Society/Culture Nobody has anything new to say about God.

[Snake_Baker]

But our existence might totally depend on an external creator (non religious kind) to this universe.
And why the need to fathom, isn’t that just evolution, nature, curiosity, pursuit of science...as a prep kid I’ve been fathoming, just innate, the universe has made us that way, well some!

No properties of such a thing has ever been measured by science.

Therefore, at this point in time, it isn't there.

 

[Snake_Baker]

i am not getting in another debate with you

I will just post this gem here again,

which is exhibit C which is an extension of your original argument which was

"I pointed out that your entire hypothesis was built upon distorting off hand remarks, eastern philosophically influenced quips and straight out maverick thinking, that has been shunted back in the field as we have progressed"

I never claimed it to be a law, Bohr and Heisenberg's Copenhagen interpretation is as valid in QM as it was some 90 years ago as is Planck's "matter does not exist" and"consciousness" is non-local. Bohrs and Einstein had a debate on this about mysticism as well, you might wanna google that and educate yourself further.

Yes, and the flying spaghetti monster is equally as valid.

So what has been "shunted back in the field as we have progressed" , if so , we have received further confirmations of what they have said through QM and science. Nothing has been shunted back, outside of your mind.

You bring nothing to the table outside of a few google quotes which you pluck from an atheist website! well done, feeling dumb yet?

Produce a solid body of contemporary scientists that confirm your universal consciousness dogma. I'm not talking about a mere scattering of maverick theoretical physicists and their way out mathematical models. I am referring to a broad selection of empirical scientific disciplines with a significant consensus.

Off you go!

 

[Total Power]

Produce a solid body of contemporary scientists that confirm your universal consciousness dogma. I'm not talking about a mere scattering of maverick theoretical physicists and their way out mathematical models. I am referring to a broad selection of empirical scientific disciplines with a significant consensus.

Off you go!

Ah- so now you have moved from "show me a peer reviewed paper" to show me a consensus. I have posted peer reviewed paper of NDE and non-local consciousness in the last page but i guess it doesnt count LOL

You are a beaut, if you were a woman, i couldn't keep my hands off you, that's why i keep coming back, you are a source of endless entertainment

 

[Snake_Baker]

Ah- so now you have moved from "show me a peer reviewed paper" to show me a consensus. I have posted peer reviewed paper of NDE and non-local consciousness in the last page but i guess it doesnt count LOL

You are a beaut, if you were a woman, i couldn't keep my hands off you, that's why i keep coming back, you are a source of endless entertainment

Huh?

You asked for the "peer reviewed paper"

Go have a lie down, and when you get up look up the meaning of "consensus", then look up "broad selection", and "empirical scientific disciplines".

Off you go!

 

[Total Power]

Huh?

You asked for the "peer reviewed paper"

Go have a lie down, and when you get up look up the meaning of "consensus", then look up "broad selection", and "empirical scientific disciplines".

Off you go!

Empirical scientific discipline haha the same discipline that one said we were at the center of the universe? science is at it's infancy! And why would you "discard" a research like NDE or non-local consciousness, when we are only getting started with the research there? and the results are positive? why do you strive for consensus? does it make you happy that most scientists believe in god? why do you think they do if science have shown them otherwise??? How can there be consensus the first "assumption" people make is brain is all we have? consciousness be seen or measured, hence it must not exist. We are only starting to understand the non-locality of the consciousness, but we have a long long way to go still. Still many many recent researches have come out positive, as i said we will get there someday! we are making progress!

You are also being silly, have we "defined" consciousness yet? if we cannot "define" something but we know it exists how can we even form a hypothesis? Only recently a few scientists like Dr Parnia have acknowledged non-local consciousness but a long way to go yet. but still majority of the scientists belief in god/higher power. Heres PEW

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/






Bohrs notion of subjective and objective truth (Copenhagen interpretation) forms the very basis of QM connection with spirituality. This has stood the test of time and is a very solid theory now, if reality is not objective. I have told you many times before too, even mathematics is not objective truth, 2 plus 2 = 4 is not the objective truth, a simple change in axioms will change the answer. Thus 2 plus 2 = 4 cannot be proven objectively but can only be proven subjectively, depending on the axioms you choose.

The work of these legends, like Bohm, Bohrs, tesla heisenberg, einstein (who was a pantheist), forms the very basis of modern day science and QM. You denying it will not change anything, nor it has been shunted back, it has only strengthened it, the fact that only 17 percent of the scientists are atheists should concern you more.

 

[Total Power]

Only 17 percent of the scientists are also Atheists. You were saying consensus? More scientists are religious or believe in a higher power or lets say "universal consciousness" than they are atheists, this should be alarming to you. Also some researches are at its infancy like QM, we are still starting to get the proof of non-local consciousness, its nowhere near mainstream yet but more research needs to be done. Simply by saying "it does not exist" cause majority don't believe is a cop out. When Bohrs said reality is an illusion, everyone laughed at him, well no one is laughing now is it? Give it a few years! in the meantime there are plenty of peer reviewed papers of non-consciousness coming up as we go, you can start reading them !

 

[Total Power]

Anyway there's no point continuing this, Maybe Tesla was an engineer is the right indication of who you actually are. Tesla was a scientist, a scientist whose work is still used today in modern them QM. Maybe you should read about what these smart people have said about religion and spirituality than wasting time googling what these 17% of the atheists scientists are saying to you. Goodluck

 

[Snake_Baker]

Produce a solid body of contemporary scientists that confirm your universal consciousness dogma. I'm not talking about a mere scattering of maverick theoretical physicists and their way out mathematical models. I am referring to a broad selection of empirical scientific disciplines with a significant consensus.

Off you go!

Still nothing.

You're not waving, you're drowning.

I'll take the 18% if you can deliver it.

 

[Total Power]

Still nothing.

You're not waving, you're drowning.

I'll take the 18% if you can deliver it.

As Matthew Davidson, who studies the neuroscience of consciousness at Monash University in Australia, explains over at The Conversation, we still don't know much about what consciousness actually is, but it's looking more and more likely that it's something we need to consider outside the realm of humans.

https://www.sciencealert.com/this-physicist-is-arguing-that-consciousness-is-a-new-state-of-matter


We will get there, patience grasshopper

 

[Snake_Baker]

As Matthew Davidson, who studies the neuroscience of consciousness at Monash University in Australia, explains over at The Conversation, we still don't know much about what consciousness actually is, but it's looking more and more likely that it's something we need to consider outside the realm of humans.

https://www.sciencealert.com/this-physicist-is-arguing-that-consciousness-is-a-new-state-of-matter

There you go with your left field physicists again.

Arguing that consciousness is "outside the realm of humans", is like arguing that heat or cold exist "outside the realm of humans"

Do you have that broad selection of empirical scientific disciplines with a significant consensus, yet?

 

[Total Power]

There you go with your left field physicists again.

Arguing that consciousness is "outside the realm of humans", is like arguing that heat or cold exist "outside the realm of humans"

Do you have that broad selection of empirical scientific disciplines with a significant consensus, yet?

did you read my posts above? consensus means little in this area of study, where we are only getting started, just like string theory, but take a look at the early results, its very positive. Plenty of peer reviewed papers on NDE and non-local consciousness around, but nowhere near enough for this research to be mainstream, but most scientists are ASSUMING at it as "local", hence we cannot define consciousness. Once we see consciousness as non local like Davidson said above, we will start to solve the puzzle. Till then it will remain a puzzle.

On the other hand the tide is slowly turning, many researchers are now turning towards "outside human" explanation for consciousness cause all attempts to explain local consciousness have failed.

Dont worry Snakey, we will get there someday!

On the other hand i ask you to show me consensus amongst scientists saying consciousness is local? can you? no you can't cause no scientist can claim that.

I repeat, all attempts to explain consciousness assuming it's local have failed! So what remains then? non-local, and yes we will find proof someday, maybe 20 years from now but assuming its local have failed big time, since we can;t even define what it is in the first place under that assumption.


Since we are talking about consensus , science is not able to convince scientists to be atheists! what do you think the reason might be? or you reckon only 18 percent of them are smart?

 

[Snake_Baker]

did you read my posts above? consensus means little in this area of study, where we are only getting started, just like string theory, but take a look at the early results, its very positive. Plenty of peer reviewed papers on NDE and non-local consciousness around, but nowhere near enough for this research to be mainstream, but most scientists are ASSUMING at it as "local", hence we cannot define consciousness. Once we see consciousness as non local like Davidson said above, we will start to solve the puzzle. Till then it will remain a puzzle.

On the other hand the tide is slowly turning, many researchers are now turning towards "outside human" explanation for consciousness cause all attempts to explain local consciousness have failed.

Dont worry Snakey, we will get there someday!

On the other hand i ask you to show me consensus amongst scientists saying consciousness is local? can you? no you can't cause no scientist can claim that.

I repeat, all attempts to explain consciousness assuming it's local have failed! So what remains then? non-local, and yes we will find proof someday, maybe 20 years from now but assuming its local have failed big time, since we can;t even define what it is in the first place under that assumption.


Since we are talking about consensus , science is not able to convince scientists to be atheists! what do you think the reason might be? or you reckon only 18 percent of them are smart?

You should have saved yourself time and just stated that you cannot deliver on any solid scientific consensus.

 

[Total Power]

You should have saved yourself time and just stated that you cannot deliver on any solid scientific consensus.

There is non consensus both ways! cause its an area of study which is still in its infancy. But all attempts to explain it as local have failed, so now we turn to the other

 

[Snake_Baker]

There is non consensus both ways!

cause its an area of study which is still in its infancy.

Its an area of study which is still in its infancy with you.

But all attempts to explain it as local have failed, so now we turn to the other

Oh yeah, this is all dualistic phenomena.

 

[Total Power]

Its an area of study which is still in its infancy with you.

So its been going on for ages then? why is it then we have no clue what it is then? no problems with the assumptions at all hey? most researchers are now looking non-local explaination, your bs won't change that.


And there is a consensous that is local, is it? provide proof. If you cant provide the proof concede your point.

Oh yeah, this is all dualistic phenomena.

LOL! you got one thing right...finally.

What consciousness is and where it resides is still only theory to date. In the September 2017 issue of NeuroQuantology, a peer-reviewed journal of neuroscience and quantum physics published a ground-breaking paper that could accelerate science’s understanding of consciousness:

“Our brain is not a “stand alone” information processing organ: it acts as a central part of our integral nervous system with recurrent information exchange with the entire organism and the cosmos. In this study, the brain is conceived to be embedded in a holographic structured field that interacts with resonant sensitive structures in the various cell types in our body.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-brain-new-theory_us_5a418b4ce4b0df0de8b066a7


Which brings us to Roger Penrose and his theories linking consciousness and quantum mechanics. He does not overtly identify himself as a panpsychist, but his argument that self-awareness and free will begin with quantum events in the brain inevitably links our minds with the cosmos. Penrose sums up this connection beautifully in his opus “The Road to Reality:”

“The laws of physics produce complex systems, and these complex systems lead to consciousness, which then produces mathematics, which can then encode in a succinct and inspiring way the very underlying laws of physics that gave rise to it.”


https://futurism.com/could-universe-conscious/

Yep plenty of well renowned scientists approve of what i am saying! but since you are hard bent on consciousness i suggest you provide proof that consciousness is local is the present scientistific consensus, i am waiting. But but but but apparently all the Bohrs and Planck's et. all ideas been shunned back i would have thought. The only thing that has been shunned back is your uneducated illterate self. Now bugger off cause i cannot educate you any further about science, let alone religion.

 

[Snake_Baker]

There you go with your light smattering of the obscure musings of hand selected physicists again.

Produce a solid body of contemporary scientists that confirm your universal consciousness dogma. I'm not talking about a mere scattering of maverick theoretical physicists and their way out mathematical models. I am referring to a broad selection of empirical scientific disciplines with a significant consensus.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Only 17 percent of the scientists are also Atheists. You were saying consensus? More scientists are religious or believe in a higher power or lets say "universal consciousness" than they are atheists, this should be alarming to you. Also some researches are at its infancy like QM, we are still starting to get the proof of non-local consciousness, its nowhere near mainstream yet but more research needs to be done. Simply by saying "it does not exist" cause majority don't believe is a cop out. When Bohrs said reality is an illusion, everyone laughed at him, well no one is laughing now is it? Give it a few years! in the meantime there are plenty of peer reviewed papers of non-consciousness coming up as we go, you can start reading them !

Where in the non existant creator of the universe is that from?
We’ll take the agnostics,the nons,the don’t knows and others!
We’re still the majority and rising the world over,even the fast breeding Muslims moving to the West are finding it difficult to keep their kids believing in their “special” brand of stupid over reason!
Yeah the majority!

 

[Pie eyed]

Matter does not exist has been suggested in eastern mythologies some 3,000 years ago, the concept of reality being an illusion, please educate yourself in mythologies instead of spewing ignorance.

I don't give a seconds thought to the veracity of eastern mythology. That is why is called mythology.
It's Turtle all the way down....

 

[chelseacarlton]

Lulza

 

[Moshie The Mook]

God was peace loving and tolerant of prostitutes when his messenger was single and happy. But when the new messenger acquired 11 wives!

 

[Procrastinator35]

No properties of such a thing has ever been measured by science.

Therefore, at this point in time, it isn't there.

Who measures the measurer Snakey?

By what means are such parameters discerned?

You'll need to try harder than this.....You can't subvert metaphysics....I'l keep on drumming this point home until it sinks in to your limited physics awareness....As I.Q deficient as it is.

 

[Pie eyed]

Lulza

A well a everybody's heard about the word
W-w-w word, word, word, w-word's the word
A well a word, word, word, the word is the word
A well a word, word, word, well the word is the word
A well a word, word, word, w-word's the word

A well a don't you know about the word?
Well, everybody knows that my faith is absurd!
A well a word, word, w-word's the word
A well an uneducated turd.

 

[Pie eyed]

A well a everybody's heard about the word
W-w-w word, word, word, w-word's the word
A well a word, word, word, the word is the word
A well a word, word, word, well the word is the word
A well a word, word, word, w-word's the word

A well a don't you know about the word?
Well, everybody knows that my faith is absurd!
A well a word, word, w-word's the word
A well an indoctrinated turd.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Who measures the measurer Snakey?

By what means are such parameters discerned?

You'll need to try harder than this.....You can't subvert metaphysics....I'l keep on drumming this point home until it sinks in to your limited physics awareness....As I.Q deficient as it is.

Whom made the maker?

 

[Pie eyed]

Whom made the maker?

God can just pop into existence.
Only things which are not God need a maker.....
So sayeth the.....word escapes me and is probably on the swear filter anyway.