I can prove no gods exist

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 130 discussions (1329 posts)

60
SpanStarposted 14 years ago
Interesting how some people talk about science as if science itself has some creative powers when is nothing more then man's attempt to Try and understand that which already exist.
reply report
1. 59
  SayedAthar Husainposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The pleasure to prove that God does not exist is the freedom given by God to the sibblings to prove there is no God. He will succeed with his verbsity but his heart will nag him for doing that.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I love this too.
  
  All these people need to do is babble sentences that say "God... God.. God" and some other theist will instantly reply "Yes", or "I agree!"
  
  Even when they say rocks are sentient, zero is not nothing and all myths are real. It doesn't matter: as long as they praise God, the others will cheer them on.
  reply report
  61
  Woman Of Courageposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If the statement is true, we can reply in agreement as we please.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, rocks lie around thinking deep thoughts. That's why they never say anything - too wrapped up in their thoughts.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm with WOC on that one. See pcunix, I'm still paying attention.
  reply report
61
Stigma31posted 14 years ago
Well, first off I will say I am agnostic with atheist tendencies. Back to the base argument though I will say pcunix, everything I know about "GOD" or at least the metaphysical one is that according to the mythology it is all knowing and all powerful. Which is essence means it does defy physics, and logic. God exists before time itself which also means there is no physical predetermined effect on it. It created the heavens and and earth and everything within it, God does not use the NAND gate because GOD is all knowing therefore does not make decisions. Everything that GOD does is not a choice it is a linear set of events. There is no logic tree, because of this. God is not energy, it is essence. Most everything that is possible today was impossible 100 years ago, you can not use base knowledge to define something that defies knowledge. Because GOD existed before time then time also does not have an effect on it. It is multi-planar and multi-dimensional(mathematically there is an infinite number of both - but that is obviously impossible, which would mean the math must be flawed, which also means the physics would also have to be flawed).

Sorry I like to play Devil's Advocate when it comes to GOD.
reply report
1. 61
  wizbitzposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "God does not use the NAND gate because GOD is all knowing therefore does not make decisions"
  
  that's neat
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, it really isn't.
  
  An all knowing god is powerless. It's the same problem you run into when you move god "outside of time" where it supposedly knows everything that ever has been and ever will be.
  
  In such a state, it is locked into immobility. I know this will be difficult for some to comprehend, so I will try to keep it simple.
  
  Imagine this creature in this all knowing state.
  
  Can it change anything? Sure, we gave it that power.
  
  Will it change anything? Ahh, there's the rub. If it knows it WILL change something, then it already knows the results of that change. If it doesn't know, it doesn't know what might happen (because it doesn't know what it might change).
  
  In the first case (it knows it will muck with things) it is impotent because everything is said and done. There is no free will, not for us or it. It can only do what it knows it will do.
  
  In the second case, it has no idea what the state of things is because it doesn't know what it might decide to do. It has lost its omniscience by keeping its free will (ours doesn't matter).
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  By the way, I once had this discussion with a theist who said something like "But if there are infinite possibilities, my god retains his powers!"
  
  It doesn't. You still can look at each instance individually and it runs into the same problems. It either knows it will change things or it doesn't. Each instance is either locked solid or completely outside of this creature's knowledge.
  reply report
2. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Then you better learn how to play.
  
  If the god thing is outside of time, it loses its omniness. I'm not going to waste my time explaining that here, but it is a very easy thought experiment.
  
  That particular god is chock full of logical fallacies.
  reply report
61
wizbitzposted 14 years ago
If you notice on my posts I'm neither proving or disproving God. I am just throwing out some questions, and I feel none of you answered it quite honest. You say my statements are of "magic"(If your logic fails), but if you would read it again I never use any thing outside of reason.And I think that is what you are doing to other answers, considering it as some excerpt from some fairy tale. Okay, one definition of God is He is not dependent of anything, He is independent being. He is a stand-alone being. He doesn't exist like us, we need a system, He does not. So if you are trying to say that the creator follows a system, then your not talking about a god. Since if the maker follows a system, he is dependent on that system therefore he is not god.

I am just saying if the Christian God is what He claims Himself to be, then our own logic will fall short. We cannot put Him on the same boxes that we are in.

The law of gravity, we believe it here on Earth but if we go outside of Earth can we still use the law of gravity?

Lastly, and I hope I'll rest my case (^ ^)

1 + 1 = 2 right? (or am I wrong?, hahaha)

Can we define George Washington?
using 1+ 1 = 2?

And that my friend is what we are all doing...

(lets us all respect each answer, rather than laugh at it if we don't feel like agreeing to it)

Good day!!
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Funny, because that is the point: the creator DOES need a system and only magic can avoid that.
  
  Your creator cannot be a god.
  reply report
77
skyfireposted 14 years ago
Biblical god was just example there.

2 is a finite number, can you restrict this as a concept ?

Finite things have finite scope with calculation, observation. Infinite entity (a concept) which creates finite things puts itself into finite enclosure in order to create those things. Take case of shooting 1k bullets in air with no aim and on the other side you're shooting 1k bullets on some object/target etc. So my point is even scope of infinite being becomes limited if it puts itself into finite space. You don't measure infinite here but scope of it's work in finite space.
reply report
77
skyfireposted 14 years ago
We're not defining any entity wrt to number counting, that's your analogy, not ours.
reply report
77
skyfireposted 14 years ago
Flaw.

If god created himself then that sounds more like singularity concept. This god forms inside universe and not outside because formation before singularity is rape on logic. If this god is created himself inside this universe then he loses characteristic like omnipotent,all knowing and savior blah and blah.
reply report
1. 61
  wizbitzposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your opinion ^ ^
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just like human written bible and it's followers, isn't it ?
  reply report
  61
  wizbitzposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  ha?
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your view=opinion
  Bible=opinion
  My view = ? opinion
  reply report
  61
  wizbitzposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  oh, that...my opinion is never straight from the Bible. If that's what you are trying to imply. (I think you know the Bible more than I, wish I could do that smileys) Everything I said is base on my own opinion, and as I say I am neither proving or disproving God. I am just asking questions. And trying to see how would people respond, either by a religious freak or some big shot atheist.
  reply report
0
zampanoposted 14 years ago
What are you talking about ????
reply report
52
baphometoposted 14 years ago
oh my god
reply report
77
skyfireposted 14 years ago
secularist10, in the top right side of this page there are two links - threaded and chronological. Click on chronological link and you'll be able to view the replies in order.
reply report
77
skyfireposted 14 years ago
If you're following this thread pennyofheaven then i'm sure you can read between the replies about multiple god definitions. So far theists are refuting with these escapism tactics -

1. God is beyond definition. (i wonder how they deduced his interest in their prayers, spirituality,worshiping methods etc in that case ?).

2. God is beyond logic (in that case any religious discussion is useless because any attempt to interact with random/infinite entity is useless as per our wishes/terms)

3. God exists, this is common sense. ( attack from ad-populatum, just because 1 million people eat at McDonalds makes it healthy food shop ?).

4. God helped in big-bang event (if that is so, then this god is emotion less, why he needs to care for only one planet out of 13000 discovered more planets, 300+ more galaxies ? You're not special and so is your planet, any attempt of tribal and partial god is useless )

Now tell me what's your definition for god. So we can get some gray cells to approve or disapprove his existence.
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I always have liked number 1.
  
  If this thing is beyond definition or understanding, then how is it that the person saying that claims to understand so much?
  
  I also love the diminishment of self: our puny little brains..
  
  Yeah. I don't have a puny little brain. From what I can see of gods from reading their various activities in various myths and the Bible, I'm much smarter than any of them, far more kind, and have a much better sense of justice. I'm not petty, cruel or tyrannical either.
  
  That's just me - there are plenty of people far better that I'd happily compare to any god, from the Aztecs to the Christians. All of the gods sound pretty unintelligent to me.
  reply report
2. 88
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Simply put. Energy. That which everything is, in and of vibrating at different rates depending on what it is. Not separate.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So, god is energy.
  
  Do you worship energy? Does it help people by interceding? Can you pray to it? Does it send angels? Is Jesus its son?
  
  Is it omniscient? Omnipotent?
  reply report
  88
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This illustrates well why right at the beginning I asked for you to define your understanding of God which up to now you still have not yet defined.
  
  What I have got from your posts and how you understand God to be, is as follows;
  
  God needs information storage
  God thinks the way humankind does with logic and reason
  God makes decisions therefore needs a gate
  God needs worships
  
  Since humankind and everything in existence consist of energy you are partly right. What you are not getting is that it is not only one thing but everything.
  
  So what it can or cannot do is subject to the person.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So your god does not make decisions?
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So god is energy ?
  
  In that case, worshiping, logic, intelligence, savior and some other traits of living entity doesn't apply to it. Energy don't need these traits.
  reply report
  88
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I agree and who said I do that?
  reply report
86
Pcunixposted 14 years ago
While I would not suggest any specific winners, I think some of the posts here should get one or more awards:

Best Typing While Disconnected From The Brain

Most Original Talking Through Their Hat

Most Impressive Pseudo Scientific Gibberish

Most Extreme Misunderstanding of Science

I'm sure other awards are possible..
reply report
1. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And you be
  
  MOST deluded avoider of the fact that he's made an argument under false assumptions.
  reply report
0
zampanoposted 14 years ago
O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world! That has such people in it!

Just a bit of morals to season the discussion.
Why try to ban concepts (words) like magic, mistery and so on ?
The physician who builds a plain, "non-believer" might he be, will always marvel at the "magic" of the sight of that object rising into the "ether".

The biologist will marvel at the sight of his pregnant wife.
The "mistery" of life.

Those words (concepts) are written in the books of the evangelists, but they are not their property. They should make part of our lives or else our lives would be plain flat flows.

We can very well consider that about all is mistery, without being hysterically proselite.

In fact, nothing keeps us from advancing "points of view".
And it is rather amusing some times.
But bear in mind that we'll never, never, never know the mistery.
hehehe.
Seek, seek.
We're like flies against a windshield.
reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 14 years ago
PC, I have no theological premise for the discussion, as Mark would have you believe.
My point, from a lot of studies, leans toward a third factor. 0 cannot flip to 1 unless a force enables it. Second, that force must unite to transform 0 to 1. Else it would be impossible.
That is essentially my argument --there is a third factor.

The Theory of Relata (alive-dead; left-right; good-evil;light-dark; has been dismissed greatly because there is "the gray area". Especially through new Quantum Physics.

So postulating a theory of information as binary (0-1) doesn't make sense, unless it is a machine. No known organic life form uses 0-1, especially not the human brain.

James.

Ps, it isn't about thrashing or such nonsense. I often wonder why when challenged with ideas, people automatically defend or deflect. Why not consider the possibility beyond what is assumed or established... My remarks to Marcus are due to his continuous superfluous (and teenage) comments and nothing to do with you. My apologies if they came out that way.
reply report
1. 0
  zampanoposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I thought you had been punished.
  You rem mark s are very accurate and sensitive ones.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I decided to skip dessert all together.
  hehe.
  reply report
  0
  zampanoposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Don't waste too much weight, you'll be needing it.
  hehehe
  reply report
2. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Then you simply misunderstand binary logic.
  
  For example, when implementing it in electronics, a voltage at or below 2 volts is taken to be zero. and 3 to 5 volts might be logical one. There is no "in between". There is no gray area. We branch our decisions based only on zero or one. Quantum theory has NO relevance here.
  reply report
  0
  zampanoposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Fuzzy ? Just a bit ?
  2 Volts is too "Macrocosmic" man...
  Try the hudreth of millivolt. There you enter quantic logic.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No. There is no fuzziness in binary logic!
  
  I am REALLY frustrated by this silly idea.
  reply report
  0
  zampanoposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Don't !
  Not in binary logic, no.
  But there is such a thing as Fuzzy Logic.
  We have proof here.
  And it can be implemented in machines. And there are machines that work with living tissues... Nervous tissues among others. Far out man!
  Right now, I've got a lot of elektrons changing orbit all aroud me and in my body too.
  Ain't that quantic ?
  
  As for the thread's title, I still can't decide wheather you have proven one thing or the other.
  Maybe later. I'll just have more elektrons in orbit before.
  hehehe
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And your point is?
  
  In what extreme stretch of your imagination does this invalidate the original argument?
  reply report
  0
  zampanoposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The point is (because you've asked)
  that when you opened this thread it was just meant to provoque some "believer" yokels to post in order to have some fun. Right ?
  That's what I'm trying to do.
  We're FAR from trying to establish facts here.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Fine. Try to make sense, at least.
  reply report
  0
  zampanoposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And it was fun for a while
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is not about quantum logic. It COULD be - if you want to have your creator use this for its reasoning ability, fine. But it doesn't change anything. It still needs a logic gate.
  
  I think what we have here is people just throwing out words and phrases in hopes that something will break the glass. You don't really understand the reason I say the creator needs these things, do you?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So, how to do you explain the volt itself: the circuit, the Amp-Ohm with regard to the "logic gates" exemplified by simply breathing of a human?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What do you think needs explaining? There is no requirement for this specific implementation of a logic gate in the original argument. It's irrelevant.
  reply report
3. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But you ARE speaking nonsense. Nonsense about partial binary values, nonsense about inanimate matter needing information storage, this "bootstrapping" reference - it is babble. I do not mean that to be insulting in any way - as I said, it is as though you have told me my head is on backwards and mean it literally. What response can I make?
  reply report
4. 60
  Setharealposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I like what you have to say 21 Days, this is what I have been thinking while reading this thread. I took a philosophy of mind class in college and I am not going to pretend that I fully understood everything but one concept we referred to was that our consciousness operates as an extremely complex parallel processing system and not simply serial processing of binary and all consciousness/ability to make decisions results from emergence within relationships of the neurotransmitters. It was fear that changed us to think in three dimensional time and have anticipatory reactions, further evidenced by it being the most primitive brain structure. I recommend Daniel Dennet's "Consciousness Explained" if you want to know more, although the book does have some issues in completely denying subjectivity but that is another debate.
  
  Like some other Jews I know, I do not believe in the ex nihilo conception of God and this is a misunderstanding of the possible Hebrew words for 'create' (Bara, Asah and Yetzer) but that is a discussion for another time as I don't want to go into too much detail as not to be accused of relying on mysticism, simply making the point that it is perhaps more accurate to read Genesis 1:1 with Eloheem (Gods) not as the subject with the sense that Eloheem did not make a decision to create the universe but was created concurrently with everything else.
  
  In that sense God's decision making operates as a parallel processing system on an infinite scale with the possibility and inevitability of anything/everything to emerge from the system. In short it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-driven_programming with the hardware being all that exists, has existed and will exist.
  
  I doubt I managed to convince Pcnunix that I successfully vanquished his logic that was not my aim because as presented it is flawless. However I do believe the entire problem has been set up wrong and although I have not finished reading the entire thread it has failed to live up to the title which was just bait anyway...
  
  Something to think about at least, and I know that my beliefs and understanding of God are as alien to most Christians as Pcunix's thought experiments, most "theists" as they are called here don't seem to realize that God is not mentioned in the entire first chapter of Genesis, not by name in the Hebrew anyway.
  
  If you don't have the stomach for it best to stay away from these things, they say that trying to understand God is most likely to drive one insane.
  reply report
86
Pcunixposted 14 years ago
So.. apparently the proof that gods exist is thinking rocks.

I am quite surprised to have learned this. I think we have some rocks in our back yard. Perhaps one of them can enlighten me as the the specifics of this marvelous fact.
reply report
1. 0
  zampanoposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wait a sec...
  Thre's no proof of nothing at all.
  What we know for certain is that the best parsers are at Oracle's.
  Maybe we should consult them...
  reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 14 years ago
1.Do you worship energy?
-religion & science worship energy in varying forms.

2. Does it help people by interceding?
-religion & science both believe energy is helping by intercession (e.i. sunlight, light bulbs -even indoor plumbing).

3. Can you pray to it?
-prayer is the action of communication, like science using sonar or a signal to send and receive messages to/from the stars. They spend countless hours "praying" to the oceans or stars.

4. Does it send angels?
-angels are termed as messengers of light.
-both science and religion use "angels" (fiber optics, prayer, etc.)

5. Is Jesus its son?
Y`shua, against many misconceptions, is the exemplified embodiment of the original human being. So, in essence, each human is a child of Creator. I know it is unfortunate that certain theologies have deduced this to a personal form of belief. For that I cannot apologize, as I did not cause the creation of such beliefs.
However, the issue of the words/work, show a far greater relevance of human worth and purpose, than ALL collective sciences & theologies....
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Too bad he didn't tell us about germs, isn't it? He didn't have anything to say about electricity, either. Either of those could have been quite useful, but he didn't bother did he?
  
  Let's see: he didn't tell us that the earth revolves around the sun, that the sun is just another star.. he didn't tell us tat the planets also revolve around the su. He forgot to mention DNA..
  
  and a few thousand other not so relevant things.
  
  Do you know why?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, because humans already knew --they just forgot.
  That information has been in every human from the womb.
  Yet, instead of applying the relevance of what humans were designed to be, humans chose; and in choosing, indulged their own minds, creating a alt-reality of their own. Which now they live in.
  
  I do not suspect you would grasp that concept, but neither do the theists, so don't get rustled up by it...
  
  James.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Too, too funny!
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Glad to lighten your loafers, my friend.
  
  I have always held the belief humans were born with all necessary knowledge. According to the theistic scripts, by many variations, my account would not be aloof in the least. Adam had complete understanding, lacking of no thing, complete as a body-brain-spirit. Fully aware of the stars above and the waters below and everything in them. By his own admission and action, reduced himself to "the self, the ego, the mind" and was "cast out" of the perfect place. I have had this discussion with many a theist and scientist. Not one refutes the possibility...
  
  James
  reply report
2. 88
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I missed this. Very well done.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Penny.
  
  To add a nosh: The simplicity of those actions/representations of what humans actually are, is --well-- astounding. The message and verbiage clear; "You already know and are, now start doing what you know and are, beyond humanism (the ego)."
  That statement has gotten me in hot water with ministers and scientists alike.
  The congregations I was nearly employed by --on two different occasions-- did a Pharisee "stop their ears; rip their clothes" when I mentioned this...
  
  My good friends, a geneticist from Colombia and a 2xPhD in History from Berkley, still shake their heads in dismay at the possibility, but won't refute it.
  
  James
  reply report
  88
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Its pretty hard to refute. Ego will try.
  reply report
  61
  Woman Of Courageposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  pennyofheaven, Exactly!
  reply report
  60
  Setharealposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Another excellent point 21 Days. In the dialogue where Plato has Socrates teach the slave boy geometry he postulates this idea as 'recollection theory'. Personally I totally agree, and love to fantasize that this is perhaps not the only time we have had technology to this extent because after all a dirigible is stone age tech. There is a documented ancient Greek science experiment, wish I could remember the name and give you a link, anyway this ancient scientist describes how he burns water, turns it into steam and the steam makes a spiral spin. In other words with just a few more steps ancient Greece could have become steam powered, but why bother when slave labor is so cheap?
  
  Necessity is the mother of invention.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hello, Sethareal.
  
  You said a mouth full --necessity-- is the mother of...
  
  --this is the foundry of my life's work, providing a very interesting argument that necessity is choice and because of choice, humans are living in a altered state of reality (free will). Part of that is my belief that humans once knew everything they needed to, until they indulged their mind as something more than a processor of light. And down the rabbit hole we go....
  
  This is excellent:
  "constantly relaying electric impulses/sorting nutrients (further energy vibrations), or the storms inside a gas giant like Saturn because these could potentially be gargantuan brains."
  
  a. Vibration is considered a single or complex thought system.
  b. Light IS information and moves itself in infinitely large and infinitely small vibrato.
  
  Light is everything in the universe, down to the particle-parts.
  Light is sentient.
  
  A rock is sentient because what that rock is made of is condensed light vibrations.
  Same as lead, helium, etc.
  
  Ps, very nice to make your acquaintance, here on Hub Pages.
  
  James.
  
  ps, Sounds like something Archimedes did. Am going to check this.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, you two ought to get along just great. Sentient rocks, sentient storms.. Birds of a feather.
  reply report
3. 77
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Pseudo-science at it's best
  reply report
86
Pcunixposted 14 years ago
Frankly, the combination of Penny and James has become too strange for me. Thinking rocks, gods of energy, magical genes and lost knowledge.. quite a collage.
reply report
1. 0
  zampanoposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hi PQNX
  Here's another thread for you
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/66997
  Maybe you can prove the contrary with the very same arguments.
  reply report
69
seanorjohnposted 14 years ago
PC you think therefore you :

are

stink.
reply report
69
ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago
ofcourse beelzedad thinks i need to study the history. some people still DONT GET IT.
reply report
86
Pcunixposted 14 years ago
I see none of you have found your dictionaries yet..
reply report
1. 0
  zampanoposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hi ! You look like you're in a very good shape.
  Actually, my only dictionnary is wedging my table...
  reply report
69
ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago
Now if you want to know if G-d exists in an actual physical form as drawn by Michealangelo. I would say NO. Does G-d as defined by ancient mystics exist? Well, first how do we define G-d outside of his mythological name? Can you define him. You defined as Zero. I told you, that is not what G-d is, according to the mythology that is the basis of our world religions. Go ahead, Energy. That would be the Alef, the breath of G-d, the seminal energy that fertilized the earth into form. G-d is not HIS breath.

So once again, I cannot prove that G-d exists. I can prove that these myths are symbolizing a actual knowledge of the natural world, and cosmic realities. But I cannot name what G-d is in scientific terms. The concept is not yet there. There is no other name out there, other than G-d, the divine Consciousness.

Divine -celestial, heavenly.

If you still think its gibberish, you need more new wiring in your thinking cap.
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And once again, Cecilia, I must tell you that I did NOT define any god as zero.
  
  I really don't know where you get that from. Perhaps you could explain jow you came to this flawed understanding?
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I explained it in two forums times two. I asked you to define it and that is what you said. I will look for that and get back to you.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Look all you like. You made it up.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I looked and you deleted it.
  
  It was the post when you complained that my combining your words with yours was annoying. If you can find it and post it here. do it. I dare you. Problem is, you deleted it.
  
  I asked you to define what you meant by "a unity" and you said. ZERO
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have deleted nothing.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  then I will go through all posts tomorrow and get back to you.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Suit yourself, but everything you need is in post number 1. Nothing I have said since then adds to that - its all just explanations and silly tangents that you and others have insisted upon going down.
  
  I don't know what you read that made you think I was defining your god as 0. That would be a ludicrous thing for me to say, but more importantly, it would be entirely unrelated to the proof as presented, because it actually has nothing to do with gods at all: it simply proves that any thing you might want to call a god can only be a natural product of physics.
  
  I'm wondering if perhaps, somewhere here in the sea of words, I responded to some theist who DID define their god and did so in a manner that would make it the sum total of everything and nothing more. I forget what they call this twaddle - I call it Uber Gaia. I might have responded to such by saying "If your god is everything, then your god is nothing". You may have latched on to that and assumed that was some necessary "definition" of god as "nothing", or zero.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No I distinctly remember you said zero. And I was surprised because I thought you meant 1. Because that would be before the binary. It was in the other thread just after you said my combining your words with my words was annoying and I said I don't know how to do the box.
  
  At any rate we are agreeing on one thing that the series of events was natural, meaning that it can be observed and has been observed. The series of events after and now thanks to the new finding, before the onset of the big bang. (the ripples that show that the big bang is cyclical)
  
  But what you fail to understand is, like you needed to use computer language to describe concepts abstract, the mythologies surrounding G-d are also attempting to the same. As a matter of fact, it has been recorded that anything pertaining to gods or goddesses are personifications of natural phenomenon. But they all stand for something real. They are not nonsense or imaginary things. They are metaphors. Fairies are old Irish Gods. The Western G-d, the uncaused cause also stands for something real. And it is intelligent. But we cannot prove that it exists. Mythologies are usually based on an understanding that is actually quite ratiional but expressed in metaphor as in the case of the Labyrinth and the Minotaur. The Minotaur is a Man both Tavors and Minoan, he was the child of the Queen with a consort of the King. He was said to be wild and "bullheaded". The metaphor became literal. But see the story is true, only the Minotaur was not a bull-headed man, but a man, who was bull-headed.
  
  When it comes to the mythologies surrounding G-d, the fact is, this is representing something real. Something we may be able to observe in the natural world, if we know what it is. But we don't. Hinduism clearly states it is CONSCIOUSNESS, the entire universe possesses consciousness. But consciousness is still a mystery because we do not have clear understanding of how it is made. We do not even have set theories on Intelligence.
  
  So to say there is no G-d and I can prove it, is silly. You don't even know WHAT G-d is.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  As a matter of fact?
  
  What fact? What recording?
  
  Making up more nonsense again.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We do have theories on intelligence and we do know what consciousness is. It's just feedback in your brain. There's nothing mystical about it (except in the minds of theists).
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course not - who could enumerate the millions of different beliefs?
  
  But I DO know that any sentient thing HAS to have information storage and has to employ logic. Therefore I know that there can be no Prime Mover.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Consider this, what exists before ZERO:
  
  There was a time that there was no such thing as ZERO. It was just a sumerian afterthought, a hook. It only became increasingly important as mathematics progressed in application.
  
  Zero is the concept approaching the end but never achieved. It is a point wherein you cannot ascertain value, or presence from no presence. It seems somewhere between both. You can never really achieve Zero, so there is really no end (theoretically) It is something mathematics aspires as it does infinity. You can even argue that it doesn't even exist. It is only a direction.
  
  So is there anything after Zero? Depending on what you assign as zero. It is not an absolute position.
  
  If you assign zero as the singularity, the point before the big bang then in that instance measurement that is zero. But what if before you counted something was there, something like the end of infinity? then that is the what is before zero. DO you get why you need to understand what you are talking about first?
  
  Your proof is full of holes showing ignorance in both mathematical concepts and religious concepts.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There are no holes and you are speaking absolute nonsense.
  
  There was never time when there was no zero, only a time when human number systems didn't have it.
  
  Never the less, everyone still knew what it was: if I owed you three fish and gave you that number, I owed you nothing. There is no "approaching" owing you nothing. Zero is an absolute quantity.
  
  You know very little about science or math, Cecilia: stop pretending that you do.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No I am not talking nonsense, dear...you just don't get it. I got that from a book that I bought 8 years ago entitled THE NOTHING THAT IS : A NATURAL HISTORY OF ZERO by Robert Kaplan and this not the first book I've read of Kaplan. It was he athat said that "zero is always beckoning, but never achieved: perhaps this comes closest to the nature of zero". page 3.
  
  See, I am the one giving you all the citations here. All the sources and you are being dishonest. YOU said that the unity is ZERO.
  
  You don't even know what aspect of existence you are disproving and what aspect of the concept of god you are focusing on. The subject is wide and you have no knowledge of any of them.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Then he knows nothing about integers. I can't help it if you read books by fools.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Kaplan is a fool? Really? Really?
  
  Oxford Press chose an author who doesn't know integers. keep at it PC. You really are LOST in your own fear to face your own ignorance.
  
  :"Robert and Ellen Kaplan--the founders of The Math Circle, the popular learning program begun at Harvard in 1994--reveal the secrets behind their highly successful approach, leading readers out of the labyrinth and into the joyous embrace of mathematics. Written with the same wit and clarity that made Robert Kaplan's The Nothing That Is an international bestseller" ()
  
  And who are you? What's your credential compared to Robert Kaplan. Dig a deeper hole PC. You're proof is absurd, I stand by that.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Then he wasn't speaking of integers.
  
  There is nothing between the integer 0 and the integer 1. NOTHING.
  
  If you have a single dollar and give it away, how many dollars do you have? Zero. Not something "approaching" zero, not something close to zero, not something not quite zero, but ZERO.
  
  I don't know what that mathematician you quoted was talking about in that quote. Probably you yanked it out of context , because it is hard for me to believe that ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about math does not know that integer zero is absolute.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well Kaplan is really into Zero.
  
  You can read it yourself here, there is a summary of his work:
  http://www.maa.org/reviews/nothing.html
  
  He wrote this in Wikipedia:
  "
  It is possible to disguise a special case of division by zero in an algebraic argument,[1] leading to spurious proofs that 1 = 2 such as the following...
  
  the fallacy is the implicit assumption that dividing by 0 is a legitimate operation."
  
  See, you can derive it, but then you are assuming that you can actually divide ZERO. So like your proof, it is based on assumption and therefore it is considered a fallacy.
  
  check it out:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody is dividing by zero. Except you, of course, because you have the mistaken idea that binary logic is critical for this proof.
  
  That's your lack of comprehension. Go back and read it again - the being requires information storage and a decision mechanism. Nothing says it has to be binary - that's just the minimum requirement.
  
  Keep trying, Cecilia.
  reply report
69
ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago
I
reply report
46
Dale Nelsonposted 14 years ago
@Pcunix

I think I can understand what you are saying after two days of following the thread and thinking about it.

Your OP states that any creator who believes that it is self made or has always existed is insane as well as stating that there is no God based on your theory that using a NAND example and that it would have to have storage and the influence of physics.

Well if physics is the interaction between matter and energy then I agree as these are the fundamentals of life being created in biological terms like evolution theory.

So from what I understand, in order to produce the "1" result, you would have to have had a one enter the NAND Gate. The fact that it receives consciousness at that point in order to think and produce the decision or it is a result of energy means that it would have had to be created as a result of physics.

The problem I have with understanding your argument is that it assumes that an energy source is created by physics that we know and understand.

Is it not possible as in some of the above statements that an energy source can have consciousness at a level that is far beyond our understanding.

I do understand that it would have had to be created as a result of physics, but that is not to say that it did not create, which brings us back to your original argument of the storage and NAND gate.

So is this a chicken and egg argument as physics requires matter for reactions. Where did it come from.

I give up....
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why not use the logical "what we know and understand" instead of postulating something that is majik?
  
  I mean - is it not logical to stick with what we know and understand? And this whole argument is about the fact that - logically - a god can not exist. But you want to expand the discussion to include things we do not know or understand. Why?
  
  This is what the religious zealots claim.
  reply report
2. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, it is NOT possible that an energy source alone has any consciousness.
  
  You can't have sentience without storage and decisions.
  reply report
77
skyfireposted 14 years ago
Reading a lot of deepak chopra or other indian spiritual textbooks lately?

Literal meaning in Sanskrit is - "I bow to you". There is no 'my god or your god bowing to each other', meaning in these words. That's actually what spiritualists are doing with sanskrit texts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste
reply report
77
skyfireposted 14 years ago
Not necessary. Going by your analogy, writer of equation- e=mc^2, must be all knowing eh ? Person who found gravity and made assumption that gravity exists in universe is all knowing ?
reply report
1. 61
  wizbitzposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  e=mc^2 and gravity are both limited in Earth, you don't have to be all knowing since both theory exist on earth. There is proof of such equations and theory. You can break down to parts if you may, "energy release mass loss velocity of light squared", you can all find that in Earth. But if you state that both theory exist only in Earth, then you are making yourself all knowing. Since it would take a being who traveled the whole universe to be able to conclude that.
  
  Have a good day!
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  FYI, Gravity exists on many other planets as well and there are some planets with weak or low gravity or no gravity. So this not only approves on earth but outside it as well. E=MC^2 helped us solve many theoretical equations which we put in practice while assessing cosmological observations,which in turn are proved to true unless it gets disapproved in future. So it's scope is not limited to earth only. Obviously value of gravity is not constant and claiming that that as constant will be the act of all-knowing, not gravity exists claim.
  
  No. Mass, Force and Velocity of objects are calculated on case to case basis and we just defined variables in formulas to calculate them. Calculating gravity on earth and moon is exactly the same, variables value differs and so the end result. You don't need to travel whole universe to generalize any value. You calculate on case to case basis using these formulas.
  reply report
  61
  wizbitzposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is what you said:
  skyfire wrote:
  Not necessary. Going by your analogy, writer of equation- e=mc^2, must be all knowing eh ? Person who found gravity and made assumption that gravity exists in universe is all knowing ?
  
  what I said:
  e=mc^2 and gravity are both limited in Earth, you don't have to be all knowing since both theory exist on earth. There is proof of such equations and theory. You can break down to parts if you may, "energy release mass loss velocity of light squared", you can all find that in Earth. But if you state that both theory exist only in Earth, then you are making yourself all knowing. Since it would take a being who traveled the whole universe to be able to conclude that.
  
  You're missing my point...,
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What's your point then ?
  reply report
60
Lippylisiousposted 14 years ago
Don't believe in God but believe in something a lot more powerful than human life. We are all made up of energy and science says energy wont die. So what happens when the earth is gone will our spirit just keep floating about for the whole of eternity?

I don't think we're the only earth.I think there is lots more out there that are a lot more advanced than us. We've just yet to find them. Everything we have done has properly been done a million times before.

It's not the whole God thing i wonder about. It's were space ends that gets me. It cant just go on and on. What does science say about that one?
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There is no such thing as "spirit". It doesn't exist. The only energy in your body and mind comes from chemical reactions. There is nothing else.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  define "spirit"
  
  Judaism defines it as : breath, strength, Ox (really ox-power) and Spirit. also the number 1 (first manifestation)
  
  So there is no ox-power? No number 1? No first manifestation? No ENERGY?
  
  disputing something you don't fully understand again.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You know quite well that is not the usage in the post I replied to.
  
  Not very honest, is it?
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am just saying you're saying it doesn't exist. It does as it was defined by the founders of that belief.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Got `em on the ropes, eh Ceci?
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  they put the ropes on themselves. problem is they don't even see it. It's like six year olds arguing that x+y =z is gobbledy gook and absurd and not understanding what stands for.
  
  It's so unbelievable the level that PC is operating at. I didn't even use sources that are MORE intensely controversial, it was a paperback source for crying out loud talking about the history of zero. It's been mainstream for 10 years or so.
  reply report
  61
  Woman Of Courageposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I can't believe pcunix stated it's no such thing as spirit.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, to his "minimum requirement" mind (what is called binary or zero-one) the concept of a united intangible-tangible light (spirit) is -for lack of a better word-- whack!
  A shame really because the entire universe he is reflecting such ideas in is the Tangible-Intangible (Spirit).
  
  He (and no doubt others) would argue my statement is theistic, yet spirit has nothing to do with Theism or Science. Perhaps this is why neither can engage such conversations without stumbling over their humanism (ego/thoughts).
  
  PC is an elder gentleman, who by his own words believes he has but 2 decades left on this planet. To see him waste that 'time' on petty nonsense is beyond belief.
  
  What is a shame, the human being is a perfect reflection of the Spirit when they experience a lack of mind, a lack of ego; a drop of real faith...
  
  James.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You don't even comprehend the argument, so of course you can only reply with nonsense.
  
  How are those sentient rocks doing? Do they talk to you?
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nowhere you presented proof james. So when you attack PCUnix for no proof, where is your proof for spirit ? or just another word salad from each reply of yours ?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Genius, pay attention,
  
  PC provided the argument but no actual proof based on the science nor scientific method --as they are defined. He is merely being a theist in a lab coat --which most scientists are!!! He is arguing a sci-theistic point, using sci-theist mentality.
  
  And as you science folk are so quick to remind the theist folk -the burden of proof is on the presenter (in this case PC). As for me, I am neither scientist nor theist, so your rules don't apply to me --not sorry if that bothers you. If you played by my rules, neither side would exist.............
  
  Therefore, my 'proof' does you know good.
  I already mentioned this.
  Even still, I have 'proof' --by the rules of both science and theism : experience.
  
  Seems, I have now formed a "workshop".
  So, I'll extend the same invitation to you, as I have to others here -theist & scientist, at my expense, will bring you & yours here and gladly provide you with my experience.
  
  Perhaps this is what will be required to end this nonsense between the two sides? One wonders.
  
  James.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have provided a proof and even told you what you needed to show to refute it. You have been unable to do that. Do you even know what a logical proof is?
  
  Redefining sentience to include rocks doesn't help you. Why don't you just join the other theists who admit that the only way their god-thing can exist is through magic?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  PC,
  
  Proof = evidence by experience, through tests, gathering data, hypothesis.
  
  You have done none of them. You have a supposition, an idea, a (very gross) theory of a theory of a probability.
  How did you come to your conclusion using science : the scientific method?
  Explain it, please.
  
  James.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's not a theory, James. We keep trying to tell you that. Theories attempt to explain observations. What I posted does not attempt to explain anything.
  
  How I came to that conclusion is at the proof itself. That is the POINT of logical proofs: they contain all that you need to understand them.
  
  If you need help understanding information theory, I'd suggest Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
  
  They also do a decent job with logic gates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate
  Your friend Cecilia REALLy needs to read that.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So, you have no proof only reference defined as some nonsense "pseudo logic".
  What a nice sci-theist you turned out to be.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The proof is right there in post number one.
  
  There is nothing "pseudo" about it. It's direct and quite easy to understand.
  
  Show me how anything can think without information storage and decision gates and you have disproved it. It really is that simple.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  1. You said, YOU had proof god does not exist. - you have provided no such proof.
  2. Theories attempt to explain observations.
  
  -- theories are incorporated facts, laws and tested hypotheses.
  
  What I think your referencing is the broad term of "scientific theory", also known as empirical theory, or empirical phenomena theory, yes?
  
  So, what is a phenomena? The earth as sentient is. The concept of Creator is. The changing colors of a salamander is... but NAND is not a phenomena, it is a divisive mechanical implication and construct based on a human designed system of artificial logic/computation.
  
  And I quote: "NAND gates were easier to construct from MOS technology and thus NAND gates served as the first pillar of Boolean logic in electronic computation."
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Is this babble supposed to mean something?
  
  Continually SAYING that I have not provided a proof does not refute the proof I provided.
  
  If I said
  
  A horse is an animal
  A dog is an animal
  Horses are dogs
  
  You could easily refute that, I assume?
  
  The proof is right there on page one. Refute it.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That babble was directly from the "proof" you provided via Wikipedia.
  I'm done.
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. But it doesn't refute the proof, James.
  
  You can pull words from anywhere - they have to be relevant.
  
  All you need to do is show how something thinks without storage or decision gates. It's very, very simple.
  
  But you can't do that.
  report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Notice how you always manage to use the most retarded counter-arguments when faced with actual arguments worthy of being televised or published.
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yet you never have managed to refute any of it.
  
  Where is the fallacy, Cecilia?
  report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  there is only one way to say this. Mismo!
  
  (which is a tagalog term for you got that right on the point where it should be, pressing it right there in the sweet spot, where the pain is as in massage)
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  define "spirit"
  
  Judaism defines it as : breath, strength, Ox (really ox-power) and Spirit. also the number 1 (first manifestation)
  
  So there is no ox-power? No number 1? No first manifestation? No ENERGY?
  
  disputing something you don't fully understand again.
  
  so spirit is breath?
  you don't even know biology!!
  reply report
2. 0
  jomineposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think we're the only earth.I think there is lots more out there that are a lot more advanced than us.
  
  yes there are more advanced things than us
  a leopard can run faster than us
  an eagle can see better than as
  and so on.......
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So a leopard is a god, then?
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  ask Lippylisious, she was the one saying there are more advanced things and i was just giving some examples
  so according to the theists may be all these are gods!!
  reply report
0
brotheryochananposted 14 years ago
are we really discussing: Did God came before his consciousness?
Lets attack this from the perspective that mankind is not "all this and that, (snap of fingers)". Humankind seems to think that it is wonderful and great, evolved and 'all their is', but really what glory does man have that is greater than any one single star? or planet, even our dusty craggy moon. Once we see ourselves as being what we are, which is, for less wordage, less than everything outside our planet we may begin to realize that these chicken before the egg questions are really quite mundane.
reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 14 years ago
PC, then tell us lowly folk
1. Where and how: Zero or One came to be?
2. What non-human source can validate it ?

That will end the argument and prove your theory.

What you presented was not proof, only a speculative theory --and a narrow one at that.
That is something a first year theist would do. Tell me you are not such a person.

James
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I really don't understand how it is that you can't understand the difference between a theory and a proof. I have no theory of creation and my post doesn't say anything about how things came to be. What it DOES say is that a sentient creator cannot exist until AFTER both storage and logic gates.
  
  THAT is what you cannot refute.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Certainly, I can.
  
  To provide the basis for your theory, you had to apply:
  
  The probability of Creator, creation and/ or a god concept (mysticism; theism)
  The sentient condition.
  These items called zero-one, logic, gates.
  
  Else you came to know this what, by majik?!
  Sorry, buck-o, I am not buying it.
  
  James.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course you are not buying it 21. You already have the answer - which was "majik."
  
  There is no theory here. It is a fact which starts with "IF."
  
  "IF" there is a god which makes decisions and decides to create things - it must have certain attributes which were there before itself. Therefore it is not a god/creator.
  
  Simple really. In fact - the simplest answer of them all is "there is not a god/creator."
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Again, you need to understand the difference between a theory and a proof.
  
  A theory attempts to explain observations. Your god is a theory, evolution is a theory, the Big Bang is a theory, and so on.
  
  What I offered is not a theory. It's a logical proof. Part of your difficulty is your inability or refusal to understand at least that much.
  
  Refute the proof. Show me how any sentient being can function without information storage and a decision making function.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  A person (human) on life support machines that is in all other ways brain dead, is a sentient being that is existing without logic gates or data storage.
  
  If there is 1 example of your theory not being true... then there probably are others, but 1 is enough to dis-prove your theory.
  
  "technically correct and correct are technically... the same thing."
  
  Proving that something is required in order to acheive sentience at our level, does not dis-prove the possibility that at another level that same requirement may be surpassed and not required for the same result.
  
  As an example: 1,000 years ago ships could not exist without wood to build them, today that once needed component is not required to get the same (or better) result. Because of fiberglass, plastic, which existed even then, we just didn't know about it yet.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  A person that is truly brain dead is not sentient. In fact, truly brain dead would be death, because the brain does far more than just think.
  
  There are no "levels". Nothing here says anything about how brilliant the creature is or is not.
  
  Try harder. Fail more amusingly.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No - it is no longer sentient if it is brain dead.
  
  No - You have not provided an example.
  
  And there is the majik.
  
  What nonsense. This proves there is majik?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We aren't talking about materials. The proof explicitly states that we don't impose any specific materials or even any design. The storage mechanism can be imperfect and the logic mechanism can be also. None of that matters.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And you need to learn the difference between logic 0 and logic 1, it is called REASON.
  Without it, you're just a 'click'.
  Your theory or proof or whatever you call it, is mute, void.
  
  Take care PC, I'm done with this thread.
  
  James
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Again, nothing forces us to binary logic gates. Binary logic is simply the minimum requirement.
  
  I don't impose any limitations on the design of this creatures storage or decision making methods. I only state that these things obviously must exist. No thinking creature, not even the smallest, can be sentient without these.
  
  Of course we, like mice and snakes and anything also with decision making powers, we acquired them through the process of evolution, but I don't impose that on your creator either: I'm perfectly happy to pretend that inanimate matter drifting about could accidentally come together to provide the necessary requirements.
  
  But they simply have to exist before the creature. It can't decide to create decision making apparatus.
  
  Funny that you say "you need to learn the difference between logic 0 and logic 1, it is called REASON" because reason is exactly what is needed here. You can't reason without storage and a decision mechanism.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No thinking creature, not even the smallest, can be sentient without these....
  
  Really? Have you actually read a science book or even watched a science fiction film?
  
  Not one sentient or non-sentient (if there is such a ) creature is not required to have the "minimum requirement" (binary); nor are they required to have storage and a decision mechanism.
  
  The objects in the Universe are all existing -as sentient- most without logic, storage of any information.
  You are assuming natural containment (storage/decision) is required for objects to exist, buddy, and that is the most mutable expression of the lack of human reason I have ever encountered. Half of me would literally put a call into some of the biggest thinkers.philosophers of our time and have them give you a simple ABC --err, in your case AB-- lesson of propriety energy and the Nature of Sentient Appreciation. Then when they are complete, I'll have the theists and scientists brought in the room, let them open their mouths for just a second and it would prove everything they taught you. Of course you might go mad.
  
  Cheers!
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Where did I say logic is required for objects to exist?
  
  I'll answer that for you: nowhere.
  
  Logic and storage are required for SENTIENCE. For THINKING. For making DECISIONS.
  
  We've been over this again and again: inanimate things have no need to store information or to make decisions.
  
  Yet you keep coming back to this, again and again. Why is that? It's because you have no other out. You have no refutation, so all you can do is confuse yourself with nonsense.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  look, PC I'll make this EXTREMELY simple for you:
  
  YOU SAID:
  "Logic and storage are required for SENTIENCE. For THINKING. For making DECISIONS."
  
  Tell me how a fermion or muon can be described as requiring logic gates?!
  How is it described in science as "storing".
  Where does it "store" and process "decisions"?
  
  Yet all would agree a fermion, boson, muon, etc are all sentient, EVEN a Virtual W boson, make decisions --faster than the speed of thought/light. So, your flip theory just got flipped off the stage by a particle so small and fast, you can't even measure it or see it.
  
  Everything, my good man, is sentient in the universe, because everything in the universe is made of the same stuff -energy (to the smallest measurable unit of it).
  Yet most do not require or have such gates and storage facilities....Nor do they require that minimum necessary you mentioned either (zero-one).
  
  When you can provide fact of a sub-atomic logic gates/storage location, I will not hesitate to consider your theory as plausible/conceivable.
  Until then, your theory is nothing but post-theistic babble-on (ha, get it -Babylon! )
  
  Cheers!
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Dear me. You seem very upset that PC has shown your god cannot exist. Why reach for particle physics when a rock would have done nicely? Rock is sentient - therefore there is a god. Simple - you didn't need to go looking for things no one fully understands - least of all you it appears.
  
  Some friendly advice - Just use the rock analogy next time.
  
  Everything in the Universe is sentient. I like that. Sort of a grown up theistic version of "everyone is special."
  
  Why not do away with words all together if the meanings bother you - a grunt would go well with the rock. Ugg
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Marcus,
  You are quite silly, but very entertaining, that is probably the only reason I engage you. Otherwise, I can't take you seriously. Never have, never will. That's my "decision" and I'm "storing it".
  
  What the heck is that?
  Oh, that must be your "minimum requirement" at work. click-click; flip-flip;
  
  See ya later, Mr Know-it-all.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, James, he is just pointing out how silly you are being by redefining sentience.
  
  You see, theists find it very easy to fool themselves by redefining words. It's one of the oldest tools they use and Mark and I and every other intelligent atheist are quite used to it. That's why we call you on it so quickly.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Good for the theist, but that doesn't refer or account for people like me.
  So, what else ya got?
  Nothing.
  
  That's the point actually, you have nothing.
  By the definition of science --which is what you appear to be using to apply your theory-- you have bupkis: no data, no real hypothesis, no tests, no facts, and most especially no valid experience to provide. You have speculation, which is fine if you are speculating or poking fun. So, my good man, you are JUST LIKE THE THEISTS. And in fact YOU ARE A THEIST in a lab coat.
  They have nothing, you have nothing. (And Marcus has a dead goldfish).
  
  I am not some narrow viewing, biblical docket number reference manual, nor a pulpit prescription writer filling his pockets with wishes and hope. I am one of many who see your "science" and their "religions" as equally ridiculous claims by a defunct --and soon to be extinct race of beings-- called humans, who have spend x-thousand/x-million years trying to unravel the "mist stories" (mysteries) of the universe without 'a pot to piss in nor the window to through it out of'. Still unable to identify a single thought in their brains, much less control it, nor what a rock really is. A sentient object at that. And don't give that theist excuse of "well at least we're trying", because you are not really trying. If you were, you would have experience (proof --because experience IS proof enough) on both sides.
  You both cannot be correct, which tells me, a third party proxy, you are both wrong.
  
  "Time" has run out on humanism and all its parts (equation/sensation). The house of Quality is collapsing around you. Those muons, fermions, bosons, etc are all faster, more powerful and certainly more united in their understanding of things, than the entire collective human species since its inception.
  
  But go right ahead and use your logic gates and storage tank of glucose and electricity to theorize how all sentient requires binary foundations and a house built on logic gates/no-processor-flips of zero-one. At some point it will burn and turn to sponge carbon.
  As all ego eventually does.
  
  Cheers!
  
  James.
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I just HAD to pull this stuff out and admire it!
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Typical theist: you think that you win arguments by changing the meanings of words.
  
  No, everyone does not think that atomic particles are sentient. Look up the definition of sentience and try to stay with it.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Once again, I must remind the theists that simply dismissing a proof is not refutation.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  true.
  
  sometimes we should follow our own advise.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What have I dismissed?
  
  I've offered a proof that deals with sentient beings. How is that a dismissal of anything?
  reply report
77
skyfireposted 14 years ago
Concept of zero came from the absence of something wrt to available values. For example, you own 3 galaxy tabs whereas i don't own any. So as per maths, the amount of tabs in my side are 0. Nothing. Zilch. The Zero is always viewed as absence of something.

What do you mean by non-human source ? Do you want aliens to verify the example i mentioned previously ?
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  My goldfish sez a god is impossible and when there is no food - it is zero food. But - it might be biased as I am it's only food supplier.
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And, unlike a god, if you happened to have more than one goldfish, you would still feed them all rather than those who appeared to show you more love and worship than the others. And unlike a god, you would not threaten them with eternal damnation (Frying Pan Hell) if they didn't show it a all.
  reply report
46
Dale Nelsonposted 14 years ago
In the OP it has to have physics as one of its criteria for proof.

0 + Physics + Storage = Decision Result of 1

So there is still no proof as to the existence or non - existence.
Just conjecture.

This is either an equation to explain the start of evolution or a deity.

Which begs the question, why can't energy have consciousness based on the above equation.

If Physics is a reaction between matter and energy and if life is just a series of chemical reactions and life sustains conscious thought, then your argument supports the possibility of consciousness in energy.
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You need storage and decision gates for a sentient creature. It doesn't matter what magical devices or methods you pretend provide these: they have to be there BEFORE the thinking thing.
  reply report
2. 88
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That makes sense
  reply report
58
Mark Knowlesposted 14 years ago
Good grief these guys are funny. Just how many different ways are there to say "It was majik"?
reply report
46
Dale Nelsonposted 14 years ago
........Show me how any sentient being can function without information storage and a decision making function.

Point taken.That I agree.

If the point is to disprove the statement in order to claim it incorrect, then you are correct.

I can prove the moon is made of cheese. LOL.
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, you can't. You can redefine moon and redefine cheese, but you can't otherwise prove that.
  
  This redefinition gambit is a favorite of theists, though. Like magic, it's a way out of logical problems that they cannot otherwise escape.
  reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 14 years ago
And this thread goes on and on and on....

PC, your stamina is impressive.
reply report
50
mabrurahmedposted 14 years ago
See your own body and mind.....and then think......this would be right answer for you.....abt god...if you till dont think god exist then think that god locked you mind to identify...god
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You aren't paying attention.
  
  This is a proof that deals with sentient beings. It proves that any such creature depends upon preexisting things.
  
  This has nothing to do with theistic happy-talk.
  
  Yes, people can convince themselves that Sky Daddy exists. Obviously you have done that. All I have done is point out that your imaginary pal can't be what you think it is.
  reply report
60
albcposted 14 years ago
I cannot debate with you and I admit your arguments above have substance. I just want to share with you what I have, at least I hope you can hear something new and maybe useful to certain degree.

The God that I know is beyond physic and beyond human intelligence and that is why I know Him as 'God'.

So, if I use my brain/intelligence to find this God then I would going to fail because He is beyond what I have.

The easier to find the God is to ask - like saying 'God, whoever you are and if there is one such as you, then show me the truth about you'

The God that I knew said that if a person come to him walking He would come to the person running. So, He is faster and He is not full of himself and if his 'creation' wants something then He would be around.

Thanks.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why would this nonsense be useful? It is just anotehr way of saying "majik."
  
  I really did not know there was this many ways of saying "majik."
  
  Nothing exists beyond physics.
  reply report
  60
  albcposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Everything is useful Mark
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not really. You have merely repeated the same nonsense again. If you had added something unique or interesting or even thought provoking I would have said so. I do not find your claim of majik to be useful at all - no offense.
  
  At best it provides me with another instance of some one so desperate to believe in a god - they will say any nonsense to validate it. I already know there are a lot of people who need to believe nonsense to get through the day.
  
  What I would find useful is some sort of rational explanation as to why you feel the need to defend this concept. Please do not tell me you love me and want to save me. That is a lie.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is interesting how desperate they have become here - I think it shows that this proof hits them hard because it is so simple and easy to understand.
  
  Look what we;ve had hear: sentient rocks, values "in between" integers, myths creating reality - and of course all the more usual magic nonsense.
  
  This thread hit a very raw nerve.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It certainly did. Which is why I am still around. James is funny though - you have to give him that.
  
  "Everything in the Universe is sentient because everything in the universe is made of the same stuff."
  
  Funny stuff.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It makes you wonder why we'd ever invent the word, doesn't it?
  
  But that's the theistic way: if you can't refute the logic, try changing what words mean: there is always somebody willing to buy it.
  reply report
  61
  Woman Of Courageposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Pcunix, No this thread didn't hit any raw nerve, because you have wasted time and not proved nothing. You only started this thread for a joke.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, I didn't. There are humorous aspects because of the desperate lengths theists will go to, but it's no joke. The proof is solid and it works.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps you could offer some sort of argument in that case. It has now been proven - logically - that your god does not exist. Even James agrees your god does not exist.
  
  Go!
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This coming from a user who has no grip over logical thinking ? Speaking of joke, have you ever presented your proof for spirit ? or was that common sense for you and that too by neglecting logical thinking ?
  reply report
2. 59
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So, in order to find god, we must not use our brains or intelligence, which you appear to be saying you are not replete of those faculties, is that correct?
  reply report
77
skyfireposted 14 years ago
Awesome. Hilarious.

If PCUnix makes claims then he's got no proof and if we do the same then yeah we can get away with the word-salad(boom, oodles, flip etc) mixing with half philo and half pseudo science. I wonder who are those sentient creatures -"Yet most do not require or have such gates and storage facilities....".

I wonder if he ever heard of simulation programs.
reply report
77
skyfireposted 14 years ago
God with personality ? Cho Chweet.
reply report
52
Truth Soldierposted 14 years ago
Unfortunately for you God is about faith. For you to assert there not being a God to those of us who KNOW different is foolishness. My faith and belief were already unshakable before He proved His existence to me. There are signs and proof given everyday but unbelievers either do not notice or instead of looking to God for explanations, they turn to science. Once you put faith in, and admit to yourself that there is a good and evil force dominated by God and His adversary Satan, and that both are in a battle for souls. You begin to see the deception that permeates our world and the spiritual battle all around us. You notice who is on what side and who is a pawn for good or evil. All of this is proof of God, but there is no proof for those who need proof FIRST. One must acknowledge basic truths like the fact that men are inherently evil, and that there is a spiritual battle waged on earth as it was in Heaven before. One must accept there is a God and seek to serve Him. The proof so many always want is abundant once you accept the gift and decide to live for Him.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wow - you went and created a whole new account for that garbage? Good job PC - proving god can not exist just makes then more aggressive.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I love the names, too. "Truth Soldier". He needs a good icon to go with it. A great big cross is always good.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I like the Jesus with blood dripping the best. Warms my heart.
  
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ahh, yes. Christian iconography. Incredible disturbing stuff.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm curious, Marcus,
  Do you own that wordpress blog too?
  http://www.turnbacktogod.com
  
  Dear Me...
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Good grief no! But "Dear me," about sums it up. Just remember when Kreator dun kilt all the peeps fer not doing wot it sed.
  
  Oh - that is right - you don't believe in the flood, because you are not a theist.
  
  Do rocks get upset when we use them for buildings?
  reply report
  46
  Dale Nelsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  ROFL
  reply report
2. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, turning to science really is a foolish thing to do. After all, it has hardly done anything for us in the last twenty seconds or so.
  
  I mean, stuff like this: http://www.dentistryiq.com/index/displa … cells.html
  
  What good is it when Sky Daddy can do so much better? Oh, I forget: Sky Daddy can't. Can't grow teeth, can't put back lost legs, can't do anything at all.
  
  But you are definitely right.
  reply report
62
knolyourselfposted 14 years ago
" One must acknowledge basic truths like the fact that men are inherently evil". I love this one. "I owe my soul to the company store."
reply report
69
ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago
so if theist is 1 and athest is -1, what is zero? Can you find an apt analogy?

I think the answer is just plainly HUMAN. We're all humans underneath the cloaks of ideology that we wear.

And when we see each other as Humans more than theists and atheists, then we become a UNITY. No one can observe what makes us different until someone chooses to observe it.
reply report
69
ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago
PCUNIX SAID:

"Probably you yanked it out of context , because it is hard for me to believe that ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about math does not know that integer zero is absolute."

------------------------------------------------------------

By Erin Briton from an article published in Dec 25, 2008:
ABSOLUTE ZERO:

"Absolute zero has actually never been reached, not in nature nor in the laboratory. It may well be impossible to reach absolute zero and, even if it was achieved, it might go unnoticed since there is no thermometer that could measure it."

Read more at Suite101: Absolute Zero: The Point at Which a Substance Is So Cold Its Atoms Cease Moving http://www.suite101.com/content/absolut … z1DdPkgrvc
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Now she thinks temperature is an integer.
  
  Do you know ANYTHING about math?
  reply report
69
ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago
So who is not understanding mathematics enough you or me, PC?

I think you.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Does that mean G-d is real despite the proof provided which you have chosen not to address?
  
  Everything is sentient, zero=infinity, the temperature of absolute zero has never been reached, so when you lose your wallet you have not reached absolute zero wallet, and because you cannot divide zero, studying mythology is science.
  
  You go girl!
  
  You could have just sed wot the other girl sed. "I don't think god is not exists," and saved yourself the aggro.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am not trying to prove G-d is real Mark.
  
  I am trying to tell PC Unix, that he cannot prove G-d is not real using that Proof. He could have easily just said. "i haven't seen him" and that would have carried more weight.
  
  and yes I have not reached absolute zero wallet if I lose my wallet because I could still find it. that logic basic enough for you?
  
  (Mark, you really don't understand science do you? You start with hypothesis and the observe and then theory. Jung has a theory which is being proved by mathematics and neurology as well as biology..as in study of memes (you know the ones you are trying to destroy) -- the idea that religious predispositions are passed on and archetypes are biological processes symbolized. You don't think that's logical because you don't know anything about it. Mythology is Metaphysichology, the study of the collective psychology: http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/po … mp;id=4326)
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is nonsense Celia. "Could find it," does not mean a damn thing and is certainly not science - it seems that you ar ethe one who does not understand science.
  
  You are reaching so far it is silly. What you are basically saying is "we cannot know anything for sure, therefore anything is possible."
  
  You have deliberately avoided the proof also. WHy don't you deal with that instead of "could find it" meaning something?
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, it is a science because its under cognitive science. it has the word science after it. I am not reaching far at all. Jung- collective unconscious generates religious archetypes, must be passed through heredity. campbell - all archetypes have one theme, monomyth, represents cycles of human development, dawkins (memes) - how religious beliefs are passed on from parent to child.
  
  not reaching far at all.
  
  and also I have evidence that 0 can be divided and therefore produce 1=2.
  
  it's called mitosis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Major … .svg...1=2 is possible.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Dear me.
  
  What does this have to do with the proof?
  
  So Zero can be divided, but is also infinity? Sounds a lot like "we cannot ever really know anything, therefore anything is possible. Pleeeeez believe what I believe."
  
  Creation science has the word science after it as well. So does pseudo science.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  but then that just goes to show that you do not know that cognitive science has applications for diagnosing cognitive problems like the one you are experiencing whereas creation science is not a field but a misunderstanding and pseudo-science means, pretend science.
  
  you need to see a cognitive psychologist....or maybe a jungian psychologist can help you. your god-angst is actually rooted in self-angst. (that's according to jung)
  
  I find it amazing how "you people" can dismiss entire fields, question experts with actual positions in the academia and think you are actually credible.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not really. Your insistence that when I disagree with you I am just incapable of understanding is typical. I understand that Catholics are trained in passive aggressive attacks, but I would have thought you could have managed to drag yourself out of that paradigm by now.
  
  Perhaps PC hit a little close to the mark?
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  you really are just prattling about without reading anything do you. That's why I don't even bother to explain it to you anymore. He made massive assumptions beginning on what he is assigning as the value god.
  
  He doesn't know what it is. and I even mentioned that you cannot disprove a metaphor. you can only understand it. but then this will once again be lost to your existential angst.
  
  PCUnix is silly. and I would have ignored him if he had not challenged me to disprove his proof. but because he has no knowledge of the implications of the concepts he's using I had to explain the whole thing to him ad nauseum.
  
  and once again YOU CAN DERIVE 2 from 1, assuming you can divide zero. Ok? and that's a big if. and even if it were so, is that G-d? we will never know. SO therefore you have just wasted my time because you still don't get it. You never will and I'm writing all this not for you but for those who can actually read and comprehend.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I understand you have re-defined the word god to be different to the definition PC started with. I get that. You are right - a metaphor is a concept and cannot be proven or dis-proven. But - it does not exist in reality.
  
  But - what you are now doing is silly. You are using science to try and disprove what you state has not been proven - which does not make sense.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I did not redefine the word G-d.
  
  I defined it for him. because he does not know the definition as it is from the sources who actually defined it. As in JUDAISM and HINDUISM.
  
  I am not trying to prove anything religious. I am just saying that contrary to what PCUnix said, yes you can achieve 1=2 if you divide zero. assuming you can. but we don't know that. which proves. yes,you cannot prove disprove it. I am proving he is silly.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No - you are not. Just by stating that he does not know the definition of god is silly. There is more than one definition - he clearly stated the one he is discussing - you now saying that is the wrong definition and trying to prove his proof does not work with the "correct," definition of god?
  
  I wonder if you realize how silly that is?
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I made NO assumptions about gods, Cecilia.
  
  Go read post number one again. Show us the assumptions about gods that you say are there.
  
  It actually says nothing at all about any gods - it talks about sentient creatures. It implies that you want this thing to be your creator god, but that's outside of the proof. The proof is only that the sentient thing cannot be the primary creator.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, definitely. The sting is very deep.
  reply report
2. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You think incorrectly, Cecilia.
  
  Go look up integers. Go look up binary logic.
  reply report
69
ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago
As for all things are sentient. (geez james, you had to bring that up? you know its going to make me go crazy trying to explain it in layman's terms!)
reply report
1. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  In laymen's terms????
  
  Too funny, Cecilia.
  
  :
  reply report
2. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  !!
  
  I know, I know ! (sorry....)
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I can't find a single definition that would apply to a rock:
  
  http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c … :+sentient
  
  But we know theists like to redefine words.. it's one of your favorite methods of argument, isn't it?
  reply report
59
akuiglaposted 14 years ago
You are entitled to your own believes, of course.
But.
Statistically speaking because you do not believe in God, you are:
1.Very lonely person
2.Prone to suicide.This is a pure statistical fact that suicide rates are much, much higher in non-believers.
3.You are materialistic person and you seek comfort in material things.
4.You believe in evil ,or satan because nobody can sit on the two chairs in the same time.
5.You grow up in resentment.Because nobody gave you love when you were child, you found a way and decided it is the best to hate.
reply report
1. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No that's a judgment and an attack. It's possible that his brain is wired for just literal things. some people find it difficult to understand nuance and context.
  reply report
2. 86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Statistically, atheists aware that rocks are not sentient.
  reply report
69
ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago
Mark Says:
Your insistence that when I disagree with you I am just incapable of understanding is typical
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because you typically NEVER understand.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No - I understand just fine thanks. I simply do not agree with you.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, you don't. Because you didn't get that I am disproving his proof, not proving G-d exists.
  
  always tainting you reading glasses with theism/theist colors you can no longer see reason when it presents itself.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No - you are not. You have deliberately re-defined the word god not to mean the theistic god and are now trying to show that he cannot disprove the "correct," version of god.
  
  LOL
  
  I understand just fine thanks.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I cited all my claims. you have just your self. so you know what. i really don't care what you think. you're ignorant of the very thing you oppose. So bye Mark. find a dummy bible reader who like to quote JAMES or MARK. you'll be better off battling them.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I missed the claim where you demonstrated that your definition is the correct definition of god. All you did was move the goal posts, which means you actually agree with the proof.
  
  You cannot use logic to disprove a concept because it does not exist in reality. You can use it to disprove a "real" god.
  
  All you are doing is what the theists do - you are putting your god beyond logic and reason. Majik.
  
  ciao
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  no, i defined it several times in two threads. G-d in hindism and judaism is not the source, not one, not zero but beyond zero meaning the beginning the end and in between. alpha omega. the is the was and the is to come. not zero, not infinity but all.
  
  so how can he prove that all does not exist?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  He did not. Nor did he claim to. You are the one who redefined G-d to be this term which we already have a perfectly serviceable word for.
  
  The word is "existence."
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  you did not know what went on here.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes - I do know. You are proving that mythology is science. As usual.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  and you are proving what, that you wish the aliens would pick you up already
  
  same-o, same-o
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  ufology is a science, a psuedo-science.
  
  unless ofcourse you consider it a part of mythology which then makes it cognitive science.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Science" deals with reality. What you are doing through this entire thread is what the theists do - deliberately blurring the line between concept and reality in order to defend a belief.
  
  In reality - when you lose your wallet - you have zero wallet. When you need to pay at the grocery store or gas station - they are not going to accept that you do not have absolute zero wallet. Effectively - you have absolute zero wallet. To argue conceptually that you "could," find it is not going to work in reality. Disingenuous at best.
  
  I will see if I can buy myself a degree in this ufology. I am already an ordained atheist minister - I can unbaptize you if you like.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  ok, please don't use the word reality when you don't know what that means.
  
  and my zero wallet could be 1 pocket or 1 envelope. zero wallet is not an absolute. it only means I am measuring walletness. and not nothingness. so we can go on and on about this and you'd still be a alien worshipper.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sure - tell that to the grocery store clerk.
  
  ciao
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How many elephants in your sink, Cecilia?
  report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  zero, but then you would not know why that is different because you have no clue why that is different from finding no wallet where a wallet once existed.
  
  zero means, no measure of elephant.
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly. And what does a logical zero indicate?
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh,, but we do, Cecilia. And we also know that ideas about sentient rocks don't come from science.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What does that mean? What actually comes from science? ....
  
  Ever here of quantum or meta physics?
  How about the Gaia Hypothesis?
  What about singing sand?
  How About Friedrich Hegel and his works on immanence v. transcendence?
  Especially: Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Immanuel Kant.
  buy the book
  
  Heck, even Aristotle figured it out.
  Hope you like reading, cuz you're going to be busy for a few years.
  
  James
  
  PS, also try reading The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra.
  I have a copy if anyone wants to read it, because I don't know if it is still in circulation.
  Great book though.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How lovely.
  
  Absolutely no relevance to the proof at hand, though.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is relevant to a sub-argument of the sentient everything.
  That is why I posted it for you.
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, it isn't. Rocks are not sentient. Rocks do not think, do not plan, are not aware of their environment.
  
  You are being completely silly with this.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Really? I suppose then you are not sentient either. Which means there is no point in me addressing you further.
  Good Day.
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Please show me where you have exchanged forum posts with a rock, James.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's a personal attack, James.
  
  Does having your fantasies examined anger you that much?
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I do apologize for the last remark. Uncalled for.
  But, I have grown tired of intellectual ignorance/narrow mindedness by BOTH sensationalists and scientists, PC. My remark was not in anger, it was in sarcasm. This NAND machine we are using cannot express the sentient implication, know what I mean?
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, I do not know what you mean. We don't use NAND gates in our brains. And again, I remind you that I only used that as an example of the necessary decision making mechanism. I felt it was necessary to do that because many theists are very unscientific and have no understanding of any of this.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I do agree with the last part.
  
  I still do not see how this can be applied to the theistic concept of god, though. And maybe that is the key loophole I have been trying to express. Since humans do not use logic gates -as we know-- than Creator would not use or require either to exist (be sentient).
  
  As for the rock: a rock is sentient because the composition of a rock is energy and all energy is sentient, aware, alive and makes decisions in a billionth micron of a nanosecond.
  ( my reference is the Gaia Hypothesis, and the others mentioned ).
  
  My experience leads me to affirm Creator is the entire universe and everything in it, versus the mystical deity sitting on a cloud with a lightning bolt coming out of his arse...
  
  Umm, you already did --Humans.
  You just destroyed your entire theory in a single sentence.
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course we use logic gates.
  
  Is this the source of the problem? That you don't understand that you make decisions with logic gates?
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  PC, do you read what you write?
  You said humans to not use logic gates..
  Now you are saying they do.
  
  It can't be both.
  You cannot be correct and incorrect; science cannot be correct & the theists be correct.
  One of you is lying.
  In my seat, both of you are
  (and Marcus still has a dead goldfish).
  
  Magic is a term of science to imply slight of hand tricks, sorcery -like gunpower in firecrackers or aces up a sleeve. Makes no sense to use that word regarding the creation of anything in the universe. That -- is just plain silly.
  
  I am off to contact some friends in Egypt, to see how they are.
  Have a great day, my friend.
  Keep the peace.
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Go back and read.
  
  A NAND gate is an EXAMPLE of a decision making mechanism. We have been using "gates" as a generic term to refer to these mechanisms. I made it very plain that the specific mechanism is not important - the FUNCTION is.
  
  Have you EVER even read the original post?
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Even a single atomic unit called an atom does NOT, I repeat, NOT use binary nor use logic gates, yet it is very much alive -because you are proof of that- as your entire being and the brain you are using is alive --and very much sentient.
  
  Therefore, since you are alive without logic gates and all elements of the universe are, and Creator is the Universe, Creator exists, is sentient, does not require logic gates nor a minimum necessity of binary.
  
  Anything that is not a human made machine does NOT, I repeat, NOT require nor have logic gates, nor do any of them operate based on or a foundation of binary.
  
  logic gates = man made/mechanics.
  No other object in the universe operates according to human designed mechanics.
  
  In conclusion, using human made mechanical expressions to prove whether or not Creator exists is bupkis **. It can't be done. Same as reading/memorizing/reciting endlessly words from a "sacred" book cannot either.
  
  In the humble --and often estranged words of E. Kant: all things --including wisdom of knowing-- come by experience.
  
  James.
  
  **Yiddish (Bupkis mit Kuduchas) translated: goat droppings.
  report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not disagreeing with what you wrote, but I just wanted to add a thought... If you take away, Air, Water and Food...the human body dies...so in a sense the human body is somewhat simular to a Logic Gate. Although I would lean more towards a combustable engine...Fuel and Air required to produce and output. To understand how the OP is stating his arguement you have to read it figuratively. As I have said many times...The Physical and the Spiritual is 2 different things completely...The Physical can for the most part be easily explained...the Spiritual...purely a personal experience and can never be completely explained to someone else...
  report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You don't read anything I write, do you?
  report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
77
skyfireposted 14 years ago
That's personal attack,james. How many years he lives or what he's deciphering in his life, is none of our business. Your word-salad and metaphor like talks add nothing new to discussion, take any thread. Have you ever given any proof in any discussion thread ? No. You always talk as if proof is not needed from your side, with replies like-i don't need proof, atheists are silly and so are theists type of twat. You hide behind agnostic stance by making claims which lean towards theism, linking them with myths and philosophical word-salad. Where and how you presented any proof for your claims when you're asking PCUnix or anyone for proof ? Take case of proof for spirit ? where is your proof ? And weird attack like this is coming from you, when you accuse someone for not presenting proof, where is the proof for your blabber(err word salard) ? Hypocrisy eh?
reply report
1. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  please don't do it. don't make him start giving you proofs. I know where his proofs are going to come from and you will not understand ANY of them.
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well the way he write "flip, tap, oodles" type of words. I'm 100% sure that his sources are not going to be from any science journal. It has to be from paranormal and word-salad telekinesis or weirdo magazines. I mean seriously, do i need few more classes in british english to understand some of his words or sentence formation ?
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  no he's got a real science degree and theology degree. so he tends to talk as if everybody has read what he's read. like he forgot what its like to start from abc before you introduce shakespeare.
  
  he won't even bother to make you understand. don't make him start with his proofs. I don't want to see formulas again.
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Even i'm a science grad and capable of understanding formulas. Trust me not a single science journal author will write in such gibberish English. The very idea of science grad person going to theology degree shows the gibberish path in itself.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  geez, do have that conversation with him. meanwhile, I'm out of here because I don't want to be there.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, you are "out of here" because you've not been able to refute the proof I presented.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  no I was out of there because I have a life and I do this only to while away the time when I can't sleep. You are in a strange delusion of grandeur thinking your proof has not been refuted. It is full of fallacies.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, another one who claims fallacies. The last one who said that had to eat his words.
  
  I bet you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if you sat on it.
  
  Where is the fallacy, myth-master?
  reply report
77
skyfireposted 14 years ago
Add this - the correct version of god is called as G-d. This G-d can't be disapproved as it's metaphor, so it can only be studied. I wonder why anyone will waste time in studying metaphor, if it doesn't exist ? But hey if it doesn't exist then you've got wrong version of god and if it exist then it's metaphor, you should only study it. See the loop ?
reply report
1. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  metaphor. PCUNIX used a metaphor silly.
  
  are you a writer? did you study literature? why study metaphor? because we don't want silly nillies to persist in literalizing symbolism, like looking for the garden of eden and what not and disproving god or killing people because the bible said so and such. that's why. we want to know the intent of the writer.
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well *scratches head*
  
  He's relating cosmic creator with information theory. I don't know how symbolism is getting into this.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  that is called a metaphor. the level of ignorance in these forums is astounding! Please get off the forums and read more!
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Point is, if people are relating logic gates as per religious/mythic views then sure, ignorance.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  yes because gods and goddesses do exist in an actual olympus, correct. and not in mythology?
  
  you prove no gods exist when you don't even know that they are symbolisms, metaphors for things that do. you take them literally and make assumptions and think you've disproven something.
  
  this will go on and on and really the bunch of you. need to get out of the forums and read more.
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What's the postal address of olympus. Or UPS is banned on olympus ?
  
  Why do i need gibberish symbolism while understanding cosmic creator ? You just shift god's definition from cosmic line to philosophical so that it's easy to shift from one fallacy to another when you get disapproval.
  
  Relating cosmic creator with religious one will surely give you enough standing to disapprove. Mythic/Religious gods appear lame if you compare the formation of universe from cosmic entity and of course the power.
  
  Read what ? claims like "dreams pass on "of yours ? and many mythic concept that has nothing to do with science ? Thanks.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  dreams do pass on dear. you don't know what dreams are that's the problem. dreaming was passed on. dreaming is a coding. dreams pass on. symbols change, but what they stand for still the same. fear, confusion, human emotion...in the form of nuerochemicals.
  
  so go ahead. persist in the demonstration of your ignorance.
  
  1. don't know what metaphor is.
  2. Don't know what dreams are.
  3. don't know the jungian archetypes is founded on the fact that it is yes...passed on through biological processes.
  reply report
  86
  Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I did?
  
  Show us where the metaphor is, Cecilia.
  
  I presented a logical proof - one which you consistently have ignored while droning on about math you don't understand and sentient rocks and myths creating reality.
  
  Where is the metaphor, Cecilia? Show it to us.
  reply report
77
skyfireposted 14 years ago
This coming from you ? *shakes head*
reply report
69
ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago
goodnight. boys. there will be other threads to wish that someday one of you would be right.
reply report
77
skyfireposted 14 years ago
'Dreams' as per your definition is not what i know for sure.

So far as per my reading and personal observation, dreams are what our mind makes by collecting data from memory. You don't share your memory genetically. So there is no way they pass on without you making a way via visual or text contact.

Taking a person away from biological parents and raising in environment that has no touch to their parent's memories, mythological information sharing will sure give no way to pass the data to that person. You can't disapprove this and here your thoery fails.

No.

I prefer to persist in staying ignorant rather than following pseudo science like you.

Yup. And i'm sure the way i see this discussion you don't understand that as well.

You're free to accuse me for this. The way you claim stuff like 'schematic of universe', 'dreams are passed on' are enough to judge your credibility.

Jungian psychology has nothing to do with biological process of passing dreams. Show me the proof or cite the sources. Oh and don't cite mythology professors source like you do always. You do know which source to pass when we're talking about biology.
reply report
1. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  well you can say that, or you can just read a book on jungian psychology. I really am bored of proving to you something that is actually have long been established. Sige, just say no to everything it only makes more foolish.
  reply report
0
jomineposted 14 years ago
all pcunix say is a creator should have substance to store and process information. and only after processing information the creator could decide to create anything.so consequently the matter for storage and processing should exist before the creator even though all the things that exist today may be in existence then. so it follows that at least something had to be present before the creator created and so creator is not the creator of everything.
(the theist themselves agree that anything that has the capacity to think cannot come into existence by itself-so god cannot come into existence by himself so the only alternate way should be evolution and so some preexisting matter evolved into god who then created everything. or we can get away with all these convoluted thinking and accept the rational view-matter is eternal-needing no beginning nor end. everything we see are different forms of matter and the interaction of matter without any magic trick)
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 23 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

I can prove no gods exist

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

I can prove no gods exist

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies