the new concept of God- Peace be with you.

A conversation with Theramin Trees, concerning the existence of God. The conscious universe.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• God
• spirituality
• All
• transcendance
• quantic
• physics

[sitemountain]

'Please do not see any of my words as sarcastic - they are not'

WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO KID? -Watch from XXX onward!

[CuanMarce2]

Since I believe that everyones perception, of how the universe is, is totally influence by their point of view. Perception can´t ever be objective since it occurs inside the subject, thus is part of the subject, and the subject is by definition subjective.

[CuanMarce2]

I have abandoned this discussion. I don´t need to proof to anyone the existence of a divine being. No matter what effect that will have in their wellbeing. After all it is not my responsibility. Everyone has to live with the consequences of the point of view they choose for themselves. I accept my, and that is all that is in my power.

I don´t defend anything, because any defense is an attack and I am trying to live in peace and harmony. I greet you all well.

[TheraminTrees]

I've just seen this new video is up — I didn't get a notification. Thank you for recording this. The counter-arguments are straightforward and won't take long, so I'll wait for your next video to see if I have a response to that which I can also include.

By the way, you *do* need to prove God's existence, in terms of the burden of proof. What *I* said was that *I personally* don't get hung up on the issue of proof in discussions — hypotheticals are fine. I hope that distinction's clear.

[paulmarko]

1. Entanglement doesn't work for the nervus system analogy because not all particles are entangled as they would have to be to fit the analogy. If they were then we wouldn't be able to entangle particles.

2. The unified field theory collapses at the moment it influences ANY other particle. So it Only takes place on the quantum level, NOT the macro level as you suggest.

[Danectown]

ricardo montalban's ... slightly challanged brother? sorry bro but the other guy is right.... and much more articulate

[herbiepop]

CuanMarce you have a fundamental misunderstanding of entanglement. 'Anything' that one does to one entangled particle does not affect the other. Only very specific observations made such as 'spin' cause a similar decoherence in the partner particle. It is unjustified to use this phenomenon on its own in support of the 'connectedness of everything'.

[IAmNotNico]

If something would hold the car up so the wheels dont touch the ground, the wheel can spin, while the car doesnt move.

Does that do it for you?

[ThatOneQuestion]

CuanMarce2, like paulmarko said in point 1, I dont think you understand Entanglement, and are stretching what little science there is on the subject well beyond the breaking point with unfounded assumptions.

And not to mention, you still havn't validated any kind of proof for a god entity either, but that was expected.

[opterigon]

I'm talking *specifically* about rotation, which is not a function of a car. Saying rotation is a kind of movement isn't an answer. Breathing and seeing are both kinds of 'processing' but you can't replace lungs with eyes. Specifics are important. If you shift from my specific point to generalities, you're only arguing with yourself. And I never said your answers weren't timely, I said you witheld my answer to your question. It takes no time to show my answer. You still haven't done so.

[terrafirmaterrafirma]

In algebra, there are myriad of examples of properties of mathematical structures that hold locally, but not globally. For example, in group theory a group may have the property that all its finite generated subgroups are free (ie have no relations), yet the whole group may fail to be free ( ie have relations in its presentation). See page 36 of Presentations of Groups, By D. L. Johnson, for an example.