| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Believer" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2003 12:37:54 PM |
| Object: |
Proving God is quite easy really...... |
Consider it....
Equations must be the same on both sides. If they weren't they simply
wouldn't be equations. Thus:
One unit of matter/energy to the power of X = The chair I'm sitting on
and...
The chair I'm sitting on = One unit of matter/energy to the power of X
or
One unit of matter/energy to the power of X = A lump of rock.
and...
A lump of rock = One unit of matter/energy to the power of X
So,
If... One unit of matter/energy to the power of X = Consciousness
then
Consciousness must = One unit of matter/energy to the power of X
If it doesn't then consciousness must have been implanted into our Universe
by something else - a something that, for all intents and purposes, must be
"God".
And,
If consciousness does = One unit of matter/energy to the power of X then the
Universe and Consciousness are thus made from the same thing (being, again
for all intents and purposes, "God").
In conclusion, we really shouldn't be surprised by the "mind" being capable
of intrapersonal contact (telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.,) or intramaterial
contact (psychometry, psychokinesis, etc.,) since it would be more puzzling
if this didn't occur. After all, equations being the same on both sides and
reversable is probably the most important and fundamental axiom in science.
The Buddhists have it right. Whatever "IT" is, it's by far the best
candidate we have for the label of "God" IMHO.
--------
Believer
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
05 Sep 2003 12:48:03 PM |
|
|
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> said:
Consider it....
Equations must be the same on both sides. If they weren't they simply
wouldn't be equations. Thus:
One unit of matter/energy to the power of X = The chair I'm sitting on
and...
The chair I'm sitting on = One unit of matter/energy to the power of X
or
One unit of matter/energy to the power of X = A lump of rock.
and...
A lump of rock = One unit of matter/energy to the power of X
So,
If... One unit of matter/energy to the power of X = Consciousness
then
Consciousness must = One unit of matter/energy to the power of X
If it doesn't then consciousness must have been implanted into our Universe
by something else - a something that, for all intents and purposes, must be
"God".
See below.
And,
If consciousness does = One unit of matter/energy to the power of X then the
Universe and Consciousness are thus made from the same thing (being, again
for all intents and purposes, "God").
See below.
In conclusion, we really shouldn't be surprised by the "mind" being capable
of intrapersonal contact (telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.,) or intramaterial
contact (psychometry, psychokinesis, etc.,) since it would be more puzzling
if this didn't occur. After all, equations being the same on both sides and
reversable is probably the most important and fundamental axiom in science.
The Buddhists have it right. Whatever "IT" is, it's by far the best
candidate we have for the label of "God" IMHO.
You say, "...for all intents and purposes, must be "God"." and you say
"... the same thing (being, again for all intents and purposes,
"God")."
My question is, *what* intents and purposes? The only intents and
purposes I can think of for using the word "God" in this situation are
kind a fishy.
Bet you won't answer!
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Believer" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
05 Sep 2003 02:10:24 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6nihlv8p7ee7gu53997ip2e5op005cj4hn@4ax.com...
You say, "...for all intents and purposes, must be "God"." and you say
"... the same thing (being, again for all intents and purposes,
"God")."
My question is, *what* intents and purposes? The only intents and
purposes I can think of for using the word "God" in this situation are
kind a fishy.
Bet you won't answer!
Fishing for an answer, Jim? :-)
The logic is quite simple really. If Consciousness is "Supernatural" to the
Universe then instantly you have a supernatural "Supreme Being" (since I am,
as you've probably guessed, arguing that Conscousness itself (in some kind
of cosmic Oneness soup with every other consciousness and the Universe) is
"God/Supreme *Be*ing").
Similarly if Consciousness is "natural" to the Universe then matter/energy =
Consciousnes being a reversable equation (as it must be) then that
particualr consciousness (which we know of) is the only real candidate we
have for a Supreme Being - or "God".
The equation is flawless, Jim. If consciousness is either a direct
phenomenon of the brain (or an epiphenomenon) then it is the result of
matter/energy. Thus, again, matter/energy = consiousness and consciousness
= matter/energy.
Add so-called "para-normal" mind to mind contact and mind over matter
actions and you have something that, frankly, even if we don't call it God
or Supreme Being, it still has undeniable implications for atheism.
--------
Believer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
05 Sep 2003 03:15:48 PM |
|
|
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> said:
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6nihlv8p7ee7gu53997ip2e5op005cj4hn@4ax.com...
You say, "...for all intents and purposes, must be "God"." and you say
"... the same thing (being, again for all intents and purposes,
"God")."
My question is, *what* intents and purposes? The only intents and
purposes I can think of for using the word "God" in this situation are
kind a fishy.
Bet you won't answer!
Fishing for an answer, Jim? :-)
And not getting even a bite.
The logic is quite simple really. If Consciousness is "Supernatural" to the
Universe then instantly you have a supernatural "Supreme Being" (since I am,
as you've probably guessed, arguing that Conscousness itself (in some kind
of cosmic Oneness soup with every other consciousness and the Universe) is
"God/Supreme *Be*ing").
By your argument, consciousness is either = to some mathematically
describable energy-matter situation, in which case it is (perhaps
definitionally) not supernatural; or it is not = to some such natural
situation. The latter, at most, is "preternatural" not "supernatural"
and besides having a long way to go from preter to super, you didn't
answer my question.
Similarly if Consciousness is "natural" to the Universe then matter/energy =
Consciousnes being a reversable equation (as it must be) then that
particualr consciousness (which we know of) is the only real candidate we
have for a Supreme Being - or "God".
But still, you didn't answer my question, and now, you are saying if
consciousness is natural then it is the only real candidate we have
for God ,but you defined God as supernatural supreme being, thus
eliminating this candidate, since it is not natural.
The equation is flawless, Jim. If consciousness is either a direct
phenomenon of the brain (or an epiphenomenon) then it is the result of
matter/energy. Thus, again, matter/energy = consiousness and consciousness
= matter/energy.
I was right, you didn't answer my question.
Add so-called "para-normal" mind to mind contact and mind over matter
actions and you have something that, frankly, even if we don't call it God
or Supreme Being, it still has undeniable implications for atheism.
But I'll give you another chance. I'm sure if you go back and read
your Watts again, you'll get IT. ;-)
http://www.zenhell.com/GetEnlightened/watts/01title.htm
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Believer" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
06 Sep 2003 12:18:16 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3jqhlv0q4r8kc0mv3b9tnd2epl3iosgdh0@4ax.com...
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> said:
The logic is quite simple really. If Consciousness is "Supernatural" to
the
Universe then instantly you have a supernatural "Supreme Being" (since I
am,
as you've probably guessed, arguing that Conscousness itself (in some
kind
of cosmic Oneness soup with every other consciousness and the Universe)
is
"God/Supreme *Be*ing").
By your argument, consciousness is either = to some mathematically
describable energy-matter situation, in which case it is (perhaps
definitionally) not supernatural;
That's the one I'd go with. Consciousness is not supernatural to the
Universe.
or it is not = to some such natural
situation. The latter, at most, is "preternatural" not "supernatural"
and besides having a long way to go from preter to super, you didn't
answer my question.
Ah, yes, your objection to the use of the word "God". Allow me to explain.
Consciousness is known to be involved in activities as yet unexplained.
Telepathy and clairvoyace clearly exist as does the ability of the mind to
influence matter. Thus consciousnesses are connected both with each other
and with the universe. Shall we call it "Being" if the term "God" or
"Supreme Being" is unpalatable to you?
Either way - and regardless about your belief in (or lack of) ESP - surely
you would agree that if this "Being" exists then it has serious implications
for atheism, yes?
Similarly if Consciousness is "natural" to the Universe then
matter/energy =
Consciousnes being a reversable equation (as it must be) then that
particualr consciousness (which we know of) is the only real candidate we
have for a Supreme Being - or "God".
But still, you didn't answer my question,
See above.
and now, you are saying if
consciousness is natural then it is the only real candidate we have
for God ,but you defined God as supernatural supreme being, thus
eliminating this candidate, since it is not natural.
No I simply offered two distinct models that don't interfere with each
other. (And, personally, I'd go with the natural rather than supernatural
one.)
The equation is flawless, Jim. If consciousness is either a direct
phenomenon of the brain (or an epiphenomenon) then it is the result of
matter/energy. Thus, again, matter/energy = consiousness and
consciousness
= matter/energy.
I was right, you didn't answer my question.
Well, if this post doesn't suffice you're going to have to be a bit more
clear as I am certainly not trying to be evasive. If mind to mind contact
and mind over matter activities are real (and they certainly are) then that,
IMHO, is about the only thing I know of that can be termed "God" - but,
again, we don't absoloutely have to call it that.
--------
Believer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
06 Sep 2003 02:12:27 PM |
|
|
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> said:
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3jqhlv0q4r8kc0mv3b9tnd2epl3iosgdh0@4ax.com...
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> said:
The logic is quite simple really. If Consciousness is "Supernatural" to
the
Universe then instantly you have a supernatural "Supreme Being" (since I
am,
as you've probably guessed, arguing that Conscousness itself (in some
kind
of cosmic Oneness soup with every other consciousness and the Universe)
is
"God/Supreme *Be*ing").
By your argument, consciousness is either = to some mathematically
describable energy-matter situation, in which case it is (perhaps
definitionally) not supernatural;
That's the one I'd go with. Consciousness is not supernatural to the
Universe.
or it is not = to some such natural
situation. The latter, at most, is "preternatural" not "supernatural"
and besides having a long way to go from preter to super, you didn't
answer my question.
Ah, yes, your objection to the use of the word "God". Allow me to explain.
Consciousness is known to be involved in activities as yet unexplained.
Telepathy and clairvoyace clearly exist as does the ability of the mind to
influence matter. Thus consciousnesses are connected both with each other
and with the universe. Shall we call it "Being" if the term "God" or
"Supreme Being" is unpalatable to you?
I believe that the word "God" can be used, if explained as being a
symbol or principle or if explained for what it symbolizes. In fact,
I'd say we need to deal with that word and not set up artificial rules
like "just don't use the G word. Watts deals with the word rather
interestingly. But I think the reaction that many people have had to
your initial post on this subject is indicative of the fact that far
more, or different things come "bundled" with that word, for many
people, than you intend. So, I asked what is the "intent and purpose"
of using that word. I think you have now explained yours, and it's OK
by me. I personally like the UGB -- ultimate ground of being.
Either way - and regardless about your belief in (or lack of) ESP - surely
you would agree that if this "Being" exists then it has serious implications
for atheism, yes?
Not unless it is a god.
Similarly if Consciousness is "natural" to the Universe then
matter/energy =
Consciousnes being a reversable equation (as it must be) then that
particualr consciousness (which we know of) is the only real candidate we
have for a Supreme Being - or "God".
But still, you didn't answer my question,
See above.
and now, you are saying if
consciousness is natural then it is the only real candidate we have
for God ,but you defined God as supernatural supreme being, thus
eliminating this candidate, since it is not natural.
No I simply offered two distinct models that don't interfere with each
other. (And, personally, I'd go with the natural rather than supernatural
one.)
And I'd say the distinction is an illusion. As is mind/matter dualism.
The equation is flawless, Jim. If consciousness is either a direct
phenomenon of the brain (or an epiphenomenon) then it is the result of
matter/energy. Thus, again, matter/energy = consiousness and
consciousness
= matter/energy.
I was right, you didn't answer my question.
Well, if this post doesn't suffice you're going to have to be a bit more
clear as I am certainly not trying to be evasive. If mind to mind contact
and mind over matter activities are real (and they certainly are) then that,
IMHO, is about the only thing I know of that can be termed "God" - but,
again, we don't absoloutely have to call it that.
Thanks, you've answered me.
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
08 Sep 2003 11:04:01 AM |
|
|
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> wrote in message news:<vFo6b.2866$Ve3.2800@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3jqhlv0q4r8kc0mv3b9tnd2epl3iosgdh0@4ax.com...
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> said:
The logic is quite simple really. If Consciousness is "Supernatural" to
the
Universe then instantly you have a supernatural "Supreme Being" (since I
am,
as you've probably guessed, arguing that Conscousness itself (in some
kind
of cosmic Oneness soup with every other consciousness and the Universe)
is
"God/Supreme *Be*ing").
By your argument, consciousness is either = to some mathematically
describable energy-matter situation, in which case it is (perhaps
definitionally) not supernatural;
That's the one I'd go with. Consciousness is not supernatural to the
Universe.
or it is not = to some such natural
situation. The latter, at most, is "preternatural" not "supernatural"
and besides having a long way to go from preter to super, you didn't
answer my question.
Ah, yes, your objection to the use of the word "God". Allow me to explain.
Consciousness is known to be involved in activities as yet unexplained.
[snip *****]
No it is not. There is absolutely no evidence for any of that
mystical BS you claim. Your whole premise is stupid. Consciousness
is not matter or energy or mystical bull. Is it simply a state of
being and does not have a physical form.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
07 Sep 2003 04:01:19 PM |
|
|
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> wrote in message news:<vFo6b.2866$Ve3.2800@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3jqhlv0q4r8kc0mv3b9tnd2epl3iosgdh0@4ax.com...
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> said:
The logic is quite simple really. If Consciousness is "Supernatural" to
the
Universe then instantly you have a supernatural "Supreme Being" (since I
am,
as you've probably guessed, arguing that Conscousness itself (in some
kind
of cosmic Oneness soup with every other consciousness and the Universe)
is
"God/Supreme *Be*ing").
By your argument, consciousness is either = to some mathematically
describable energy-matter situation, in which case it is (perhaps
definitionally) not supernatural;
That's the one I'd go with. Consciousness is not supernatural to the
Universe.
Agreed.
or it is not = to some such natural
situation. The latter, at most, is "preternatural" not "supernatural"
and besides having a long way to go from preter to super, you didn't
answer my question.
Ah, yes, your objection to the use of the word "God". Allow me to explain.
Consciousness is known to be involved in activities as yet unexplained.
Correct: thinking and remembering.
Telepathy and clairvoyace clearly exist as does the ability of the mind to
influence matter.
Eh? Clearly? I've been very interested in these subjects for some
time, and I'm afraid that I've seen no conclusive evidence for them,
and only suggestive evidence which is more easily explained by more
prosaic means.
Thus consciousnesses are connected both with each other
and with the universe.
I assure you that *my consciousness is *very thoroughly linked to the
universe. Unfortunately, I am "linked" only very indirectly to other
"Consciousnesses":
"Hello!"
"Hello."
"What?"
"I didn't hear you. Say again?"
"What?"
Shall we call it "Being" if the term "God" or
"Supreme Being" is unpalatable to you?
How about several brains, scattered around the planet?
Either way - and regardless about your belief in (or lack of) ESP - surely
you would agree that if this "Being" exists then it has serious implications
for atheism, yes?
Um... it's pretty widely accepted that if a god exists, it has serious
implications for atheism, yes.
Similarly if Consciousness is "natural" to the Universe then
matter/energy =
Consciousnes being a reversable equation (as it must be) then that
particualr consciousness (which we know of) is the only real candidate we
have for a Supreme Being - or "God".
But still, you didn't answer my question,
See above.
and now, you are saying if
consciousness is natural then it is the only real candidate we have
for God ,but you defined God as supernatural supreme being, thus
eliminating this candidate, since it is not natural.
No I simply offered two distinct models that don't interfere with each
other. (And, personally, I'd go with the natural rather than supernatural
one.)
The natural model is mundane, and is not clarified by the use of the
word "god". Minds exist, and they are a characteristic of living
brains. No need for "God" words here.
The equation is flawless, Jim.
The equation, I'm afraid, is fuzzy beyond any usefulness.
If consciousness is either a direct
phenomenon of the brain (or an epiphenomenon) then it is the result of
matter/energy. Thus, again, matter/energy = consiousness and
consciousness
= matter/energy.
I was right, you didn't answer my question.
Well, if this post doesn't suffice you're going to have to be a bit more
clear as I am certainly not trying to be evasive. If mind to mind contact
and mind over matter activities are real (and they certainly are)
They're not, AFAICT. But if they were, why would it help to call
telepathy "god"?
then that,
IMHO, is about the only thing I know of that can be termed "God" - but,
again, we don't absoloutely have to call it that.
We already have words for the improbable but conceivable phenomena of
telepathy, telekenesis, etc.
--------
Believer
--- Kermit
Forty years later, still refusing to polish a brick.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
14 Sep 2003 02:25:34 PM |
|
|
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> wrote in message news:<vFo6b.2866$Ve3.2800@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3jqhlv0q4r8kc0mv3b9tnd2epl3iosgdh0@4ax.com...
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> said:
The logic is quite simple really. If Consciousness is "Supernatural" to
the
Universe then instantly you have a supernatural "Supreme Being" (since I
am,
as you've probably guessed, arguing that Conscousness itself (in some
kind
of cosmic Oneness soup with every other consciousness and the Universe)
is
"God/Supreme *Be*ing").
By your argument, consciousness is either = to some mathematically
describable energy-matter situation, in which case it is (perhaps
definitionally) not supernatural;
That's the one I'd go with. Consciousness is not supernatural to the
Universe.
or it is not = to some such natural
situation. The latter, at most, is "preternatural" not "supernatural"
and besides having a long way to go from preter to super, you didn't
answer my question.
Ah, yes, your objection to the use of the word "God". Allow me to explain.
Consciousness is known to be involved in activities as yet unexplained.
Telepathy and clairvoyace clearly exist as does the ability of the mind to
influence matter. Thus consciousnesses are connected both with each other
and with the universe.
Wait a minute. Consciousness can influence each other, and
consciousnesses can influence material things. But that doesn't show
that all consciousnesses are all elements of 'some kind of cosmic
Oneness soup'.
After all, different material things influence each other - that's a
fact so obvious that you may be taking it for granted - and no one
infers that they are all parts of one thing from that.
It's more likely that, if units of consciousness are equivalent to
units of matter and energy, then, since the units of matter and energy
are discrete, the units of consciousness are discrete. And if the
units of consciousness are not, then they might or might not be parts
of one thing - there's no reason to claim either, without a way to
observe consciousness. (If introspection counts as observation, again
we have evidence that different units are different things.)
Shall we call it "Being" if the term "God" or
"Supreme Being" is unpalatable to you?
All we can really describe consciousness as, at this stage of your
exposition, is "Stuff" (not even "Soup").
Either way - and regardless about your belief in (or lack of) ESP - surely
you would agree that if this "Being" exists then it has serious implications
for atheism, yes?
Similarly if Consciousness is "natural" to the Universe then
matter/energy =
Consciousnes being a reversable equation (as it must be) then that
particualr consciousness (which we know of) is the only real candidate we
have for a Supreme Being - or "God".
I wouldn't even call it a serious candidate at this point. The
'reversible equation' hypothesis makes a good story, but it can't be
the Creation story: the Consciousness couldn't have created the
physical universe, as it can't be anything different from the physical
universe; and if the latter needs explaining, so does the former, as
it's the same thing.
And it contains what looks like a big hole; there's no explanation of
the observable evidence that some arrangements of matter and energy -
human brains -appear to be more conscious than others - rocks, eg.
snip
If mind to mind contact
and mind over matter activities are real (and they certainly are) then that,
IMHO, is about the only thing I know of that can be termed "God" - but,
again, we don't absoloutely have to call it that.
We have no grounds for calling it anything more than 'Stuff.' No God
for me, no Soup for you!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
05 Sep 2003 09:27:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:15:48 GMT,
Jim07D3 <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in response to "Believer":
But I'll give you another chance. I'm sure if you go back and read
your Watts again, you'll get IT. ;-)
http://www.zenhell.com/GetEnlightened/watts/01title.htm
That is a lovely book! Alan Watts was one of the clearest authors
on Buddhism and Taoism.
When I read Believer's initial post I wondered if he had had some
interesting experiences that he was having a hard time explaining
to people.
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Believer" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
06 Sep 2003 12:26:30 PM |
|
|
"Martin Thomas" <mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> wrote in message
news:9ahilv8j0727o04trhkivci5fpfovpm52n@4ax.com...
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:15:48 GMT,
Jim07D3 <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in response to "Believer":
But I'll give you another chance. I'm sure if you go back and read
your Watts again, you'll get IT. ;-)
http://www.zenhell.com/GetEnlightened/watts/01title.htm
That is a lovely book! Alan Watts was one of the clearest authors
on Buddhism and Taoism.
Yes, it was cool.
When I read Believer's initial post I wondered if he had had some
interesting experiences that he was having a hard time explaining
to people.
Actually, I wasn't trying to do that (at least not deliberately) but I have
been a regular meditator since my teens and though I don't subscribe to any
particular religion I realise that what I am saying is very Buddhist
sounding (though all of this can be found in Hindi and Christian mystical
literature also).
Yes, it is certainly true that meditation leads to quite profound depths of
awareness of ones "Self" and the "World".
Here's a link that may interest you:
http://www.digiserve.com/mystic/
--------
Believer
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
06 Sep 2003 10:19:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:27:50 +0100, Martin Thomas wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:15:48 GMT,
Jim07D3 <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in response to "Believer":
But I'll give you another chance. I'm sure if you go back and read your
Watts again, you'll get IT. ;-)
http://www.zenhell.com/GetEnlightened/watts/01title.htm
That is a lovely book! Alan Watts was one of the clearest authors on
Buddhism and Taoism.
When I read Believer's initial post I wondered if he had had some
interesting experiences that he was having a hard time explaining to
people.
You mean, maybe, an ootsie feeling in his kichen?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
05 Sep 2003 10:29:50 PM |
|
|
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> wrote in
news:Jc56b.1967$1%2.41346@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net:
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6nihlv8p7ee7gu53997ip2e5op005cj4hn@4ax.com...
You say, "...for all intents and purposes, must be "God"." and you
say "... the same thing (being, again for all intents and purposes,
"God")."
My question is, *what* intents and purposes? The only intents and
purposes I can think of for using the word "God" in this situation
are kind a fishy.
Bet you won't answer!
Fishing for an answer, Jim? :-)
The logic is quite simple really. If Consciousness is "Supernatural"
<snip>
I don't believe in "supernatural" or "paranormal." Consciousness is part
and parcel of life. No life, no consciousness--and no god is even remotely
necessary.
--
Dr. Smartass
BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
"And the knowledge that they fear
Is a weapon to be used against them."
--Rush, "The Weapon"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
07 Sep 2003 03:48:20 PM |
|
|
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> wrote in message news:<Jc56b.1967$1%2.41346@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6nihlv8p7ee7gu53997ip2e5op005cj4hn@4ax.com...
You say, "...for all intents and purposes, must be "God"." and you say
"... the same thing (being, again for all intents and purposes,
"God")."
My question is, *what* intents and purposes? The only intents and
purposes I can think of for using the word "God" in this situation are
kind a fishy.
Bet you won't answer!
Fishing for an answer, Jim? :-)
The logic is quite simple really. If Consciousness is "Supernatural" to the
Universe then instantly you have a supernatural "Supreme Being" (since I am,
as you've probably guessed, arguing that Conscousness itself (in some kind
of cosmic Oneness soup with every other consciousness and the Universe) is
"God/Supreme *Be*ing").
Similarly if Consciousness is "natural" to the Universe then matter/energy =
Consciousnes being a reversable equation (as it must be) then that
particualr consciousness (which we know of) is the only real candidate we
have for a Supreme Being - or "God".
The equation is flawless, Jim. If consciousness is either a direct
phenomenon of the brain (or an epiphenomenon) then it is the result of
matter/energy. Thus, again, matter/energy = consiousness and consciousness
= matter/energy.
Add so-called "para-normal" mind to mind contact and mind over matter
actions and you have something that, frankly, even if we don't call it God
or Supreme Being, it still has undeniable implications for atheism.
--------
Believer
You "equation" can only convincingly assert that certain lumps of
matter, when organized in certain ways, produce a functioning brain.
And I agree, the existence of a brain implies that there is a lump of
matter, of certain materials, organized in a certain way (of which we
know a little).
You cannot decide from this that there is therefore telepathy,
greater, minds, etc. You are only stating, in your new Age and
confused way, that we know that the universe is at least as smart as
humans, in very specific locations.
You have given no reasoning other than extremely fuzzy equivocation to
think that you have said more. This is a rather prosaic observation,
and calling ourselves "God" is, I think, not very helpful.
Do you have *evidence that there is "consciousness other than in human
(and to lesser degrees, non-human) brains?
Cars are stuff; that doesn't mean that all stuff is cars.
Only *some matter/energy produces consciousness - living brains. And
an equation is not the clearest way of describing it. Sheesh.
Cognitive fluff.
--- Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
06 Sep 2003 10:12:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:10:24 +0100, Believer wrote:
The equation is flawless
You write crank letters to scientists don't you?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
05 Sep 2003 05:57:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:10:24 +0100 the ET form known as
Believer<dontwant@anyspam.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
The equation is flawless,
So too is this one.
Cat = dog / dog = cat. Flawless I tell you. But it does not mean
anything.
--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.
|
|
|
| User: "Believer" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
05 Sep 2003 08:35:16 PM |
|
|
"Meteorite Debris" <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote
in message news:MPG.19c39cb3a553a8d989c13@news.optusnet.com.au...
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:10:24 +0100 the ET form known as
Believer<dontwant@anyspam.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
The equation is flawless,
So too is this one.
Cat = dog / dog = cat. Flawless I tell you. But it does not mean
anything.
It doesn't mean anything because cats and dogs are only cats and dogs in
sensory perception.
At that level cats do not equal dogs.
And dogs, in case you are wondering, do not equal cats either... in sensory
perception.
But... and how unfortunate this must be for you... dogs still =
matter/energy and, believe it or not, cats also = matter/energy.
And the equation, being reversable and equal on both sides, holds true.
dogs = M/E
M/E = dogs
....same with cats.
Now answer my question: if the equation Matter/Energy = Consciousness is not
true - then why? Is Consciousness a Supernatural agent?
--------
believer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
06 Sep 2003 10:13:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 02:35:16 +0100, Believer wrote:
"Meteorite Debris" <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote
in message news:MPG.19c39cb3a553a8d989c13@news.optusnet.com.au...
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:10:24 +0100 the ET form known as
Believer<dontwant@anyspam.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
The equation is flawless,
So too is this one.
Cat = dog / dog = cat. Flawless I tell you. But it does not mean
anything.
It doesn't mean anything because cats and dogs are only cats and dogs in
sensory perception.
Oh damn. You're so stupid you don't get it when you're being ridiculed?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
05 Sep 2003 11:19:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 02:35:16 +0100 the ET form known as
Believer<dontwant@anyspam.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Now answer my question: if the equation Matter/Energy = Consciousness is not
true - then why? Is Consciousness a Supernatural agent?
Because consciousness is a quality arising from a state of mind. Not a
thing as much.
--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.
|
|
|
| User: "Believer" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
06 Sep 2003 12:36:42 PM |
|
|
"Meteorite Debris" <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote
in message news:MPG.19c3e824a8afbe70989c14@news.optusnet.com.au...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 02:35:16 +0100 the ET form known as
Believer<dontwant@anyspam.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Now answer my question: if the equation Matter/Energy = Consciousness is
not
true - then why? Is Consciousness a Supernatural agent?
Because consciousness is a quality arising from a state of mind.
Oh dear... then mind = M/E and M/E = mind.
Suits me.
Not a
thing as much.
That's like saying that because a dog is a certain configuration of M/E it's
not a thing as such. You should talk to Mekkala - he's of the opposite
persuation.
--------
Stephen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
06 Sep 2003 10:14:43 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 18:36:42 +0100, Believer wrote:
"Meteorite Debris" <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote
in message news:MPG.19c3e824a8afbe70989c14@news.optusnet.com.au...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 02:35:16 +0100 the ET form known as
Believer<dontwant@anyspam.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Now answer my question: if the equation Matter/Energy = Consciousness
is
not
true - then why? Is Consciousness a Supernatural agent?
Because consciousness is a quality arising from a state of mind.
Oh dear... then mind = M/E and M/E = mind.
Talk about an utterly banal conclusion...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
06 Sep 2003 05:18:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:36:42 +0100 the ET form known as
Believer<dontwant@anyspam.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
"Meteorite Debris" <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote
in message news:MPG.19c3e824a8afbe70989c14@news.optusnet.com.au...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 02:35:16 +0100 the ET form known as
Believer<dontwant@anyspam.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Now answer my question: if the equation Matter/Energy = Consciousness is
not
true - then why? Is Consciousness a Supernatural agent?
Because consciousness is a quality arising from a state of mind.
Oh dear... then mind = M/E and M/E = mind.
Suits me.
Not a
thing as much.
That's like saying that because a dog is a certain configuration of M/E it's
not a thing as such.
No. Consciousness is not an object. A dog is.
You should talk to Mekkala - he's of the opposite
persuation.
--------
Stephen
--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
06 Sep 2003 10:19:13 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 07:48:00 +0930, Meteorite Debris wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:36:42 +0100 the ET form known as
Believer<dontwant@anyspam.com> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse
of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
"Meteorite Debris" <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au>
wrote in message news:MPG.19c3e824a8afbe70989c14@news.optusnet.com.au...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 02:35:16 +0100 the ET form known as
Believer<dontwant@anyspam.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Now answer my question: if the equation Matter/Energy =
Consciousness is
not
true - then why? Is Consciousness a Supernatural agent?
Because consciousness is a quality arising from a state of mind.
Oh dear... then mind = M/E and M/E = mind.
Suits me.
Not a
thing as much.
That's like saying that because a dog is a certain configuration of M/E
it's not a thing as such.
No. Consciousness is not an object. A dog is.
No, no, no, no!
Look, the breathtakingly brilliant observation for which we are all to
throw rose petals before him is:
Everything in the universe is made of matter and energy.
Matter and energy make up everything in the universe.
Wow!
STUFF IS MADE OF STUFF!!!!!!
I must go contemplate this.
(Right after I open a new pack of toilet paper)
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
07 Sep 2003 05:58:11 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2003.09.07.03.19.11.376170@eac.org>, Mark K. Bilbo
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
STUFF IS MADE OF STUFF!!!!!!
And all your prophecy are belong to... er,
Never mind.
--
--GlennGlenn--aa#825--
--dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com--
--Lost & seeing double somewhere in Hollywood, CA--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Rutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
06 Sep 2003 07:12:13 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 02:35:16 +0100, "Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com>
wrote:
And the equation, being reversable and equal on both sides, holds true.
dogs = M/E
M/E = dogs
...same with cats.
Fine.
dogs = M/E
cats = M/E
dogs = M/E = cats
dogs = cats
Happy now?
-
To Reply: Take off every Zig!
EAC - Director of Quantum Computing
Ordained Minister - Universal Life Church
.
|
|
|
| User: "Believer" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
06 Sep 2003 12:42:39 PM |
|
|
"Scott Rutter" <sZIGrutter@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iojjlv04pks1hjfpl641v21146jph2a13r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 02:35:16 +0100, "Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com>
wrote:
And the equation, being reversable and equal on both sides, holds true.
dogs = M/E
M/E = dogs
...same with cats.
Fine.
dogs = M/E
cats = M/E
dogs = M/E = cats
dogs = cats
Happy now?
You're making the same mistake as another poster did with numbers. When you
say:
dogs = M/E
cats = M/E
you're not talking about the same quantity of M/E.
You could say M/E = M/E or, like the other fellow, that a number = a number
but not dogs = cats or five = seven.
--------
Believer
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
06 Sep 2003 02:51:59 PM |
|
|
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> wrote:
"Scott Rutter" <sZIGrutter@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iojjlv04pks1hjfpl641v21146jph2a13r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 02:35:16 +0100, "Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com>
wrote:
And the equation, being reversable and equal on both sides, holds true.
dogs = M/E
M/E = dogs
...same with cats.
Fine.
dogs = M/E
cats = M/E
dogs = M/E = cats
dogs = cats
Happy now?
You're making the same mistake as another poster did with numbers. When you
say:
dogs = M/E
cats = M/E
you're not talking about the same quantity of M/E.
Ahh, I see. So if a dog and a cat had the same quantity of M/E (perhaps
a small dog and/or a large cat), then they would indeed be the same.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Believer" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
07 Sep 2003 04:18:37 PM |
|
|
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:hkeklv4l82c01rmr86kargh0u7dqlhv0rb@4ax.com...
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> wrote:
Ahh, I see. So if a dog and a cat had the same quantity of M/E (perhaps
a small dog and/or a large cat), then they would indeed be the same.
2 Stones (say) of matter would indeed equal 2 Stones of Matter.
--------
Believer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nikolaos D. Bougalis" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
07 Sep 2003 04:35:06 PM |
|
|
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> wrote in message
news:JgN6b.3709$Ve3.2308@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:hkeklv4l82c01rmr86kargh0u7dqlhv0rb@4ax.com...
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> wrote:
Ahh, I see. So if a dog and a cat had the same quantity of M/E (perhaps
a small dog and/or a large cat), then they would indeed be the same.
2 Stones (say) of matter would indeed equal 2 Stones of Matter.
Do you have to try to do this -- manage to type and type and type, only
to say absolutely nothing -- or does it come naturally?
-n
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
07 Sep 2003 05:00:14 PM |
|
|
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:hkeklv4l82c01rmr86kargh0u7dqlhv0rb@4ax.com...
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> wrote:
Ahh, I see. So if a dog and a cat had the same quantity of M/E (perhaps
a small dog and/or a large cat), then they would indeed be the same.
2 Stones (say) of matter would indeed equal 2 Stones of Matter.
That's not an answer to the question. If a dog and a cat had the same
quantity of M/E, would they be the same?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Proving God is quite easy really...... |
06 Sep 2003 03:56:37 PM |
|
|
John Hattan wrote:
"Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com> wrote:
"Scott Rutter" <sZIGrutter@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iojjlv04pks1hjfpl641v21146jph2a13r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 02:35:16 +0100, "Believer" <dontwant@anyspam.com>
wrote:
And the equation, being reversable and equal on both sides, holds
true.
dogs = M/E
M/E = dogs
...same with cats.
Fine.
dogs = M/E
cats = M/E
dogs = M/E = cats
dogs = cats
Happy now?
You're making the same mistake as another poster did with numbers.
When you say:
dogs = M/E
cats = M/E
you're not talking about the same quantity of M/E.
Ahh, I see. So if a dog and a cat had the same quantity of M/E
(perhaps
a small dog and/or a large cat), then they would indeed be the same.
Of course, here's proof:
http://www.nick.com/common/images/tv/new/catdog/main_page/cat_dog.gif
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
