All Religions Are False.

Are you suggesting matter doesn't exhibit any emergent properties or are you suggesting that energy is a necessary component which is predicated on a particular movement over time to form matter?

If you are suggesting the former, how do you make an argument for a localized consciousness?

 

Of course matter has emergent properties, complex molecular bonds and shit. Consciousness IS an emergent property of neural networking. Why not bring up the price of beans in Cleveland? What does this have to do with the origins of energy? Why ask me choose this or that? Makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying two plus two equals 4, OR, do gas powered cars run on gas? Is basically what you just asked me.

Is energy a component of movement or is movement a component of energy? Energy, movement, magnetism and time itself are all aspects of the same thing, one single phenomenon, that is spatial flux. Energy does not exist without movement, movement does not exist without energy, time does not exist without movement... All forms of energy are a measure of some kind of movement. Matter is a form of energy.

 

I believe the ethic requires that you accept a consequential responsibility for doing it . yes ,
I set forth an ethic , and the ethic relates to a philosophy . Will your philosophy disregard this ?

 

Well which is it? lol

What aspects of matter are irreducible to the idea that matter is solely a form of energy? It seems we need to refine your argument regarding matter if you are suggesting it is emergent in a true sense. If you are arguing that matter is simply a different form of energy, then how do you argue that Consciousness is a property of neural networking?

If matter is simply a form of energy why not just say that Dark Energy constitutes 95.1% of the universe in this following sentence:

According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe.[4][5]

We are discussing matter, I ask you to choose this or that because they have 2 radically different implications, you can suggest another option but you misunderstand me if you think those analogies are equivalent to what I'm asking you. To keep it analogous with cars, I'm asking more along the lines are all cars fueled by gas or if we take a hybrid is there something distinct about the way a hybrid is fueled ?

 

Sorry, I don't have time to sort out your confusions.

 

We can dismiss the analogies but if you can

Sort that apparent discrepancy...

 

Said the 12th century priest. Ask any real scientist whether they think we are close to knowing "everything" or closer to knowing almost nothing, and you might be surprised by their answer.

Also, you questions such as "how do mathematics work so perfectly, who put them here" and "who put the energy in place for the big bag" are anthropocentrisms. You are asking human questions of non human things. It's like asking "Why does my dog have two eyes just like me, so he can look with both his eyes into both my eyes? isn't that a little suspicious?"

If your question can be answered by an infinity of answers, then it is not a good question. I can answer "who put mathematics here" with "Thor", or "Vishnu", or "Azathoth The Mad", and it doesn't get us anywhere closer to what anyone would consider real knowledge.

Also the way you ask "who put mathematics here" shows you have a deep misunderstanding of what mathematics is and you definitely need to hone up on your philosophy and history.

Here's a good starting point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

I'm not going to even attempt to touch anything else in this thread because it's like pandora's box of misunderstandings, assumptions and logical fallacies.

 

Yeah, no.
You haven't really acknowledged any of my answers so far so it's pointless to continue further.

 

I acknowledged your "matter is a form of energy" argument, as well as provided a proof on your objection of the Universe coming from nothing. Aside from Shivaya, I don't think I've responded to anyone else on the last 2 pages.

The debate about whether God exists or not on this site gets redundant, so I thought prodding some other areas of secular thought may be interesting. Anyways, interesting stuff to think about.

 

The only elevation you get from a book is by standing on it, and the only illumination by burning it. Knowledge comes from revelation not information.

 

My friend, as poetic as that sounds, I cannot say that I agree with this.
As with everything else in life, the middle path is always the correct one.
Epiphany/progression/knowledge does not come solely from information, but it also does not come solely from insight.
It comes from a mix of both.
The ability to think about information critically can lead to knowledge.
Revelation does not happen magically.

 

So what do you say about a 900 page geology textbook I read? It was nothing?

 

he (beyondtheastral) was referring to some fantasy meaning of such words as elevation and illumination. his statement about knowledge being both meaningless and an extremely obvious self contradiction.

and to him i ask, 'revelation' OF WHAT specifically.

until we have open contact with people from a diversity of many other worlds and the very different from each other people of each of those world, every word, whether of science or religion is the word of a human person. those of science based upon what has consistently proven to be of reliable usefulness. those of religious beliefs being of the one also noble purpose, to encourage people not to screw everything up for each other.

cute trite sayings, are cute trite sayings. they are neither science, knowledge or even religion, but merely cute trite little sayings.

all beliefs are MADE false by their fanatics. all beliefs also partake to the same small measure of that one same truth, that the world WE create, is the world WE have to live in.

 

Thank you! It pisses me off when you're trying to have a serious discussion that involves 1000s of hours of research and the culmination of 1000s of years of human knowledge and someone just say a little "trite" saying that sounds like it came out of a fortune cookie.

I don't mean just this instance.

It would be kind of like if someone walked into a physics lab and said "guess what?" "chicken butt." or something.

 

Is it ethical to value the highly improbable and unreasonable over the more probable and more reasonable just because it feels better and helps you sleep at night?

Which line of thinking is more ignorant and more dangerous to live by?

 

all probabilities are reasoned . you may reason from ignorance if you wish : it will not necessarily
make your existence impossible .

 

LOL? What a fucked up thing to tell an atheist!

 

Joel Grus is trying to be a humorist. Is that what you're also trying to be? Not funny!

 

I never read his book. I just skimmed through it. I read reviews that said it was too childish and not scientific enough, and that is what I saw from the skimming that I did.

It should be published shortly if I would just write it instead of writing on here.

 

why not say it ?? ...because i do not yet believe athiests are human . these characters
only walk about and talk to me in my dreams , and dreams such as that just feel oddly
harmlessly neurotic .