I can prove the existance of God. Right now.

JQ,
If plants and the earth were conscious they would have eradicated us by now like The Happening. Explain how trees are conscious? You claimed they communicate, please reference the scientific study that proved trees talk to each other.

 

I should let J.Q. answer, but I think he might be referring to observations, beginning with geologist Davey Rhoades in 1979 and expounded by Jeanne McDermott in the December, 1984, issue of Smithsonian, that trees secreted more defense chemicals when one of them was under attack by caterpillars. I argued that there are other possible explanations for this besides talking trees, and I think he replied:"So I guess the Earth isn't Conscious either?" I love this forum!

 

This thread is so dumb I'm breaking years of silence in this particular form.

Define "Self-Conscious", then we'll talk.

 

prehaps the beginings of delusions of granduer. But maybe u mean the ability to differentiate between yourself, your body, your environment, other peoples minds, other peoples bodies.

It's being able to say this starts and ends here, grouping things. Differentiation, breaking things down into finite elements (particularly yourself from reality).

What I would say to you is that in science, particularly thermo-dynamics which is a study of reaction kinetics and energy flows (which is essential to time) is that you model a system (lets say a boiling kettle) with a boundary..a kettles boundary maybe the surface of the kettle. While that is an appropriate approximation of the boundary of a kettle its still arbitary...you could include the element in that system...and the energy source the element is connected to...etc etc.

What I mean is that a closed system (a self heating, sealed kettle perhaps?) would be the closest you get to a system thats 'accurate'

equally, i as a person am myself yes but without those around me i would be a different self...i am in no way independent of my environment and any claim i make will ignore some type of dependency down to my very atoms. Maybe you argue the soul is not bound by the laws of matter..Well, yeah but its definitly bound by some laws surely?

 

Pure Solipsism.

"the ability to differentiate between yourself..."
A hydrogen atom can "differentiate" between a gold atom and another hydrogen atom; it can "choose" a chlorine molecule over another of it's own kind.

"It's being able to say...". Does that mean the more articulate a person the more "concsiousness" they have? Is a person with damage to Broca's Convolution of the brain (controlling the ability to communicate) not "concisous"?

Grouping things? Squirrels and nuts.

too easy.

"conciousness", if that means anything at all, is emergent behavior from complex perception., "perception" being the ability to react to that which is percieved.

The cosmegg reacted to a "perception" of an instability and broke into primal energy. I percieved a piece of solipistic logic and reacted with these post. the difference in my behavior and that of the big bang is merely one of complexity.

And by the way, something CAN come from nothing, as long as it brings it's opposite with it.

 

It can, but it won't always...not by a long shot...however it may have more success in evolving if it chooses particular compounds...at least in a darwinian evolution sense.

a turn of phrase if you will. Even self communication is still communication. Creating a memory, coming back to it..please don't be so fickal.

Maybe you thought I was done? Groups are identifying relationships..I think from you're own life experiences relationships aren't always what they seem.

It means as much as your identity. Perception is "ability" to react..or is action the ability. I like spinoza's theory that we're merely observing our life and our involvement is rather minimal.

Well I'd say the difference between your act and that of the big bang is balance as well. See while the big bang was original in that it contained everything, your behavior is but a piece

 

"It can, but it won't always...not by a long shot...however it may have more success in evolving if it chooses particular compounds...at least in a darwinian evolution sense."

Of course it will always-- with mathmatical precsion. Hence we can synthsize certain chemicals. But NOT gold hydride.


"a turn of phrase if you will. Even self communication is still communication. Creating a memory, coming back to it..please don't be so fickal."

That is a completely solipsistic statement. Don't be obtuse.


"Maybe you thought I was done? Groups are identifying relationships..I think from you're own life experiences relationships aren't always what they seem."

"I think". Your opinion without regard to empirical evidence? Solipsism?
In any case, WHAT?!?!


"It means as much as your identity. Perception is "ability" to react..or is action the ability. I like spinoza's theory that we're merely observing our life and our involvement is rather minimal."

Philosophical clap-trap. You like Spinoza's theory, I like reality.


"Well I'd say the difference between your act and that of the big bang is balance as well. See while the big bang was original in that it contained everything, your behavior is but a piece"

So the big bang created god?
Did it create everything or only one thing? I refer you to e=mc2.

 

Prove it.

All indications are that there is no 1 : 1 cause-effect relationship between events, implying randomness and chaos but not proving it. But you're going to have a really hard time proving order over chaos.

So...

Prove it.

 

The Universe isn't exactly random. It's probilistic and, as a whole, entropic. It's only random within certain parameters.

If it were truly random, ANYTHING could happen.

But it definetly moves, over all, toward chaos (defined as "no order"). Hence the 2nd law.

 

I'd say statistical precision. Yes we won't observe some things, perhaps because they are impossible, more likely because they are not stable enough to mean anything for long enough to observe

I never denied the talking in your head, infact i encourage it...infact i say its our head, or will be, or has been or is soon to be.

Theres plenty, look at tv, read a book...talk to your neighbor. Not at all denying those things to exist what I am saying is your perception of them is flawed and always will be

we are not always aware. is that clearer? it stands to reason with all the stupidity people create, and yes that stupidy makes reality awesome.

everything or one thing, both and everything in between. its just a group. very arbitrary.

 

1) Statistics are an expression of math.

2) "Theres plenty, look at tv, read a book...talk to your neighbor. Not at all denying those things to exist what I am saying is your perception of them is flawed and always will be"
Again, WHAT?

3) what is stupid and what is smart, is, again, an unqualified solipsistic statement

4) "everything or one thing, both and everything in between. its just a group. very arbitrary. " Are you a politician?
Are you saying that the Universe created god and not the other way around?
Or are you saying that the universe was created "whole" (as it is now)-- implying a creator?

And back to the point-- is the Universe "conscious"? Are you? Am I?

 

math in the real world always has an error. My height is 5'9" =/-0.5inch

are conventions of naming intrinsic to reality? A rose by any other name...

stupidity is wasteful, it has a higher entropy than something smart of the same nature.

We are concious within a particular set of circumstances or frame of reference. The universe again would be concious in a particular circumstance or frame of reference. To one person their thoughts are their own, to an outsider their thoughts are merely reactionary, or not its purely their point of view. Which again brings me back to grouping and differentiation, councious would have a begining and an end...ie the thought started and it must end some time. If it were not a thought then it would begin else where and inside that person it is a reaction. You can always extrapolate something back to infinity, and all lines meet there...so you just say when it started...your thinking...its arbitary, you can convince someone that it started then but there is a big error in that agreement

 

As soon as you start with pronouncements,i.e., "councious would have a begining and an end...ie the thought started and it must end some time." you revert to solipism. Why would it? What do you mean by end?

your "frame of reference" allows you to engage in circular logic.
The Universe has noframeofreference-- it IS the frame of reference

 

what have you engaged in except a fest of labelling? what is solipsism...from what i can read its

"Solipsism is the philosophical idea that one's own mind is all that exists."

Look, blatently things have a begining and an end because to observe something you have to in some way comprehend it, so that gives you an idea of what it is. From the point of what it is until it is no more that would be its beginning and an end. That frame of reference is the reference of what something should be

Why are you trying to think so absolute? what does it achieve...it seems so mechanistic of you

 

An idea that supports another idea. Yet still no concrete evidence of this God.

 

You're taking a step back, an unnecessary step back. If god created the universe and life, who created god? You're using something unexplainable to explain the unexplainable.

 

"Look, blatently things have a begining and an end because to observe something you have to in some way comprehend it, so that gives you an idea of what it is. From the point of what it is until it is no more that would be its beginning and an end. That frame of reference is the reference of what something should be"

You're the one being absolute, not I.
consider the above paragraph:
It is an absolute as well as solipistic-- you only grant existence relative to yourself , and you define existence as your ability to percieve a begining and an end.

You didn't observe the begining-- you just assume it.
Scientist deduce it-- always subject to correction via new observations, of course.

"That frame of reference is the reference of what something should be"
Should be???????
That, my friend, is pure solipism. you're mistaking your opinion for objective reality.
Ask yourself what is the "frame of reference" with which you compare the Universe?
the answer is clear.
----
Consider that Physicist use secondary observation exclusively, and thus obtain data that is NOT dependent on the a subjective "you".
---
Sorry guys, but when I saw this thread it pushed my logic button.

 

I think my belief in God is consistent with the evidence, but it rests primarily on intuition, experience, judgment, and faith (defined as an educated bet). I have an intuitive sense that there's Something Big Out There and/or In Here. Life is so cool it must mean something, but I'm not exactly sure what. My image of God is not the bearded Charlton Heston-like figure in the robe. It's more like Woody Allen wearing a beret and sitting in a director's chair. To me, reality has the feel of an avant garde interactive tragi-comedic theater of the absurd, full of tears and laughs, pathos and slapstick,schmaltz,sex and graphic violence, blood and guts, with endings that often leave the audience scratching their heads. I'm often saying "You can't write this shit!" This concept of God as Cinematographer isn't original. Norman Mailer advanced the same concept in the fifties.

 

This thread is three years old.