in you which usually results in the feeling of anger. This usually results in ad hominem attacks. If you have no belief then there is no anger involved. I will be more than happy to answer your question when you have given me the answer to the question I stated in the video.
Being irritated at a bad argument doesn't imply anything other than you provided a bad argument.
The conscious and unconscious world can be defined in a number of ways. Most significant is that brain waves change and are measurable. In the dream state, we do not have the control of our mind the way we do when we are conscious, so asking for us to provide an experiment while asleep is impossible.
Clearly you are confused here, the question that was laid out in the video was, "what type of proof would you expect to see that you aren't currently seeing in this reality?" The answer to that question would naturally answer what type of experiment you could perform to proove his existance. If you make the claim there is no proof of a diety, you should be willing to explain that further. Like what proof would be expected.
not knowing doesnt mean i should believe in all possible reasons. so i would be a agnostic towards the idea of my body in the dream world, BUT god cant exist with our modern science understanding, let me explain.
1.everything that exist is energy (Information is not energy and has no mass)
2. all energy came from the big bang. (Again, that still wouldn't explain the existance of information.)
As many people before you have done, you have avoided the question of importance in the video which was directed at YOU. What proof would be satisfying for YOU?
@tristenmc again information at its best is energy, if you mean information like the rules at a playground, then you are right those arent energy...because they dont exist exept in your imangination. oh and sory that i didnt notice your guestion that was my bad, the evidence that would make me believe in a god would be that he would come infront of a group of a hundred atheist and sceptics with me and say: yo yo im your god and then handshake me. then i would become a believer.
If he did come in front of you and a few atheist you're right you may be converted but it would not be proof, Because it wouldn't be anything substantial that you could point out. It would just be your subjective experience and no one would believe you. So I'm guessing the only proof that would be acceptable is personal subjective experience. Very interesting.
@tristenmc that is what would prove god to me, i wouldnt expect to convert others with it unless and i could get it on the camera or live on the news and that file would be proof of god. but of course it couldnt be that trusted since all the video editing programs out there =p..now if i would like to prove god for everyone i would...
1. ask him to create a gigantic statue of himself in the middle of new york.
2.or give me the power to fly and using that i could convince others.
@tristenmc about the example that johauHAU said that would prove him if god exists there was a small detail that i believe should be said. god is supposedly everywhere so in the same way he could present himself in front of that small group he could also appear in front of everyone and do the exact same thing
@johauHAU actually the theories you propose are not theories in a scientific context. they are "experimental mathematics", some might say. every scientist worthy of the name will tell you so. the fact that you use that pseudo knowledge tels me that you haven't made yourself familiar with string theory in any way, therefore you must believe in it, and that levels you with all the dumbass creationists out there.... sincerely, a physicist
@tristenmc finally for me to prove your version of a god there would need to be a way i could change a set law of this universe. In dreams realism is out the window. You can kill or die with no concequences, you can lose an arm, or even fly. For this to be a dream it would have to have varible laws, sadly though i still cant fly.
Again when you understand the meaning that this reality is really here as a consciousness trainer you will understand the necessity for a ruleset. It is the ruleset that creates an adequate learning environment. For example, if someone said to you, "let's play a game. Go!" And you asked what are the rules (structure and purpose) of the game. And they told you, there are no rules. . .well that wouldn't be very fun or enjoyable would it?
@tristenmc Dreams are the product of REM sleep (rapid eye movement) which is a stage of sleep where the brain goes into high activity and believes it is awake. Science is just a series of tests nothing more, you can not create tests with in dreams because you have no control of a dream. Also it seem to be quite a lonely belief system you have, since everything is just an Inception like layered dream then you would be the ONLY true being. Techniquely I wouldnt exist, but i assure you I do :p
Let's say in my gut there is this REALLY, REALLY smart bacteria scientist. What would food comming down my bowels be to him? Probably mana from the heavens. What could that bacteria in my gut know about the sun, rain, farms, grocery stores, or anything else. Nothing. It's outside of his reality. Does that mean that all that stuff has no effect on him whatsoever? Of course not, he just doesn't know about it. Likewise I can't comment on things I do not know about.
I understand you completely. I was like you for a certain amount of time. But the thing is I asked myself: "Why do I believe in god? I don't believe in religion and thinking it is man made but I'm believing in something that I learned from religion." What would be the psychological and personal reason for you to believe in god. It was fear and need to feel safe for me but I realized not feeling safe is better than feeling fake safe. And finally I'm at peace with myself after I turned to atheism.
I'm not sure you were ever like me, because I am not a Christian. So I do not believe in the conventional thinking of a god as you would think. Such a god is much easier to beileve or disbelieve. . .But I do know that there is something beyond the physical experience.
@tristenmc I realize how you see god. You don't see a god with personality or anything I'm aware of that. But the thing we should focus on is not outsides it's insides. you should think back to your thoughts and try to realize why you rationalize them.of course I don't really know you or anything but as far as I can see you are thinking outside of the box. that's always helpful but sometimes the things bother us the most are the things inside the box. are you sure god is not a seat belt ...
And I'm sorry I had to remove your last statement because you used ad hominem attacks, which tells me that you are still very much in a belief oriented system and have no answer for that which is outside of your belief system. Hopefully you will grow from our conversation. Take care.
Let me be clear from the start, I don't have any opinion on god because I can not make an opinion about something that I do not know. Do I know there is a source of all life and this entire physcial experience? Yes. What that source consists of, I can not say.
It's not a belief based on fear of death, but a knowledge based on life experience. Everything that I am and everything that you are is non-physical. This communication is also non-physical.
@tristenmc I understood your understanding of god wrong at first time sorry for that but still the meaning of god is what you described and also everything is psychical non-physical means non-existed.physics is the science of existence.the conversation we are having is just a series of electron arrangements in our brains and than in computers.and you are just answering the questions that you can't logically and scientifically answer yet by your god.you can call it the source but it is still god.
".the conversation we are having is just a series of electron arrangements in our brains"
Even as you say this statement you don't really believe it because you continue to try to prove your point as if it had some purpose. Of course, purpose is something non-physical. Understanding is non-physical. Information, subjective experience, meaning, feeling, consciousness, awareness. . . all of these things cannot be described by the physical.
@tristenmc also on the topic of non-physical, while it is true that the words you said are non-physical the function of our brain is extremely physical. Billions of chemical reactions a second make up thought, understanding, awareness and everything else that happens in our mind. What we see or do is just the interpratation of what our supercomputer of a brain uses the reactions to do.
You see when you realize that information is non-physical (has no mass, or energy) and it is subjective (information is the meaning the purpose and that has to be interpreted by a conscious being) then your view on reality will change.After all if you are comparing are brain with a computer then the brain is the hardware..And how long did it take the hardware of the computer to create Windows 7? Or if you prefer, ask it to summarize this paragraph.
You see when you realize that information is non-physical (has no mass, or energy) and it is subjective (information is the meaning the purpose and that has to be interpreted by a conscious being) then your view on reality will change.After all if you are comparing are brain with a computer then the brain is the hardware..And how long did it take the hardware of the computer to create Windows 7? Or if you prefer, ask it to summarize this paragraph.
Scientists are not materialistic. The scientific method isn't about using your five senses to explain nature, it is about repeatable experiments involving things we can sense and using tools that can perceive things our senses cannot. When most ask about proof of god, I think they mean what I would mean in this question, where can a believer point out influence from this proposed world that we cannot perceive. whether or not we can perceive god, we should be able to notice his influence here.
Couple of things. . .yes if you are using tools you are king of using their ability to reach beyond the limits of our senses. But even the instruments themselves are still "seeing' and "feeling" in a sense. If you know of a repeatable non-physical experiment I would love to hear it. And again, even though you have a firm "belief" that we should see some influence of god here, you haven't given me any examples of what we should be able to notice.
This is why I'm something like a agnostic. I don't believe that there is really a thinking deity, perhaps just a supernatural force, kind of like karma...perhaps in the 11th dimension. Theory based science keeps digging deeper and deeper into these questions, parallel universes, more than one of you, and 11 dimensions. I believe in science, its goal is simple, to understand our world. Religion is very strange to me...why our world is so bound by it. Religion has not proof, only "holy wars".
This is why I'm something like a agnostic. I don't believe that there is really a thinking deity, perhaps just a supernatural force, kind of like karma...perhaps in the 11th dimension. Theory based science keeps digging deeper and deeper into these questions, parallel universes, more than one of you, and 11 dimensions. I believe in science, its goal is simple, to understand our world. Religion is very strange to me...why our world is so bound by it. Religion has not proof, only "holy wars".
2- You can't proof you had a certain dream, you just can tell it, but you know the person telling the dream, therefor you have a certain amount of trust on what he/she tells you. But you don't know GOD, even more, GOD is not the one who wrote the bible but humans from 2000 years ago capable of mistakes and lost translations and you trust on that?
This is why you should have watched the video or read the posts, I am not a Christian so no I have no faith in the bible as it is believed in by Christians. I have a different take on it, but that is totally unimportant to the topic.
@tristenmc I don't know if anyone has told you this, I didn't bother reading and the video is kind of old, but I am doing it just because I felt compel by the question (I don't know if the word "compel" is writing correctly there, English is not my first language). Anyway to the point.
1- How to proof the dream you are dreaming, easy, you can shape your dream if you know you are dreaming (Just like GOD could if he wanted in our world).
We do have philosophical evidence that would point to an certain things being outside of reality. Such as the laws of mathematics. But all of these thing create direct affects in the real world and that is how we know about these objectively. There is also no evidence to support that any of these things that are inherently removed from the physical reality are in any way a result of a superior being or mind. We do have gaps, but as of yet we have no reason to fill them with gods.
I think you are a little off subject here. The question that is laid out in the video is what evidence would be satisfactory to convince you of a deity? Not whether or not you have seen such evidence.
I require the same proof for a deity that i would need for any other thing in the universe. Direct testable evidence is required for proof. If a person has a theory, that person should be able to basically say "see for yourself" and point to a specific thing that the other can evaluate. I will say that it is hard to do with "god" do to the properties given to it. For example, if "deity" is defined as all knowing then you need to point to testable instances of that omnipotence.
Even if I wasn't expecting to see god himself I could expect to see evidence that he one existed. Saying that there is "existence" does not show that there is something that exist outside of it. Atheist don't believe that there is a conscious mind that exist outside of the laws of a natural reality. Every century we tear down another layer of superstition by using science. The origins of the universe is different only in the fact that we have nothing to compare it to.
Well the question this video was trying to present is what kind of evidence would you expect to see? Or actually what evidence would convince you? If you can come up with no clear thoughts of what evidence would satisfy you, then you can never get there. Of course you could always take the stance of realizing that there are some things that you just can't know.
Your argument doesn't mean anything. Their are incongruities within the statements you make. These are more metaphysical statements. It is easier to prove the reality than the dream. In reality we are all connected. In the dream you are having a singular experiece that only pretaines to you.
As for god... anything that has no properties and can not be defined by attributes does not exist. In contrast if it is in everything than it is nothing.
@Rundori " anything that has no properties and can not be defined by attributes does not exist."
I'm assuming that the properties and attributes that you are looking for are in physical reality. Yet we have evidence of things comming from a non-physical source that don't have properties or attributes, such as an idea. This comes from the consciousness of a person (which you can not prove because it is subjective) who brings this non-physical idea into physical form.
Here is a rebuttal, how can we can acknowledge a god if the god is not part of this present reality? What gives us the idea that there is actually a god, if as you say, is not part of this physical realm? It's a redundant question, to tell you the truth. By the way, I hope you know what's lucid dreaming, you're able to acknowledge a dream and react within it under full consciousness. Again, your questions just refutes the belief of believing in a god.
I may not be understanding your rebuttal correctly, but what I was saying is that the creator or anything is never "in" the creation. That defies logic. A software creator is not "in" the software. The creator of the MRI machines that I work with is not "in" the MRI. So therefore if you were looking for the creator of our physical universe, you could not look "in" our physical universe for him/her/it. Also I have had several lucid dreams.
Such compelling questions that really demand closer examination of our beliefs. Thanks so much for sharing, I believe that attitudes like this can make a real positive difference in the world. :D
@MissAllygatorr Even if that were true, which it isn't (we say it isn't true because it is the default position on something we know little about; i.e. the universe having always existed makes about as much sense as a creator having always existed), it still wouldn't specify which of the thousands of gods are the creator. Also if god created the universe, then who created god? You could say he is not a creation, but then I could say the universe is not a creation.
I have only seen examples of Creation in an abstract sense. Such as in art, poetry, music ... etc.
e.g. You do not create a cake. You TRANSFORM the raw ingredients into a cake. You can however create a cake recipe because the recipe(information) might not have existed before.
Since creation is proof of a creator (as you put it) in this example you would be God. I believe that we are all God with the power to transform and be creative. But what do I know...
Just because we can transform pre-existing elements does not automatically make us divine. God has many many more attributes than creativity. We only got that power from the Creator Himself (creation emulates the Creator).
What do you mean by an abstract sense? Is nature excluded?
I Don't Know if there is a God, however i think it is highly unlikely. Now to the dream thing. Well for me personally i can tell when I am dreaming because i don't really feel anything i touch in my dreams. Now With the proper equipment we can prove with a marginally small amount of error if a dream occurred or not. However the context of the dream can not be known. OK sure a God could exist outside the universe but then who cares about it. It can't help you it can't harm you....
@Tridentgumisgood continued.....It can't hear you pray, there is no way this god could affect you and really its existence is inconsequential. so who cares about this "God" he is meaningless within our universe.
" there is no way this god could affect you and really its existence is inconsequential"
Well really there is no way for you to know what affect God would have on you, because you are in a subset system. . .God being the superset. Example: Imagine the bateria in your gut. And let's say there is are really intellegent bateria scientist in there. What would be his take on the food comming down your intestinal tract?
Well his take would be mana from the heavens. Now what could that bateria possibly know about farms, and weather, and tractors, and grocery stores, and money? . . .Nothing. Now that bacteria could make the same assumption as you and state that, "well because we can't know about that, it doesn't matter." But obviously all of those things I mentioned DO matter to that bateria, he just doesn't know about them.
@tristenmc I decide to remove my comments because it was to long and this is a better point. You can't give examples where the subset system is in the same universe as the whole. It just doesn't work. the same laws of physics apply. where as outside the universe these laws don't have to exist. however if something from outside the universe entered our universe or attempted to interact with our universe our laws of physics would apply to it. That was the point i was trying to make in my comment.
@Tridentgumisgood Also, this bacteria you spoke up knows that the "mana" is coming form an outside source, there is no evidence of that occurring in our universe, we know how the elements formed and we have a decent understanding of chemistry. there is no need for a God. anyway, like I said, I don't know if there is a God but i think its highly unlikely.
@Tridentgumisgood Come to think of it your bacteria example would be some evidence that there is something beyond our universe and POSSIBLE evidence for a God. IF things that were helpful to humanity (or harmful) would randomly appear from outside our universe, that would be a start to proving the existence of a God or Gods. Although other reasons could be more likely.
What's your take on information then? Because our physical universe consists of energy, and also matter if you want to separate that. But information isn't energy or matter. You can't even calculate information. I mean, how much information is in this paragraph? So therefore it isn't physical and thus doesn't really exist anywhere except within our consciousness. So where does that fit in for you?
@tristenmc again, sorry i got half way into my response and decided it would be to long so to put it very simply. information is simply description. Really time is a better example. Time is how we describe the changing of matter an energy. How would you be able to tell there is time without matter? .....also if you say something like "But time is a dimension!" then sigh.....i guess i could explain that to you if you really want....
No I'm just curious if you consider information a constant of the physical universe. Time is a constant, and anything beyond time would be outside of the physical universe. But how does information fit into the physical universe as a restricted force of the physical universe? (Again there is no right or wrong answer for this, I am just curious how this fits into your world view)
Your way of thinking fuels the imagination, however the reason why that way of thinking is unreasonable is that while dreams take us away from reality, once we wake up reality isn't optional. Perhaps, your theory functions like a dream, but that's just my take. I only say this because I used to think like you but rationally speaking it raises more questions than it answers.
Also, unlike dreams, in reality we are bound by certain "laws" such as the Laws of Nature. Furthermore, your theory is interesting in that it may apply to animals but what about other living single-cell organisms that CAN'T dream. When they cease to exist, what do they "wake up" from (or even to).
"This whole physical world could be one big long dream"
It's not a dream. Dreams are not in color and last at most just few hours not decades. The way to disprove God is by inability to explain His origin. We are here arent we? Well, there must be some mechanism that caused this world to be.
What is this mechanism? What makes you say its ONE God? Why not MANY Gods? Why not NO God?
Well the problem with explaining the origin of God or Gods is the lack of understanding of the physics outside of our physical reality. So basically there could be no way for us to explain anything outside of our reality. Just like if you are dreaming, the only way to understand that you exist outside of the dream is through your awareness. Which of course wouldn't cut it if we were only interested in a scientific method for proving it.
@tristenmc, thats true, our senses are limited in detecting nonphysical things such as awareness as is scientific method. But why this need for God? The universe does bear the features of design, the fine-tuning for life, the inexplicable DNA and such so there must be a mechanism for its origin, I just dont see the need to have a creator (God) which opens up a whole pandora of questions.
Indeed, it does open a lot of questions. But, I think we keep questioning (or at least I do) because of some intuitive, non-measurable sense that "there must be more to all this". I don't know if this "more" is "God", "the Field", "Consciousness", or what; names/language seem so limited and limiting. BTW, I do dream in color, and I seem to have a large variety of "dream types". But that's another tale!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I've not watched the video you're responding to, for the personal reason that I'm trying to stay out of debating about this; I feel I've burned up a lot of energy arguing (even w/ myself) about "proving the existence of"; I am working at "going within" more for finding my own wisdom. Much of the arguing btw the "militant atheists" (my term) and the "religionists" seems unhelpful and diverts energy from my own questioning/seeking. 'Tis a grand mystery!
Dude, I like your dream analogy a lot. Well thought out. I have my doubts that the negative atheists will allow themselves to go through the conceptual process of understanding what you are saying, but perhaps some will. 5 stars.
Materialistic science says that God, due to His supernatural and divine nature, cannot be proved or disproved. Our life is mystery! Reality is mystery! The world is mystery!
Good point. Materialistic/reductionistic science likely does not have the means to prove or disprove this, and saying "we have no evidence" seems at least a recognition of its limits, vs. the current, highly acrimonious claims of the "militant atheists" claiming "there is no such thing". One of my driving forces from within are these questions of "why?" What a journey, eh?
@vulcanus30 well, that is a very good induction, but it is possible to show that God does exist. Look at the 1st video on my uploads and tell me what you think...
When one puts couple words together It doesn't imply that it is logic. You can ramble on all you want However one thing you failed to proof in the video was why atheist are materialist . If you going to imply something please have enough evidence to back it up.
tharjini22 1 week ago
@tharjini22
My video was very clear that I had no intention of proving anything since I did not have a dog in the fight.
tristenmc 1 week ago
Not sure where you expect to get by using over-generalizations, fallacy logic arguments... Perhaps you prefer that your perceptions are framed "in another physical world".
tubeexcellence 2 weeks ago
@tubeexcellence
It's an analogy used to ask a question. What proof would we expect to see from a creator?
tristenmc 2 weeks ago
@tristenmc I have no answer since: 1) I have no need to offer or answer fallacy logic based questions, 2) I am not the "creator" you refer to, and 3) I do not expect or demand proof from the "creator" you refer to.
tubeexcellence 2 weeks ago
@tubeexcellence
Then there was no need to come here.
tristenmc 2 weeks ago
WIthin a dream there are no universal rules, within the real world there are.
Iamtopcoach 3 weeks ago
You lost me at "atheists are materialistic people."
Well, you must remember that Biblical Judeo-Christian God was literally making himself quite known to the people, being seen and heard by many individuals, and performing such actions as parting the Red Sea and opening up the Earth to bury some people alive at random.
So, why is it that God is now so quiet?
Dokushindansei 3 weeks ago
@Dokushindansei
You would have to ask a Christian that question.
tristenmc 3 weeks ago
Every god idea I have read is logically unverifiable (lu), by definition it can't be disproved. Much like undetectable adorable purple aliens control human governments; they are quarrelsome, hence governments go to war. I know this because they favor me and put the info in my mind.
You can't disprove this statement because the aliens are undetectable. Hence, to answer your question, find me a definition of a god that can be disproven. Otherwise, it, like every lu idea and gets dimissed.
joethemoproductions 4 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
So from what you have said, I am correct by stating that it is illogical that we should see some proof of a diety. So therefore much of the video I responded to has serious flaws in it's premise.
tristenmc 4 weeks ago
@tristenmc
You cannot disprove god ideas by their very definition. These are called logically unverifiable ideas. Therefore god ideas should be dismissed.
However, theists often state that there is proof, so the thinking atheist's position is justified.
If theists admitted that their idea of god exists only in the human imagination, the thinking atheist's video would be unnecessary.
Yes, many atheists are materialists. Can you give me a compelling reason why this position is inadequate?
joethemoproductions 3 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
"Yes, many atheists are materialists. Can you give me a compelling reason why this position is inadequate?"
Because our reality consists of things that are non-physical in nature. A few examples of things that everyone admits exists in our reality that are not physical : Information, Consciousness, Subjective Experience, Dreams, Imagination, Communication, Learning. . .to name a few.
tristenmc 3 weeks ago
@tristenmc
Everything you just listed has a material cause. Dreams are a product of brain chemistry. Information is a product of brain chemistry and either the spoken or written word. Consciousness, again, brain chemistry. Imagination, again, brain chemistry. Learning, brain chemistry, eye mechanics, and a host of other physical, material elements.
Name one thing that has no material antecedent.
joethemoproductions 3 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
You have a serious misunderstanding based on your limited reality view, but I will attempt to help you. When you look at brain chemistry and say that is the cause of information, you have to explain by what mechanism. Let me help you with that, there is no law of chemistry that explains how information is translated to meaning. Because after all, information is not the media, it's the message, the meaning, the significance of it.
tristenmc 3 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
It's like saying that you can explain the workings of the computer as just simple electronical signals. Well all of that information on the computer is put there in an organized way by a consciousness that can interpret the information. Computers are symbol processors not information processors. If you don't believe me, ask your computer to summarize and rephrase this paragragh. It can't because it cannot extract the information. . .but YOU can.
tristenmc 3 weeks ago
@tristenmc
I used to be a computer programmer; I understand programming very well. Computers are machines. Everything that comes out of a computer is the product of material and human programming.
As to neurology: our neo-cortex is responsible for rational thought. Are you suggesting that thought without a brain?
You've avoided the question: can you give me an example of something that does not depend on material?
joethemoproductions 3 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
Everything that we know about neurology is based off of an assumption that thought is created by neuro net of the brain. As a MRI tech, I very familiar with this line of thinking. But it has it's serious flaws. For one, there are levels of brain activity that we consider conscious, and levels that we consider unconscious. The problem is, there are people that are very conscious in these states (such as experienced meditators) that they shouldn't be. .
tristenmc 3 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
So that makes you wonder, how come? How come, one person is conscious in this state, and another person is not. Another problem with this line of thinking is the whole problem of neuroplasticity. Which basically means that the brain is ever changing based upon thought. Meaning thought can change brain. But wait a minute, didn't brain create thought? So how can brain create thought, but that thought turns right back into brain. Do you see a problem here?
tristenmc 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
joethemoproductions 3 weeks ago
@tristenmc
Thought is the organization of synapses. Synapses make new connections and reorganize. Changed ideas are a product of this. No mystery there. And, the materialist position is still sound: thought is a product of the brain.
What do you suggest: thought is out there floating around and landing randomly on individuals. If so, what evidence do you have.
You still haven't provided something that exists that doesn't depend on matter.
joethemoproductions 3 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
"What do you suggest: thought is out there floating around and landing randomly on individuals."
Really I'm just poking around your reality view. You see the thing with information and communication is that it is not just confined to the brain. Individual cells communicate. And the strange thing about that is that they work with purpose outside of themselves. In other words they use teamwork. This is how arteries can reroute such as I have seen . .
tristenmc 3 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
many times. For example a lot of times the basilar artery in the brain will stenos and to compensate for that, flow is recreated from one of the other internal carotid arteries to supply that blood. All of that is not by accident.
Just to build and construct a 3D being from conception requires a considerable amount of information as well. After all, you don't want your liver cells to be in your toe.
tristenmc 3 weeks ago
@tristenmc
Yes, cells react to one another; they are matter. Teamwork is a group of material elements working toward a common goal. Everything you have discussed is matter or the product of matter.
No one says evolution is accidental: natural selection is not random selection. You might want to actually learn the materialist position and the science of evolution.
You still haven't provided something that exists outside the material world. You can't.
joethemoproductions 3 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
"Teamwork is a group of material elements working toward a common goal."
Can you elaborate for me how material elements have a goal (in other words purpose)?
tristenmc 3 weeks ago
@tristenmc
the answer is the most basic point in natural selection: survival.
again, learning about natural selection before discussing it would be very useful.
and, again, everything you have mentioned, from your misuse of the concept of information, to cooperative organisms, is all related to matter.
joethemoproductions 3 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
"the answer is the most basic point in natural selection: survival."
What specific materials are built in with survival purpose?
tristenmc 3 weeks ago
@tristenmc
Your question makes no sense at all. Here are the the basics of natural selection: 1) organisms mutate randomly, 2) a beneficial mutation gives an organism a better chance of survival, 3) this mutation will be passed on giving offspring a better chance of survival.
It is quite evident that you don't know anything about biology or about the materialist position. That is lazy and dishonest.
Still waiting for something that exists independent of matter.
joethemoproductions 3 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
And you have not answered adequately how cells communicate utilizing information when at first you said "Information is a product of brain chemistry." When I told you cells utilize information, you changed your mind and said "Teamwork is a group of material elements working toward a common goal." Well to have a goal you have to communicate. You used to be a computer programmer, you know computers don't come with purpose. How did cells get purpose?
tristenmc 3 weeks ago
@tristenmc
I didn't change my mind; I ignored your inappropriate use of "information." Cells do not use information in any meaningful way. The react to one another chemically.
Computers were designed and produced by humans; organisms are a product natural selection. You're comparison is a false analogy.
If you are going to argue for or against something, know the facts, know the terms, and know how to make solid arguments. You just seem really ignorant and irritating.
joethemoproductions 3 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
Read the definition of DNA, RNA, transcription. . .count how many times you see "coded information" in there and then if you care to, come back..
tristenmc 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
joethemoproductions 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tristenmc
DNA and RNA direct chemical reactions; the use of "information" in this context is not the same as how humans use information. Humans use information primarily to communicate ideas. "Information" in DNA requires no interpretation or no author. DNA is pure chemical reaction. You are using the word in a human context, which is a false analogy.
And, you're avoiding the whole point of the original argument: what substance exists independent of matter. You keep avoiding that.
joethemoproductions 3 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
1.Code is defined by the rules of communication between and encoder (a "writer" or "speaker") and a decoder (a "reader" or "listener") using agreed upon symbols.
2. DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.
3. DNA's code has much in common with human language and computer languages.
tristenmc 3 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 Mathematical Theory of Communication model. The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
tristenmc 3 weeks ago
@tristenmc
On a cold day, you perceive the cold and react to it in two ways. Your conscious mind reacts and thinks, "I need a jacket." Your metabolism reacts automatically to the change in temperature and shivers. Your mind is analyzing information, the body reacts to automatically "information."
That is the difference you're ignoring.
Still waiting for a substance that is independent of matter.
Learning how to use terms, really good idea.
joethemoproductions 3 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
Since you clearly cannot refute 50 plus years of biologists and scientists saying that cells utilize coded information, we have come to an end to our conversation. I would suggest you look more closely into biology or mathematical theory of communication for references.
tristenmc 2 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
I will leave you with this quote to ponder:
"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day." Norbert Weiner, MIT Mathematician and father of cybernetics
tristenmc 2 weeks ago
Dreams are not a physical world; they are a result of brain chemistry, which can be understood. In fact, there is a large body of research on dreams.
I suggest you look into the scholarship about dreams before comparing and contrasting god ideas to neural chemistry.
A question for you, what evidence do you have for the existence of god(s). There is plenty of evidence for how the brain creates dreams, so don't hide behind your badly constructed dream argument.
joethemoproductions 1 month ago
@joethemoproductions
First of all, the point of the video was to ask you, what evidence would be sufficient for you. As with most who have watched this video, it immediately strikes a belief in you which usually results in the feeling of anger. This usually results in ad hominem attacks. If you have no belief then there is no anger involved. I will be more than happy to answer your question when you have given me the answer to the question I stated in the video.
tristenmc 1 month ago
@tristenmc
Being irritated at a bad argument doesn't imply anything other than you provided a bad argument.
The conscious and unconscious world can be defined in a number of ways. Most significant is that brain waves change and are measurable. In the dream state, we do not have the control of our mind the way we do when we are conscious, so asking for us to provide an experiment while asleep is impossible.
Ask a question that can be answered while awake.
joethemoproductions 4 weeks ago
@joethemoproductions
Clearly you are confused here, the question that was laid out in the video was, "what type of proof would you expect to see that you aren't currently seeing in this reality?" The answer to that question would naturally answer what type of experiment you could perform to proove his existance. If you make the claim there is no proof of a diety, you should be willing to explain that further. Like what proof would be expected.
tristenmc 4 weeks ago
not knowing doesnt mean i should believe in all possible reasons. so i would be a agnostic towards the idea of my body in the dream world, BUT god cant exist with our modern science understanding, let me explain.
1.everything that exist is energy
2.all energy came from the big bang.
but of course u would probaly still say
"well god can do everything"
johauHAU 1 month ago
@johauHAU
1.everything that exist is energy (Information is not energy and has no mass)
2. all energy came from the big bang. (Again, that still wouldn't explain the existance of information.)
As many people before you have done, you have avoided the question of importance in the video which was directed at YOU. What proof would be satisfying for YOU?
tristenmc 1 month ago
@tristenmc again information at its best is energy, if you mean information like the rules at a playground, then you are right those arent energy...because they dont exist exept in your imangination. oh and sory that i didnt notice your guestion that was my bad, the evidence that would make me believe in a god would be that he would come infront of a group of a hundred atheist and sceptics with me and say: yo yo im your god and then handshake me. then i would become a believer.
johauHAU 1 month ago
@johauHAU
If he did come in front of you and a few atheist you're right you may be converted but it would not be proof, Because it wouldn't be anything substantial that you could point out. It would just be your subjective experience and no one would believe you. So I'm guessing the only proof that would be acceptable is personal subjective experience. Very interesting.
tristenmc 1 month ago
@tristenmc that is what would prove god to me, i wouldnt expect to convert others with it unless and i could get it on the camera or live on the news and that file would be proof of god. but of course it couldnt be that trusted since all the video editing programs out there =p..now if i would like to prove god for everyone i would...
1. ask him to create a gigantic statue of himself in the middle of new york.
2.or give me the power to fly and using that i could convince others.
johauHAU 1 month ago
@tristenmc hard thing to prove because he acts as he wouldnt exist.
johauHAU 1 month ago
@tristenmc about the example that johauHAU said that would prove him if god exists there was a small detail that i believe should be said. god is supposedly everywhere so in the same way he could present himself in front of that small group he could also appear in front of everyone and do the exact same thing
len6nar42 1 month ago
@johauHAU actually the theories you propose are not theories in a scientific context. they are "experimental mathematics", some might say. every scientist worthy of the name will tell you so. the fact that you use that pseudo knowledge tels me that you haven't made yourself familiar with string theory in any way, therefore you must believe in it, and that levels you with all the dumbass creationists out there.... sincerely, a physicist
paulsn 1 month ago
see,feel,hear, touch and PROVE WITH OTHER METHODS!
johauHAU 1 month ago
@tristenmc finally for me to prove your version of a god there would need to be a way i could change a set law of this universe. In dreams realism is out the window. You can kill or die with no concequences, you can lose an arm, or even fly. For this to be a dream it would have to have varible laws, sadly though i still cant fly.
bullscott12 2 months ago
@bullscott12
Again when you understand the meaning that this reality is really here as a consciousness trainer you will understand the necessity for a ruleset. It is the ruleset that creates an adequate learning environment. For example, if someone said to you, "let's play a game. Go!" And you asked what are the rules (structure and purpose) of the game. And they told you, there are no rules. . .well that wouldn't be very fun or enjoyable would it?
tristenmc 2 months ago
@tristenmc Dreams are the product of REM sleep (rapid eye movement) which is a stage of sleep where the brain goes into high activity and believes it is awake. Science is just a series of tests nothing more, you can not create tests with in dreams because you have no control of a dream. Also it seem to be quite a lonely belief system you have, since everything is just an Inception like layered dream then you would be the ONLY true being. Techniquely I wouldnt exist, but i assure you I do :p
bullscott12 2 months ago
@bullscott12
Let's say in my gut there is this REALLY, REALLY smart bacteria scientist. What would food comming down my bowels be to him? Probably mana from the heavens. What could that bacteria in my gut know about the sun, rain, farms, grocery stores, or anything else. Nothing. It's outside of his reality. Does that mean that all that stuff has no effect on him whatsoever? Of course not, he just doesn't know about it. Likewise I can't comment on things I do not know about.
tristenmc 2 months ago
I understand you completely. I was like you for a certain amount of time. But the thing is I asked myself: "Why do I believe in god? I don't believe in religion and thinking it is man made but I'm believing in something that I learned from religion." What would be the psychological and personal reason for you to believe in god. It was fear and need to feel safe for me but I realized not feeling safe is better than feeling fake safe. And finally I'm at peace with myself after I turned to atheism.
HiperALFA 4 months ago
@HiperALFA
I'm not sure you were ever like me, because I am not a Christian. So I do not believe in the conventional thinking of a god as you would think. Such a god is much easier to beileve or disbelieve. . .But I do know that there is something beyond the physical experience.
tristenmc 4 months ago
@tristenmc I realize how you see god. You don't see a god with personality or anything I'm aware of that. But the thing we should focus on is not outsides it's insides. you should think back to your thoughts and try to realize why you rationalize them.of course I don't really know you or anything but as far as I can see you are thinking outside of the box. that's always helpful but sometimes the things bother us the most are the things inside the box. are you sure god is not a seat belt ...
HiperALFA 4 months ago
@HiperALFA
And I'm sorry I had to remove your last statement because you used ad hominem attacks, which tells me that you are still very much in a belief oriented system and have no answer for that which is outside of your belief system. Hopefully you will grow from our conversation. Take care.
tristenmc 4 months ago
@tristenmc ...or source of hope for you. because we don't need god to understand ourselfs and the universe anymore.
HiperALFA 4 months ago
@HiperALFA
Let me be clear from the start, I don't have any opinion on god because I can not make an opinion about something that I do not know. Do I know there is a source of all life and this entire physcial experience? Yes. What that source consists of, I can not say.
It's not a belief based on fear of death, but a knowledge based on life experience. Everything that I am and everything that you are is non-physical. This communication is also non-physical.
tristenmc 4 months ago
@tristenmc I understood your understanding of god wrong at first time sorry for that but still the meaning of god is what you described and also everything is psychical non-physical means non-existed.physics is the science of existence.the conversation we are having is just a series of electron arrangements in our brains and than in computers.and you are just answering the questions that you can't logically and scientifically answer yet by your god.you can call it the source but it is still god.
HiperALFA 4 months ago
@HiperALFA
".the conversation we are having is just a series of electron arrangements in our brains"
Even as you say this statement you don't really believe it because you continue to try to prove your point as if it had some purpose. Of course, purpose is something non-physical. Understanding is non-physical. Information, subjective experience, meaning, feeling, consciousness, awareness. . . all of these things cannot be described by the physical.
tristenmc 4 months ago
@tristenmc also on the topic of non-physical, while it is true that the words you said are non-physical the function of our brain is extremely physical. Billions of chemical reactions a second make up thought, understanding, awareness and everything else that happens in our mind. What we see or do is just the interpratation of what our supercomputer of a brain uses the reactions to do.
bullscott12 2 months ago
@bullscott12
You see when you realize that information is non-physical (has no mass, or energy) and it is subjective (information is the meaning the purpose and that has to be interpreted by a conscious being) then your view on reality will change.After all if you are comparing are brain with a computer then the brain is the hardware..And how long did it take the hardware of the computer to create Windows 7? Or if you prefer, ask it to summarize this paragraph.
tristenmc 2 months ago
@bullscott12
You see when you realize that information is non-physical (has no mass, or energy) and it is subjective (information is the meaning the purpose and that has to be interpreted by a conscious being) then your view on reality will change.After all if you are comparing are brain with a computer then the brain is the hardware..And how long did it take the hardware of the computer to create Windows 7? Or if you prefer, ask it to summarize this paragraph.
tristenmc 2 months ago
Scientists are not materialistic. The scientific method isn't about using your five senses to explain nature, it is about repeatable experiments involving things we can sense and using tools that can perceive things our senses cannot. When most ask about proof of god, I think they mean what I would mean in this question, where can a believer point out influence from this proposed world that we cannot perceive. whether or not we can perceive god, we should be able to notice his influence here.
craigsetf 4 months ago
@craigsetf
Couple of things. . .yes if you are using tools you are king of using their ability to reach beyond the limits of our senses. But even the instruments themselves are still "seeing' and "feeling" in a sense. If you know of a repeatable non-physical experiment I would love to hear it. And again, even though you have a firm "belief" that we should see some influence of god here, you haven't given me any examples of what we should be able to notice.
tristenmc 4 months ago
That is your evidence ? Where is the BEEF ?
no1saphead 4 months ago
@no1saphead The video is obviously not about providing proof, it's a question of what proof would be sufficient for YOU.
tristenmc 4 months ago
This is why I'm something like a agnostic. I don't believe that there is really a thinking deity, perhaps just a supernatural force, kind of like karma...perhaps in the 11th dimension. Theory based science keeps digging deeper and deeper into these questions, parallel universes, more than one of you, and 11 dimensions. I believe in science, its goal is simple, to understand our world. Religion is very strange to me...why our world is so bound by it. Religion has not proof, only "holy wars".
Maggot1750 5 months ago
@Maggot1750 Carl Sagan has a great way of putting it, "Man in his arrogance, thinks himself a great work. Worthy of the interposition of a deity."
Maggot1750 5 months ago
This is why I'm something like a agnostic. I don't believe that there is really a thinking deity, perhaps just a supernatural force, kind of like karma...perhaps in the 11th dimension. Theory based science keeps digging deeper and deeper into these questions, parallel universes, more than one of you, and 11 dimensions. I believe in science, its goal is simple, to understand our world. Religion is very strange to me...why our world is so bound by it. Religion has not proof, only "holy wars".
Maggot1750 5 months ago
@tristenmc
2- You can't proof you had a certain dream, you just can tell it, but you know the person telling the dream, therefor you have a certain amount of trust on what he/she tells you. But you don't know GOD, even more, GOD is not the one who wrote the bible but humans from 2000 years ago capable of mistakes and lost translations and you trust on that?
Jarb2104 5 months ago
@Jarb2104
This is why you should have watched the video or read the posts, I am not a Christian so no I have no faith in the bible as it is believed in by Christians. I have a different take on it, but that is totally unimportant to the topic.
tristenmc 5 months ago
@tristenmc I don't know if anyone has told you this, I didn't bother reading and the video is kind of old, but I am doing it just because I felt compel by the question (I don't know if the word "compel" is writing correctly there, English is not my first language). Anyway to the point.
1- How to proof the dream you are dreaming, easy, you can shape your dream if you know you are dreaming (Just like GOD could if he wanted in our world).
2- in my next post.
Jarb2104 5 months ago
We do have philosophical evidence that would point to an certain things being outside of reality. Such as the laws of mathematics. But all of these thing create direct affects in the real world and that is how we know about these objectively. There is also no evidence to support that any of these things that are inherently removed from the physical reality are in any way a result of a superior being or mind. We do have gaps, but as of yet we have no reason to fill them with gods.
arbruffett 6 months ago
@arbruffett
I think you are a little off subject here. The question that is laid out in the video is what evidence would be satisfactory to convince you of a deity? Not whether or not you have seen such evidence.
tristenmc 6 months ago
@tristenmc
I require the same proof for a deity that i would need for any other thing in the universe. Direct testable evidence is required for proof. If a person has a theory, that person should be able to basically say "see for yourself" and point to a specific thing that the other can evaluate. I will say that it is hard to do with "god" do to the properties given to it. For example, if "deity" is defined as all knowing then you need to point to testable instances of that omnipotence.
arbruffett 6 months ago
@arbruffett "Direct testable evidence is required for proof."
So I am assuming that you do not believe in your own consciousness since that is not something that you can not test for either.
tristenmc 6 months ago
@tristenmc Escuse me, something that you can not test for.
tristenmc 6 months ago
Even if I wasn't expecting to see god himself I could expect to see evidence that he one existed. Saying that there is "existence" does not show that there is something that exist outside of it. Atheist don't believe that there is a conscious mind that exist outside of the laws of a natural reality. Every century we tear down another layer of superstition by using science. The origins of the universe is different only in the fact that we have nothing to compare it to.
Rundori 6 months ago
@Rundori
Well the question this video was trying to present is what kind of evidence would you expect to see? Or actually what evidence would convince you? If you can come up with no clear thoughts of what evidence would satisfy you, then you can never get there. Of course you could always take the stance of realizing that there are some things that you just can't know.
tristenmc 6 months ago
Your argument doesn't mean anything. Their are incongruities within the statements you make. These are more metaphysical statements. It is easier to prove the reality than the dream. In reality we are all connected. In the dream you are having a singular experiece that only pretaines to you.
As for god... anything that has no properties and can not be defined by attributes does not exist. In contrast if it is in everything than it is nothing.
Rundori 6 months ago
@Rundori " anything that has no properties and can not be defined by attributes does not exist."
I'm assuming that the properties and attributes that you are looking for are in physical reality. Yet we have evidence of things comming from a non-physical source that don't have properties or attributes, such as an idea. This comes from the consciousness of a person (which you can not prove because it is subjective) who brings this non-physical idea into physical form.
tristenmc 6 months ago
Here is a rebuttal, how can we can acknowledge a god if the god is not part of this present reality? What gives us the idea that there is actually a god, if as you say, is not part of this physical realm? It's a redundant question, to tell you the truth. By the way, I hope you know what's lucid dreaming, you're able to acknowledge a dream and react within it under full consciousness. Again, your questions just refutes the belief of believing in a god.
Seems like you're thinking of the Matrix.
GhostOfAStranger1 6 months ago
@GhostOfAStranger1
I may not be understanding your rebuttal correctly, but what I was saying is that the creator or anything is never "in" the creation. That defies logic. A software creator is not "in" the software. The creator of the MRI machines that I work with is not "in" the MRI. So therefore if you were looking for the creator of our physical universe, you could not look "in" our physical universe for him/her/it. Also I have had several lucid dreams.
tristenmc 6 months ago
Such compelling questions that really demand closer examination of our beliefs. Thanks so much for sharing, I believe that attitudes like this can make a real positive difference in the world. :D
themorbidhunger 8 months ago
Comment removed
SoulSurvivor1652 1 year ago
It never ceases to amaze me how finite these christians think their God is. He's as powerless as I am when I dream. Hmmmm, interesting.
dave4248 1 year ago
Creation is proof of a Creator.
MissAllygatorr 1 year ago
@MissAllygatorr Even if that were true, which it isn't (we say it isn't true because it is the default position on something we know little about; i.e. the universe having always existed makes about as much sense as a creator having always existed), it still wouldn't specify which of the thousands of gods are the creator. Also if god created the universe, then who created god? You could say he is not a creation, but then I could say the universe is not a creation.
Virtuoso883 1 year ago
@MissAllygatorr
I have only seen examples of Creation in an abstract sense. Such as in art, poetry, music ... etc.
e.g. You do not create a cake. You TRANSFORM the raw ingredients into a cake. You can however create a cake recipe because the recipe(information) might not have existed before.
Since creation is proof of a creator (as you put it) in this example you would be God. I believe that we are all God with the power to transform and be creative. But what do I know...
SoulSurvivor1652 1 year ago
@SoulSurvivor1652
Just because we can transform pre-existing elements does not automatically make us divine. God has many many more attributes than creativity. We only got that power from the Creator Himself (creation emulates the Creator).
What do you mean by an abstract sense? Is nature excluded?
MissAllygatorr 1 year ago
I Don't Know if there is a God, however i think it is highly unlikely. Now to the dream thing. Well for me personally i can tell when I am dreaming because i don't really feel anything i touch in my dreams. Now With the proper equipment we can prove with a marginally small amount of error if a dream occurred or not. However the context of the dream can not be known. OK sure a God could exist outside the universe but then who cares about it. It can't help you it can't harm you....
Tridentgumisgood 2 years ago
@Tridentgumisgood continued.....It can't hear you pray, there is no way this god could affect you and really its existence is inconsequential. so who cares about this "God" he is meaningless within our universe.
Tridentgumisgood 2 years ago
" there is no way this god could affect you and really its existence is inconsequential"
Well really there is no way for you to know what affect God would have on you, because you are in a subset system. . .God being the superset. Example: Imagine the bateria in your gut. And let's say there is are really intellegent bateria scientist in there. What would be his take on the food comming down your intestinal tract?
tristenmc 2 years ago
Well his take would be mana from the heavens. Now what could that bateria possibly know about farms, and weather, and tractors, and grocery stores, and money? . . .Nothing. Now that bacteria could make the same assumption as you and state that, "well because we can't know about that, it doesn't matter." But obviously all of those things I mentioned DO matter to that bateria, he just doesn't know about them.
tristenmc 2 years ago
Comment removed
Tridentgumisgood 2 years ago
Comment removed
Tridentgumisgood 2 years ago
@tristenmc I decide to remove my comments because it was to long and this is a better point. You can't give examples where the subset system is in the same universe as the whole. It just doesn't work. the same laws of physics apply. where as outside the universe these laws don't have to exist. however if something from outside the universe entered our universe or attempted to interact with our universe our laws of physics would apply to it. That was the point i was trying to make in my comment.
Tridentgumisgood 2 years ago
@Tridentgumisgood Also, this bacteria you spoke up knows that the "mana" is coming form an outside source, there is no evidence of that occurring in our universe, we know how the elements formed and we have a decent understanding of chemistry. there is no need for a God. anyway, like I said, I don't know if there is a God but i think its highly unlikely.
Tridentgumisgood 2 years ago
@Tridentgumisgood Come to think of it your bacteria example would be some evidence that there is something beyond our universe and POSSIBLE evidence for a God. IF things that were helpful to humanity (or harmful) would randomly appear from outside our universe, that would be a start to proving the existence of a God or Gods. Although other reasons could be more likely.
Tridentgumisgood 2 years ago
What's your take on information then? Because our physical universe consists of energy, and also matter if you want to separate that. But information isn't energy or matter. You can't even calculate information. I mean, how much information is in this paragraph? So therefore it isn't physical and thus doesn't really exist anywhere except within our consciousness. So where does that fit in for you?
tristenmc 2 years ago
Comment removed
Tridentgumisgood 2 years ago
@tristenmc again, sorry i got half way into my response and decided it would be to long so to put it very simply. information is simply description. Really time is a better example. Time is how we describe the changing of matter an energy. How would you be able to tell there is time without matter? .....also if you say something like "But time is a dimension!" then sigh.....i guess i could explain that to you if you really want....
Tridentgumisgood 2 years ago
No I'm just curious if you consider information a constant of the physical universe. Time is a constant, and anything beyond time would be outside of the physical universe. But how does information fit into the physical universe as a restricted force of the physical universe? (Again there is no right or wrong answer for this, I am just curious how this fits into your world view)
tristenmc 2 years ago
First i just want to say that in the firefox web browser the coments and replies are all messed up! anway....
Time is not a constant :/
information is not constant
Tridentgumisgood 2 years ago
And also because it heavily depends on an emotional desire to live forever it may not be the most honest approach to answering life's mysteries.
pwismyname 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your way of thinking fuels the imagination, however the reason why that way of thinking is unreasonable is that while dreams take us away from reality, once we wake up reality isn't optional. Perhaps, your theory functions like a dream, but that's just my take. I only say this because I used to think like you but rationally speaking it raises more questions than it answers.
pwismyname 2 years ago
Also, unlike dreams, in reality we are bound by certain "laws" such as the Laws of Nature. Furthermore, your theory is interesting in that it may apply to animals but what about other living single-cell organisms that CAN'T dream. When they cease to exist, what do they "wake up" from (or even to).
pwismyname 2 years ago
"How could you prove from a physical stand point that says 'I dreamt this'"
Consider the physical proof from having a wet dream.
pwismyname 2 years ago
Comment removed
pwismyname 2 years ago
"This whole physical world could be one big long dream"
It's not a dream. Dreams are not in color and last at most just few hours not decades. The way to disprove God is by inability to explain His origin. We are here arent we? Well, there must be some mechanism that caused this world to be.
What is this mechanism? What makes you say its ONE God? Why not MANY Gods? Why not NO God?
TigerJohny555 2 years ago
Well the problem with explaining the origin of God or Gods is the lack of understanding of the physics outside of our physical reality. So basically there could be no way for us to explain anything outside of our reality. Just like if you are dreaming, the only way to understand that you exist outside of the dream is through your awareness. Which of course wouldn't cut it if we were only interested in a scientific method for proving it.
tristenmc 2 years ago
@tristenmc, thats true, our senses are limited in detecting nonphysical things such as awareness as is scientific method. But why this need for God? The universe does bear the features of design, the fine-tuning for life, the inexplicable DNA and such so there must be a mechanism for its origin, I just dont see the need to have a creator (God) which opens up a whole pandora of questions.
TigerJohny555 2 years ago
Indeed, it does open a lot of questions. But, I think we keep questioning (or at least I do) because of some intuitive, non-measurable sense that "there must be more to all this". I don't know if this "more" is "God", "the Field", "Consciousness", or what; names/language seem so limited and limiting. BTW, I do dream in color, and I seem to have a large variety of "dream types". But that's another tale!
Just seeking and questioning...thanks.
sortashaman 2 years ago
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I've not watched the video you're responding to, for the personal reason that I'm trying to stay out of debating about this; I feel I've burned up a lot of energy arguing (even w/ myself) about "proving the existence of"; I am working at "going within" more for finding my own wisdom. Much of the arguing btw the "militant atheists" (my term) and the "religionists" seems unhelpful and diverts energy from my own questioning/seeking. 'Tis a grand mystery!
sortashaman 2 years ago
Dude, I like your dream analogy a lot. Well thought out. I have my doubts that the negative atheists will allow themselves to go through the conceptual process of understanding what you are saying, but perhaps some will. 5 stars.
cruelfate45 2 years ago 2
Materialistic science says that God, due to His supernatural and divine nature, cannot be proved or disproved. Our life is mystery! Reality is mystery! The world is mystery!
vulcanus30 2 years ago 2
It's this mystery that fascinates me so much. There are so many great questions to ask and to find out. Thank you so much for watching!
tristenmc 2 years ago
@vulcanus30
Good point. Materialistic/reductionistic science likely does not have the means to prove or disprove this, and saying "we have no evidence" seems at least a recognition of its limits, vs. the current, highly acrimonious claims of the "militant atheists" claiming "there is no such thing". One of my driving forces from within are these questions of "why?" What a journey, eh?
sortashaman 2 years ago
@vulcanus30 well, that is a very good induction, but it is possible to show that God does exist. Look at the 1st video on my uploads and tell me what you think...
thinkdtd 9 months ago
@thinkdtd You want people to do their own research, that's good.
vulcanus30 9 months ago
@vulcanus30 Thank you
thinkdtd 9 months ago
@vulcanus30 also thank you for even watching it, some people would just ignore it.
thinkdtd 9 months ago