I can prove no gods exist

Jump to Last Post 101-130 of 130 discussions (1329 posts)
  1. profile image0
    jomineposted 13 years ago

    so is this so difficult to understand, or is it that the theist do not want to understand as they want to continue living in their imaginary heaven?

    replyreport
    1. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Bingo. Give the man a Kewpie doll.

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        sorry, i didn't get the phrase?

        replyreport
        1. Pcunix profile image86
          Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Carnival barkers. If you knocked over the bottle or hit the bullseye or whatever it took, you got a prize. The prize was often a Kewpie doll (Google it).

          replyreport
  2. Pcunix profile image86
    Pcunixposted 13 years ago

    So, let's try to sum up again.  One of these confused theists will surely add more nonsense, but I still think it's worth summarizing.

    Most theists quickly give up and resort to magic.  Some want to move their creature "outside of time", but of course they have never thought about what that does to the poor thing in terms of omniscience and they further don't understand that it's just more magic.

    Then we have Cecilia and James, both loudly insisting that they have destroyed an argument that neither of them has ever touched in any way. James took the path of redefining sentience to include rocks, which is truly bizarre, but then again, there are antecedents for bizarre ideas by theists.

    Cecilia got herself all confused by the number of elephants in her kitchen sink. Somehow, she thinks that can't quite be zero because the temperature is much too high in her kitchen (I'm just guessing at the "because", of course).  Because she very early latched on to the binary logic example I used, she has continued to assume that binary logic is a necessary component of the proof - a simple re-reading should have convinced her otherwise, but she persists.

    I do think this post hit a raw nerve. Theists are not basically irrational - they don't WANT to apply rationality to their beliefs, but this simple proof rubbed their noses in it and they do NOT like what they smell.  It forces them to think rationally for at least a few seconds. Of course, because they so fervently NEED to believe, they immediately reject that and start talking about thinking rocks and "higher values" of zero (among other ludicrous topics).

    Always good fun, isn't it?

    replyreport
    1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
      ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      nope, it's just a great way to swat a pesky fly who thinks it can land on your cupcake.

      replyreport
      1. Pcunix profile image86
        Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Your imaginary cupcake, Cecilia.

        replyreport
    2. VoltaireZ profile image59
      VoltaireZposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Does the color yellow exist outside your mind? No...The world you live in is a creation of your brain. Your the one acting irrational. You're arguing with people trying to convince them their God doesn't exist, but people believe because it makes them feel good (and there are a lot of weird unknown things), there's no reason for them to give up feeling good. You go to a movie, do you want to sit next to the guy who's pointing out how everything is done what isn't accurate in the film? The happiest people to ever walk the world walked in a happy myth, then they died. Why do you want to take their happiness away? You know 99.999 percent of human generations believed in some magic, a god, or goddess, I guess all their lives meant nothing.

      Do you have a quantum theory for time? Again submit your proof to some atheist scientist and win a noble.

      replyreport
      1. Pcunix profile image86
        Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        The color yellow is a range of wavelengths. As such, it exists.

        replyreport
        1. VoltaireZ profile image59
          VoltaireZposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Yes wavelengths exist, but yellow does not. Your mind looks at a flower and sees yellow, another may look at a flower and see God, both God and Yellow are a mental interpretation of other. One is hard wired in most people (not all) the other probably soft wired in many.

          replyreport
          1. Pcunix profile image86
            Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yellow is just a name we assign to certain wavelengths. In computer parlance, it is a label. Yellow exists.  Gods do not.

            replyreport
            1. ediggity profile image60
              ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Does love exist?  smile

              replyreport
              1. Pcunix profile image86
                Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Yes. So do many other biological behaviors.

                replyreport
                1. ediggity profile image60
                  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh, ok.  I didn't know if you were convinced, because love isn't a tangible concept. It's only there, because you believe it is. smile

                  replyreport
                  1. Pcunix profile image86
                    Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    No, it is just another word to describe emotional states.

                    The emotional states are real and some of the chemical makeup is even known.

                    replyreport
            2. VoltaireZ profile image59
              VoltaireZposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              "Yellow" does not exist. I wavelength of light exists. You may call that wavelength yellow, but your whole experience of yellow is artificial, a creation of your mind. You are a creation of your mind, you do not exist.

              replyreport
              1. Pcunix profile image86
                Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                False. As our minds and eyes are mechanically similar, we react to color similarly.

                replyreport
  3. Pcunix profile image86
    Pcunixposted 13 years ago

    Ours are sloppy, imperfect chemical and electrical systems that don't work very quickly or very well, but we have and REQUIRE these mechanisms.

    So that's the reason you can't understand any of this. You think your brain works by magic.

    replyreport
    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You just don't understand. You are limiting yourself. I understand. lol

      replyreport
      1. Pcunix profile image86
        Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        I know.  I;ve read that stuff about chemicals and synapses and I don't believe any of it either. None of it ever mentions the soul, so it can't be correct.

        replyreport
    2. VoltaireZ profile image59
      VoltaireZposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I'd love for you to tell me how my brain works. In the infinite versions of my mind that are splitting off of it every nano second, how does one mind arrive in one universe but no another? Why does my brain generally perceive the past coming before the future? How come I can commonly remember the past but can't remember the future, except on very rare occasions? How does our mind work on the quantum level?

      replyreport
      1. Pcunix profile image86
        Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Your mind works by weighing inputs and making decisions. It is a chemical and electrical machine of great complexity, created by billions of years of evolution. The only mystery is in its complexity.

        replyreport
        1. VoltaireZ profile image59
          VoltaireZposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks for nothing. All your saying is you don't know, because as yet, no one knows how the mind works on a quantum level, or how it occasionally remembers the future.

          replyreport
          1. Pcunix profile image86
            Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Nobody ever remembers the future and there is no evidence that minds use quantum effects for anything - quite the opposite, in fact.

            replyreport
  4. Pcunix profile image86
    Pcunixposted 13 years ago

    I'm going to try to explain this once again.

    Neither of the people who really should read are likely to. Their minds are stuck in one patter and they are unable to extricate themselves, so there really is little point, but..

    In my original post, I thought I was careful to express that the idea of binary NAND gates was just an illustrative example.  I said,for example, "You can design more complicated logic devices, but you need at least this much to make decisions." and "The gates don't even have to be entirely accurate, but they must be functional."

    Unfortunately, it became convenient shorthand to refer to "gates" when speaking of decision making mechanisms. We use "gates" in our decision making processes, but they are not binary logic gates - they are sloppy, inaccurate and very slow electro-chemical devices.

    I did say that several times in other places, but of course it got lost in the noise. Having Cecilia latch on to 0 and 1 like a bulldog didn't help, and of course now James has sunk his teeth into the same silly bone.

    As I also said several times, both Cecilia and James are confusing form and function. The function is to weigh inputs and make decisions. The mechanism is completely unimportant.

    To examine inputs and reach decisions, you need storage (memory) and the decision making machinery, which we have been generically calling a gate because I didn't want to keep writing out "decision making mechanism" every single time.

    Only sentient things need storage and decision making mechanisms. Insentient things have no need of any of this.

    Of course neither Cecilia nor James will notice any of this.  Oh well.

    replyreport
    1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
      ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      lol you are soooooo clueless. You have really bored me now.

      replyreport
      1. Pcunix profile image86
        Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        You mean I have destroyed your nonsense again.

        Typical theist response. They get bored, they feel attacked, people are rude.. But the proof stands.  You aren't bored - you know you have been talking nonsense so now you will run away.

        replyreport
        1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
          ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          No it's boring to talk to people you have to educate and are learning disabled by choice.

          replyreport
          1. Pcunix profile image86
            Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Are you saying that I am learning disabled?

            I am, in fact, though not in the way that you think.

            But once again, attacking me is not refuting my proof.  It only demonstrates your impotence.

            replyreport
            1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
              ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              you choose to be learning disabled. a learning disability can be overcome through choice, people always compensate, somehow.

              in this regard, the determination not to see your fallacies is a choice.

              • you assume you know what a decision-making mechanism is.
              • you assume that there were no storage present
              • you assume that you know all kinds of storage necessary to store information
              you assume that memory is knowledge when infact, information can be carried by light. as long as there is light, there is information.  you in fact can hold on to information for as long as the light is on.
              • you base your arguments on your incorrect understanding of the mythology surrounding the judeo-christian G-d.
              • you have not define what god/s definition you are using.
              • you have incorrectly assigned "unity" as = to G-d and (although you deny it) zero as G-d, when in fact it is NOT how the ancients define G-d. G-d is all numbers.
              1=2 is an unknown because the first unknown is if zero can be divided.

              now you are assuming you know what sentience is. you don't. no one does.

              so if your arguments are all based on assumptions. Your proof is a fallacy.

              replyreport
              1. Pcunix profile image86
                Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I'll take Cecilia's arguments individually:

                • you assume you know what a decision-making mechanism is.

                A decision making mechanism is a mechanism that makes decisions. Nothing in the proof requires any specific method.

                • you assume that there were no storage present

                No. The proof says that a sentience requires storage.

                • you assume that you know all kinds of storage necessary to store information

                No. Again (for the nth time!), no limitations were placed on the type of storage.

                • you assume that memory is knowledge when infact, information can be carried by light. as long as there is light, there is information.  you in fact can hold on to information for as long as the light is on.

                No, Cecilia. Information is carried in the modulation of light.  But again, you are trying to nail down some specific method.  It doesn't help:  Light can't make decisions.

                • you base your arguments on your incorrect understanding of the mythology surrounding the judeo-christian G-d.

                My proof makes no reference to any such creature. It only proves that all such creatures depend upon preexisting things.

                • you have not define what god/s definition you are using.

                I don't need to.  Is your "god" sentient?  Then it requires preexisting things.

                • you have incorrectly assigned "unity" as = to G-d and (although you deny it) zero as G-d, when in fact it is NOT how the ancients define G-d. G-d is all numbers.

                I made no such assignation.  Go read the proof again, Cecilia: it says no such thing and has no such dependencies.

                • 1=2 is an unknown because the first unknown is if zero can be divided.

                What babble is this?  Does my proof mention anything related to whatever you think you are saying here?

                As we can see, Cecilia, you persist in dragging any shiny object you can find into the room. None of what you had to say above is refuting anything I said.

                I keep explaining to you that this proof rests on two foundations: any sentient creature needs a place to store information and it also needs to make decisions based on that storage.  The first part is simple enough and the second requirement invokes a tautology: making a decision requires a decision making mechanism.

                You've already admitted the need for information storage.  Given that, you can only attack the need to make decisions.

                That's so obvious that it is imbedded into our language: we "make" decisions.  We don't "create" decisions, we make them. 

                There is no way to make decisions from stored information without a mechanism that can read (sense) the value of one or more units of storage and then output  based upon what it read.

                THAT is what you need to prove incorrect, Cecilia and you cannot.

                replyreport
          2. Randy Godwin profile image59
            Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            And this thread has been so exciting up to this point too!  lol

            I think I've reached "critical mess"! yikes

            replyreport
            1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
              ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              lol

              replyreport
        2. ceciliabeltran profile image67
          ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          It is only nonsense because it doesn't make sense to you. you need to make a couple of hundred new connections and that snot going to happen in a couple of years.

          replyreport
          1. Pcunix profile image86
            Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Again you insult my intelligence.

            Where is the fallacy, Cecilia?

            replyreport
  5. profile image0
    just_curiousposted 13 years ago

    Hi pcunix. I've been attentive, just like I said I would be. We should probably recap about now:

    25  hubbers are unconvinced. (I didn't include myself. I'm just observing)

    4    hubbers appear to be on the fence they were on when they got in here.

    5    hubbers are tickled with this thread (sorry, just because you and Beelzedad posted                           a million times a piece, you both only count once.)

    I guess it's back to the drawing board. But first, you should take a vacation. I'm sure you're tired after all of this.

    replyreport
    1. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Unconvinced, but unable to refute the proof in any way except "magic"

      We know this bothers you, deeply. That's why you fight it so fiercely. You know it is truth.

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        I'm not fighting with you. I am impressed with your stamina. I know we don't see eye to eye on this, but it does not negate the fact that you can't say you haven't been having a grand time in here.

        You've got to come out sometime though. I haven't known what to do without your insults. It's very quiet outside of this thread.

        replyreport
        1. Pcunix profile image86
          Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Insults?

          What insults?

          You mean saying that you are unable to refute this? Or do you mean when you bragged that the proof had logical fallacies and you had to eat your words?

          Those insults?

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Oh gosh. I apologize. I think you took that the wrong way. you need some sleep. You really need to give this up. For your health.

            Had you taken my advice, you might have had better luck; but you can't disprove something you don't understand. I am so sorry we are at odds. I'm going quiet again. I'll be watching though.

            replyreport
            1. Pcunix profile image86
              Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Yet the proof stands. In spite of your expectation that some theist would cut it to shreds, none have and none ever will. 

              I don't take advice from people with imaginary friends.

              replyreport
        2. ceciliabeltran profile image67
          ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          lol

          replyreport
          1. Pcunix profile image86
            Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Where are the fallacies, Cecilia?

            Do you even know what a fallacy is?

            Have you learned what an integer is yet?

            replyreport
            1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
              ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              have you?

              I don't think you know what negative means either. I explained it to you and you still don't get it. I even used your stupid wallet example. You still don't get it.

              Negative is absence of something that was there.
              A zero is a starting point of measuring value that only means before measurement. it does not mean negative. Nil is not negative.

              you confuse the two.

              -x + x = zero

              means not there and there is equals to zero.

              x-x=zero

              means there and not there equals zero.

              its there and not there combined.

              replyreport
              1. Pcunix profile image86
                Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I confuse nothing. I have always known what an integer is. It was you who insisted that there is no such value as integer zero.  But that is unimportant anyway as it has nothing to do with the proof.

                But you still cannot understand that, can you? You are still confusing form and function.

                replyreport
                1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
                  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  you are assuming that form and function are not related.  in truth the two cannot be separated in the natural world. Even form as in aesthetic has a function.

                  there are many things you are obviously not aware of based on your arguments.

                  replyreport
                  1. Pcunix profile image86
                    Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    You are so desperate..

                    Yes, Cecilia, form and function are related.  But the point here is that my proof requires no specific implementation of the function.

                    That's been your problem all along: you want to latch on to some specific implementation and argue "my god does not use that method, therefore your argument fails".

                    But the proof imposes no specific implementation. It simply says that there must be some implementation, that making a decision, of thinking requires a mechanism and is an obvious tautology,

                    See how you twist and squirm? You wanted to make zero into something not quite zero, you want to redefine sentience, and now you want to once again ignore the fact that the proof is independent of specific mechanism.

                    replyreport
    2. pennyofheaven profile image82
      pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Cannot argue with the statistics.

      replyreport
      1. Pcunix profile image86
        Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Percentages of disagreement do not refute anything, Penny, especially when every one of them and you invoke magic as the excuse for their arguments.

        replyreport
        1. pennyofheaven profile image82
          pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Not magic no. Anyone who says they have proof either way needs to establish that from the beginning of creation. That has not yet been done. Since it cannot be done because it is not known. Therefore there is no proof.

          replyreport
          1. Pcunix profile image86
            Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The proof is still there at post number 1.  It says nothing about creation. It only proves that sentient creatures are dependent on preexisting material.  You still don't understand that.

            replyreport
            1. pennyofheaven profile image82
              pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Oh yes I do understand, the beginning of creation was not mentioned. I even understand you require something preexisting for there to be a sentient creature. Yet nothing known exists prior to the big bang and everything known to man that is sentient now, came out of that unknown. So it therefore must have had sentience.

              replyreport
              1. Pcunix profile image86
                Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, it dd, Penny.  I didn't say that sentience can't evolve - obviously it can. I also gave you the unlikely possibility of direct assembly without evolution - that changes nothing, the proof still stands.

                You STILL don't understand any of this, do you?

                replyreport
                1. pennyofheaven profile image82
                  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  No not your logic. I am not alone it seems in failing to understand the proof your are offering as proof. Nevertheless that is how you will continue to believe it to be, and so shall it continue to be for you.

                  replyreport
                  1. Mark Knowles profile image58
                    Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    Perhaps I can help pennyofheaven. What is it you are having trouble understanding?

                    replyreport
                  2. Pcunix profile image86
                    Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    Funny how even other theists have understood it.

                    I know you don't grasp the logic, Penny, but you can't even seem to remember what it actually addresses.

                    replyreport
  6. mikebesiker profile image58
    mikebesikerposted 13 years ago

    I absolutely enjoy these kinds of discussions.

    Nothing finite can create itself. Yet, we are all here. So who or what created us and everything else?

    This becomes an especially difficult problem for the atheist. The counter argument might be that everything always existed. However, if the past is infinite, we would have never gotten to the present moment.

    replyreport
    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Aww Look at the theist who knows the answer. LOLOL

      How sad that Majik is the answer. Did wot god sed innit? That mean wot is infinite Kan Kreate itself? Sounds good to me. The Star Goat told me in my head u is lyin. Wot sez u?

      This becomes an especially difficult problem for the theist who claims to have an answer. Infinite number of possible gods - seeing as the only answer is Majik - makes yours infinitely improbable. Oh deary me.

      The Star Goat is as likely as your explanation.

      Or - we can go with the most simple answer - but then you have no authority - so prolly not a good answer ?

      replyreport
  7. aware profile image66
    awareposted 13 years ago

    we are creators great ones in fact . and  we create life as all life does. i have no questions as to how i was created .or who did it. i think  our creativeness  might someday  invent a real physical god .

    replyreport
  8. brimancandy profile image77
    brimancandyposted 13 years ago

    This is one that always gets religious people flustered. It says in the beginning God created this and that, and something about God creating man in his own image. Sounds like something an artist might do on canvas. Maybe it only represents that, and not what people have been lead to believe.

    And when it says "In the beginning." In the beginning of what?
    Where did this god come from? And what was he doing before he created all of this? It seems to me that he would have to be doing something to be God. And, how could he create man in his own image if he was not already a man himself? That goes back to the question of where was the man before he so-called created everything?

    You know, if you read Greek mythology, it really isn't that much different than the bible. It's full of a lot of stuff that sounds impossible, yet there were people that believed that stuff too. There have also been plenty of other civilizations that have come and gone who did not even worship what we believe to be god. Some worshiped the sun.

    I wonder what would happen if we went back to those times, and started talking about Christianity. The people would probably think we were crazy. Like that has never happened before.

    replyreport
  9. ceciliabeltran profile image67
    ceciliabeltranposted 13 years ago

    " The function is to weigh inputs and make decisions. The mechanism is completely unimportant.

    To examine inputs and reach decisions, you need storage (memory) and the decision making machinery, which we have been generically calling a gate because I didn't want to keep writing out "decision making mechanism" every single time."

    The fundamental problem of this argument is that "the storage" of memory you are looking for is matter itself, and you don't know that. You can't even fathom that part  because your mind is set on a specific mundane kind of decision making machinery. But even if I explain fractals to you, you would fail to understand it. You are closed for some reason. There is so much you have to read before you can recognize this as true.

    The problem is you assume too much. You don't know enough. You think there is no storage, that you know all memory storage kinds that the universe can manufacture.

    You are a decision making mechanism. The reality that you see only exists because you made a decision to see it. And this is not just in a literal sense. Your brain is really assembling reality as it perceives radiation...optics as James likes to put it. Sounds are vibrations. They are not really sounds but products of energy interactions. See, I can tell you how much you don't understand about your own proof but then you wouldn't see it. Because there is so much you don't know. You do not have a critical mass of wiring to make the connection. Several highways need to be built into your head for you to get it. So I am not convincing you. I write this for those who do have the critical mass.

    replyreport
    1. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You don't have to explain fractals to me, Cecilia.

      Yes, obviously the storage is in matter. Matter which had to exist before the sentient creature. That is the point.

      Are you trying to imply that I'm not smart enough to understand something? That's called an ad hominem attack - it doesn't refute anything. It isnt accurate, either, but that doesn't matter. The proof is what you need to attack, not me.

      Where is the fallacy, Cecilia?

      replyreport
      1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
        ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        So I have to define a fallacy to you.

        I already told you where the fallacy lies ten times. The assumption makes it a fallacy. You don't see it. I am not saying you are not smart enough, but you have demonstrated a lack of interest in understanding what I'm saying laballing them goobledegook without really internalizing them even when I have given you real citations from real mathematicians and people of science who are unbiased. and what have you accused me? that I like to read fools. And even when I tell you that they are not fools you say I do not comprehend them. learning disabled by choice means, you are incapable of recognizing a real argument that proves you wrong because you don't want to be proven wrong, even if you have been proven countless times to have presented several fallacies.

        Arguments based on assumptions.

        1. the definition of god
        2. that there is no decision-making machinery
        3. that you know what decision is and the machinery that produces it.

        Those are all still under study. you cannot make arguments based on assumptions. so your proof is full of fallacies. If you don't know what a fallacy is, that is your problem.

        replyreport
        1. Pcunix profile image86
          Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I gave no definition of gods.

          How can a decision be made without a decision making mechanism?

          Nothing was stated about specific mechanisms.

          Where is the fallacy, Cecilia?  You have done nothing but babble nonsense.

          replyreport
          1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
            ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            yet you assumed you could disprove gods exist without giving a definition. fallacy.

            replyreport
            1. Pcunix profile image86
              Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Nonsense. 

              The proof is not a disproof. It is a proof that no sentient thing can exist before insentient things.

              The gods simply happen to be impossible because if that proof. Just an accidental side effect. 

              Where is the fallacy, Cecilia? You still don't know what a logical fallacy is, do you?

              Do you know what an integer is yet? How about a logical zero?  Did someone explain that to you yet?

              replyreport
              1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
                ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                and you define sentience as? do you know what is sentient? how can you measure sentience?

                "In the philosophy of consciousness, "sentience" can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or "qualia". "(wiki)

                When people more qualified than you thinks this:

                "In his book "Consciousness Explained," Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett calls human consciousness "just about the last surviving mystery,"


                If you still don't get where your fallacy is. my dear. I cannot help you.

                fallacies are arguments based on assumptions. and you made many.

                replyreport
                1. Pcunix profile image86
                  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  We dont need to measure sentience, Cecilia and any dictionary will tell you what it means. Are you going to revert back to sentient rocks again?

                  Daniel Dennet may consider consciousness a mystery, but I do not.  Dennett!s confusion is with mechanism, not function: he knows that consciousness requires memory storage and the mechanism to make decisions.

                  You haven't said anything useful, Cecelia.

                  I made no assumptions, Cecila. Show us how you xan make a decision without a mechanism to read storage and effect a change to storage. Show how that can be done and you have destroyed the proof.

                  replyreport
                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
                    ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    we don't know what it is only how it is experienced by us. We know only human consciousness and are only beginning to realize that consciousness is a matter of whether there and not there but what level.

                    So you see, you don't get it.

                    the mechanism to read storage can be as simple as burning fuel,because mass stores the amount of potential energy.

                    information -chemical
                    the storage -matter
                    the decision -  how do you define a decision. see the assumption is , you know the definition of a decision or how it is made.

                    but I am debating one fallacy with another. In truth we have to know what consciousness is. and we don't. it's a mystery and for your information, dennet's confusion is unknown to you. he does not know how consciousness is made. as of yet, no one knows. to say that you do is insane.

                    lots of assumptions. lots of fallacies.

                    replyreport
          2. ceciliabeltran profile image67
            ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            you don't know what a fallacy is do you. This is what I hate, having to educate a person who chooses to be learning disabled.

            "In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception."

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

            you are full of assumptions. that's what I've been saying, beginning from what you are trying to disprove.

            replyreport
            1. Pcunix profile image86
              Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              I know what a fallacy is. I guess you had to look it up, didn't you?

              Where is the fallacy, Cecilia?  Where is the incorrect reasoning?  Show us, Cecilia- you have certainly claimed loudly and longly that you can, so where is it?

              replyreport
  10. Pcunix profile image86
    Pcunixposted 13 years ago

    Where,Cecilia?

    You admitted that storage requires matter.  Do we assume that you claim that no decision making mechanism is necessary to make decisions?

    How do you make decisions, Cecilia? Is it magic?

    replyreport
    1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
      ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't say storage requires matter. the storage is matter.

      but the knowledge is not the storage. the knowledge is formed by light. that is why only information can travel at the speed of light. light is knowledge. when your brain lights up, you know something. light produces elements that bind into chemicals and these chemicals are in themselves memories of organization and they become matter. Matter is the storage.

      but you would not understand that, do you?

      replyreport
  11. Pcunix profile image86
    Pcunixposted 13 years ago

    So, here we are again.

    The proof stands.  Cecilia implies that I am not an intelligent person, but that doesn't refute the proof.

    A sentient being needs storage and a decision making mechanism. These have to exist before it can. It is that simple and there is no fallacy.

    replyreport
    1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
      ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      you are proving you are not intelligent enough when I have already stated where your fallacies are and you are blind to them. I have refuted it again and again but since you don't understand why, you cannot accept it.

      These have to exist before they can...there you go assuming once again that they did not exist? another fallacy.

      matter did not exist in the beginning? how do you know how the universe began? see it is full of assumptions and you still don't see it. you are choosing to be learning disabled.

      The proof is bullshit. It is bullshit for the reasons I stated above. I have cited reasons given sources and you have said nothing but NO, nonsense....and that it stands without any proof to support it. Just you being hardheaded and silly about it.

      replyreport
      1. Pcunix profile image86
        Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        There are no assumptions about the matter.

        You do understand that you are violating the rules of this forum by making personal attacks on my intelligence?

        You have not refuted anything. You need to show how a decision can be made without a mechanism to read and analyze storage which can then output a storage result. You haven't done that. 

        And never will.

        replyreport
        1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
          ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          choosing to be learning disabled is not an insult to your intelligence. it is a commentary on how you choose to not understand.

          replyreport
        2. ceciliabeltran profile image67
          ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          and neither have you disproved anything.

          disproving god through this argument is ridiculous.

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            you are right cecilia.
            god has nothing to do with logic and reason. so god can be even "illogical" and "irrational".
            his hobby is making triangular circles and squares with nine sides. when he gets bored, he with his power, even make parallel lines meet and sometimes mate and then we get tsunamis!! lol

            replyreport
            1. Pcunix profile image86
              Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              In other words, magic.

              As usual.

              replyreport
              1. profile image0
                jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                its only in the realm of magic, gods "exist", after all what is magic except deception we happily agree to(same like religion, where people go to be deceived.)
                but that is the problem, when people WANT to be deceived, when they never want to get out of their imaginary castles in the air, who can do anything to help them. they will cling to any straw just to be there. even if reason personify and go in front of them, they will close their eyes(that much i deducted from arguments of cecilia). they are beyond any help..
                i wonder when these people start to worship Houdini or some such people as they cannot explain how the magicians does things. probably then we will have to explain that magic too can be explained!!

                replyreport
  12. Sethareal profile image59
    Setharealposted 13 years ago

    There are no 'levels' of sentience and you place no limitations on that, while I assume this to mean that 21 Days rock could not be sentient it does not exclude things like a three mile long mushroom filament network constantly relaying electric impulses/sorting nutrients, or the storms inside a gas giant like Saturn because these could potentially be gargantuan brains.

    So if I am correct that you would be willing to consider the possibility of those things being sentient then according to your proof the only objection to God that you have is that God existed before the universe. Is this an accurate representation of what you are saying?

    If so then God can and likely does exist given the probabilities of the infinite, but not God the creator. What if God was a by product of the universe, would you deny that God's existence?

    replyreport
    1. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Anything sentient requires preexisting things. That's the point.

      Arguing infinite possibilities doesn't change the logic.

      If your god is a product of the universe, then it is no god - it is just another thing like us.  That's the whole point: if it says it is your god, it is lying or insane. It could conceivably be your creator, but that's the most it can claim. It depends upon some physics as much as you do.

      replyreport
      1. Sethareal profile image59
        Setharealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Not a product of the universe like us.

        Your proof demonstrates that there can be no sentience before the universe exists but in order to disprove the existence of God you must logically demonstrate that the universe itself cannot be sentient.

        replyreport
        1. Pcunix profile image86
          Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          It doesn't help to move it to another universe.  We've been over all this ground in previous posts in this thread.

          If the universe itself were sentient, then that sentience would  obviously be a product of the insentient matter of the universe.  Nothing changes, the proof still stands.

          Go back and read it again. Go read some of the other posts (yes, I know there are a lot, but you are just bringing up things already dismissed).

          replyreport
          1. Sethareal profile image59
            Setharealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I have read them all and I am not bringing up that which has been dismissed. The proof stands, that is correct. However it merely proves that God did not create the everything else which is not mutually exclusive with the existence of God. It does not help for you to not address my point by claiming I am merely arguing infinite probabilities or claiming that sentience cannot be a product of insentient matter which is a logical absurdity as your sentience is a product of insentient carbon molecules (among others).

            Here is my proof:

            1. You presume in your definition of God that it is a creator; that made a decision to create everything else, i.e. sentience.

            2. Pre-existence to the physical universe is not a necessity for God.

            3. Therefore God can exist.

            replyreport
            1. Mark Knowles profile image58
              Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Majik. lol

              I really am astounded at how many ways you guys have to say "majik." lol

              replyreport
            2. Pcunix profile image86
              Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              If your god was not a creator, then it is nothing that deserves any worship from me. It might be interesting to talk to, it might be something to fear but it is no god.

              Congratulations: you've just defined god as someone smarter than yourself. 

              We HAVE been over this ground.  Go read the other posts.

              replyreport
        2. pennyofheaven profile image82
          pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Yes I asked for that too.

          replyreport
          1. Pcunix profile image86
            Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, Penny, you did ask a lot of nonsensensical questions. You got answers to all but the most ridiculous.

            The universe is not sentient, but if it were, the proof would still apply: it is a natural thing, not a god.

            replyreport
  13. Sethareal profile image59
    Setharealposted 13 years ago

    So you have no response to my proof other than to continue to assume that God must precede everything else.

    Your proof is flawless but all it says is that there is no creation out of nothing, it says absolutely nothing on the potential existence of a God that came into being concurrently with everything else. You have never addressed God's existence beyond creation out of nothing in this entire thread and I have read it all.

    You have a limited understanding of the text you are critiquing, just like a vast majority of Christians out there so don't feel bad. Your proof does not prove what you say it proves. I never told you to worship God, I merely am informing you that it is a mistake to believe God existed before everything else, the text I read says something quite the contrary.

    replyreport
    1. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      What text did I critique?

      Even if your god arrived in concert with everything else, it is still a natural product. The proof stands.

      replyreport
      1. Sethareal profile image59
        Setharealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Only because you believe that natural products and God are mutually exclusive which makes me continue to wonder why you would believe anything about God.

        I've made my point, your issue was that there was no storage device present to hold and execute any decision making process and therefore God could not have chosen to create the universe and obviously if this is a non-issue then your proof says nothing except that creation ex nihilo is impossible which many 'theists' would agree. I'm not saying God exists, but only that "your proof does not show that it is impossible for God to exist" which is a statement of fact.

        Good luck clinging to your worthless proof Pcunix, maybe the blinders will come off some day and you will consider the possibilities.

        replyreport
        1. Pcunix profile image86
          Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          But in fact it does prove that a sentient being has to be dependent upon material things.

          You can't refute that - your only escape is "magic".   

          Typical theist words: "blinders". It is not atheists who are blind. Delusions don't count as "seeing".

          replyreport
          1. Sethareal profile image59
            Setharealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I am not claiming sentience is not dependent on physical correlates. Please refer to my previous posts to figure it out.

            replyreport
            1. Pcunix profile image86
              Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Then you admit the proof is correct.

              Plug your god into the result.  What do you get?

              replyreport
              1. Sethareal profile image59
                Setharealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I've always admitted the proof is correct, and now you are asking me to define God again for you. Unbelievable.

                replyreport
                1. Pcunix profile image86
                  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  If the proof is correct, there are no gods.  It's that easy.

                  replyreport
                  1. Sethareal profile image59
                    Setharealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    The proof does not prove this. That is my point and I've made it, have a nice day. smile

                    replyreport
    2. profile image0
      jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      i agree Sethareal god may not be the creator.
      then you define god. if god is not the creator of anything what is it? why should it be given any special place and credence to other things evolved.

      replyreport
      1. Sethareal profile image59
        Setharealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        God by definition is undefinable, not going to play that game. Get your own definition of God, I'm only concerned that the definition does not require creation out of nothing, that is a common misnomer by modern religious believers.

        If you can't imagine something that does not meet these false requirements placed on it, that still resembles God, then try harder or give up. But you should arrive at the answer for yourself instead of taking definitions from others, they will never mean as much.

        replyreport
        1. Pcunix profile image86
          Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          More magic. "Undefinable".

          I did not define any gods.  I simply prove that a sentient being must be a natural product of its physics.

          You haven't quite grasped that yet, have you?

          replyreport
          1. Sethareal profile image59
            Setharealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'm refusing to define God as well, that is what undefinable means. I do not object to your proof that a sentient being must be a natural product of its physics, only that this proof in someway relates to the existence or non-existence of God.

            replyreport
            1. Pcunix profile image86
              Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Ahh, the "sidestep".   You admit that no god is rationally possible, but you step aside and say that the thing exists anyway.  It has no definition, no qualities, nothing that can be attributed to it in any way, but it exists!

              Magic!

              replyreport
              1. Sethareal profile image59
                Setharealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I've never said God exists, only that you have failed to prove it is impossible for God to exist. You are reading into what I am saying just like the arguments you are poking fun at.

                Strawman strawman strawman strawman, burns pretty easily.

                replyreport
                1. Pcunix profile image86
                  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, when you create it does.

                  The proof is about what sentience requires. You admit that it is true.

                  No god can exist if the proof is true.  Any creature you propose as a god obviously can be nothing but a natural creature.  Thank you for playing.

                  Explain this to Penny on your way out. She still can't understand it.

                  replyreport
        2. profile image0
          jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          sethareal now you are shifting goal posts. you says god is not creator, then what is it? why, don't you even know what you call god?
          or creation out of nothing is your problem(matter is not created),from what do you propose he "created"?

          replyreport
          1. Pcunix profile image86
            Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            He's doing the "beyond logic" gambit. It can't be defined, it has no logical attributes, it simply magically exists.

            Typical theist babble.

            replyreport
            1. Sethareal profile image59
              Setharealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              What I call God has nothing to do with the argument, and it was you jomine that got us off goal by demanding me to define my God. For this discussion we were referring to a sentient being that existed at the beginning of the universe, all the proof shows is that this being could not have existed before the universe and says nothing about the potential existence of such a being afterwords, even simultaneously as the universe begins. This intelligence would be vastly different than human beings because it would be 13.75 billion years older and would have cosmic dust as its physical body. It's physical correlates for data storage were potentially whatever was present at the beginning of the universe regardless of whether this was a big bang or membranes rubbing together or whatever scientific theory you choose.

              More strawmen that you knocked down, making all the arguments for your opponents and ignoring what they are saying is a much easier debate. My concern has yet to be addressed other than be told again and again by atheists that God created the universe.

              I can't define God because it is unknown, that is like asking for a definition of some unknown organism that lives in a deep sea trench, furthermore it may not even exist. All I am saying is that the so called proof here does not prove that a sentience could not have come into being at the same time as everything else, only that it could not have come before everything else which is painfully obvious to begin with, making the proof pretty worthless unless you are attacking creation ex nihilo <--- which is not a pre-requisite to theism, even if you say it is 1000 more times, it is not.

              The problem stems from the fact that the God of Pcunix had to create the universe and cannot possibly be a natural product. Pcunix's God is not the only God postulated and is in fact a misrepresentation of Hebrew text which I don't see the need to go into as I doubt you people would be interested in an explanation of Genesis chapter 1 that does not place the requirements on God that you so adamantly believe in along with the vast majority of Christianity.

              Strawman no longer describes the logical fallacy you are perpetuating, this has moved into the realm of a wicker man.

              Hopefully a reply will have something to do with the original proof and not just put more theist words in my mouth, getting tired of being a scarecrow here.

              replyreport
              1. Pcunix profile image86
                Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I didn't ask you for a definition. 

                What possible difference does it make how old this creature would be?

                Is anything smarter than you a god?

                Who says it is smarter anyway? Do you have access to some indication of its intelligence?

                The point is that anything claiming to be a god is obviously not -it is lying or insane.

                replyreport
              2. profile image0
                jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Sethareal
                you tell me your god is not the creator. then what is he?
                if he just a byproduct of evolution just as we are why should i worship him?
                for that i should know what you mean by god -otherwise there is no meaningful discussion.
                i can call earth as god as all life originate from earth but i don't worship earth nor earth ask me to kill anybody who does not agree with me nor ask me to burn incense for it. a definition is to convey ideas unambiguously, if you can't define god you don't know anything about it and you are talking nothing but nonsense.
                what pcunix say is easy to understand-matter preexists god-if matter can come with out god everything else can.
                so what this god fellow is doing?
                and where is it?

                replyreport
  14. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago

    PC,
    Why do you think things require pre-existing conditions to be sentient?

    (try to be as clear and concise as possible)

    James.

    replyreport
    1. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Go back to post number 1.

      replyreport
    2. Sethareal profile image59
      Setharealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      He doesn't know, he must not be sentient himself which makes it a miracle that an inanimate object is able to operate a computer.

      replyreport
  15. QudsiaP1 profile image61
    QudsiaP1posted 13 years ago

    If I understand correctly, you claim that anything that exists has a creator that existed so by default you ask the question of who created the creator.

    Before you ask this question, I ask you yet another.

    If you are an atheist or your friend is an atheist, than the logic of where the creator comes from should not disturb you because either way you do not care and do not believe.

    Hope, dream, vision, love, all vague terms... There is no beginning to it, they simply have existed.

    By default most religions do not allow for this question to be thought of, simply because religion works on a delicate system of belief.

    There is no logical involved, either you believe or you do not.

    If you believe then to ask, "Where did the creator come from or who created the creator?" sort of cancels out your belief as you are supposed to believe that the creator is the Supreme Being and a believer need not wonder on existence before the creator.

    So long story short, you can not prove that the creator does not exist, you can only try to attempt at finding a logical reason for not believing.

    May peace with you. smile

    replyreport
    1. pisean282311 profile image62
      pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      For atheist or believer of course question of creator comes into picture...for believers creator is living entity which can think , love , punish ,reward,ask ,give and all such things ...for non believers creator is not living entity but forces which create without consciousness...not question still remains what creator this creator...answer is unknown and speculated both by science and religion...none had reached conclusive answer which would be acceptable to all..

      replyreport
    2. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You don't understand correctly.  I make no such claim.

      Go back to read post number 1.

      replyreport
    3. profile image0
      jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Hope, dream, vision, love, all vague terms... There is no beginning to it, they simply have existed.

      what do you mean by "exist" QudsiaP1?
      scientifically exist mean something with physical presence and location. the above thing does not exist. they are human "CONCEPTS"
      but you are right the believer do not want to know god exist or not, he like a psychotic "believes" it and do not let go of the delusion because it is his very part of existence. but when the thinking part of brain get upper hand it is then he want to prove the existence(at least to himself) and come out into forums like this with all his nonsense

      replyreport
    4. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If you had actually read the proof that is in post number one of this thread, you'd know that I did not attempt to prove the non-existence of anything.

      Go read that post.

      replyreport
  16. aware profile image66
    awareposted 13 years ago

    words of supposed wisdom from a guy dressed like clown?
    really?
    really?
    im not buying any idea  you have for sale.
    and for one reason only
    your presentation  is like a wig. it rings false
    ray

    replyreport
    1. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Ad hominem arguments don't refute proofs.

      What part of the proof is false?

      replyreport
    2. profile image0
      jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      aware why came to this forum in the first place?
      if you wanted catering to your emotional needs there are so many other forums doing just that. believers shouting about things they do not know and offering eternal damnation to anybody who do not agree...

      replyreport
      1. aware profile image66
        awareposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Im not a believer. Past and current god ideas to me are dusty and kinda silly.I feel that god  cant be proven or dis proved .And view  those  claiming they can do either. To be peas in the same pod. I know enough to know i don't know . Im not out to dam anyone to hell for not believing in something. Nor am i out to deem those that do to be fools.
        ray

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          aware, then you may also be knowing that how a guy dresses is not the basis for judging him, and the arguments are not to be refuted by vehement rhetoric but by showing the contradiction, if any...

          replyreport
        2. Pcunix profile image86
          Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          You may FEEL that gods cannot be disproved, you may has been TOLD that they cannot, but in fact they can.

          Theists arguments run much like this:

          "Tommy was not seen in Chicago last night, and I understand that he is known to have been in Paris since Wednesday last, but it is POSSIBLE that there are two of him, so the other one could have been in Chicago."

          There are no gods and that CAN be proven. I did that right here in post #1 of this thread.

          replyreport
  17. profile image56
    C.J. Wrightposted 13 years ago

    SMOKIN!

    replyreport
  18. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago

    You really have no clue about the universe, do you?!
    Take a bloody physics class, PC. Please!

    Un freakin believable...

    replyreport
    1. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Show me where any physicist says that light is sentient.

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        PC,
        It is called Quantum Physics AND Quantum Mechanics.
        The same mechanism/mechanic/machine you used to design your supposed theory on/with.

        The metal and silica to make that machine  is all apart of a singular expression --light, where the three known energies are, that form every single atomic particle known to man.

        I think you are totally acute in your thinking and ought to expand it, in the hopes of establishing a basis for your ideology and its hypothesis before making "emphatic" statements of what does or does not exist (or can / cannot exist); what is and is not sentient.

        Sorry to repeat this but you really sound like a religionist in a lab coat --BUT with very a cool hair-do. i mean, I'll donate a buck to the passed-hat for entertainment sake, but that's the only reason I would.

        read up . man up . times running out.

        James.

        replyreport
        1. Pcunix profile image86
          Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Nothing in quantum physics says anything about sentient light.  You are speaking nonsense. No doubt you read something that you completely misunderstood. Try to find it again and perhaps we can help you see your error.

          replyreport
          1. livewithrichard profile image72
            livewithrichardposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That's not quite true.  There is a theory called biocentrism and is in the realm of quantum physics... "essentially suggests that the Universe is a consequence and construct of conscious observers and not the other way around; it's the quantum realm and the subjective perception of time that "creates" a comprehensible Universe to dwell in." It basically suggests that life creates the universe and not the other way around.

            replyreport
            1. Mark Knowles profile image58
              Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Where does this theory state that light is sentient?

              According to 21 - everything is sentient - which seems to make the word redundant.

              replyreport
              1. livewithrichard profile image72
                livewithrichardposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                As the theory relates to Zero-Point Field where experiments showed that photons behaved as particles instead of waves.  I think it was called the Double Slit experiment which theorists debate whether particles are conscious because they seem to 'know' about changes in their environment and appear to change accordingly.

                Biocentrism builds on this theory and claims that there is a universal consciousness since all things, whether it be a rock, a beam of light, or a puppy, are basically built with particles.

                Of course this theory also suggests that there is no singular God entity so I'm not sure why Pc devalues it as a "crock of theistic pseudo science."  Pseudoscience, sure. Theistic, hardly since it does not assert the belief in a personal God, nor do I.

                I think it falls right in line with my belief that there is a universal energy that somehow connects everything.  I seem to recall that even you Mark made a similar statement a while back.

                replyreport
                1. Pcunix profile image86
                  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I dismiss it because it IS a crock of pseudo science.

                  replyreport
                2. Mark Knowles profile image58
                  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Everything is part of the whole and thus connected - yes. I don't see how anything can not be part of the whole.

                  The theory doesn't say that light is sentient though - or at least that is not what I understood it to say, and it does not make sense to me because it basically suggests that without conscious life - the Universe would not exist - and it only does exist because we perceive it. The creatures that perceive it must exist in it first and for that to happen the universe needs to have already been there - so not sure how that makes sense.

                  I am not sure it disagrees with PC's proof either. big_smile

                  replyreport
                  1. Pcunix profile image86
                    Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    Actually, my proof states that this "theory" (I'd rather call it ravings, frankly) can't be true, either.

                    replyreport
                  2. livewithrichard profile image72
                    livewithrichardposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    I'm not trying to disprove Pc, he makes a good argument with solid logic.  It's like saying there is no such thing as nothing.

                    My take on the theory was that the particles of light, and all particles, are conscious of their environment which suggests they are sentient. This draws on the construct of Zero-Point fields which is proven science and is a product of quantum physics.  Pc stated  "Nothing in quantum physics says anything about sentient light"

                    Zero point fields is pure science not pseudoscience.  Biocentrism as a theory may be pseudoscience but it's only a few years old and is just a theory.  Einstein came up with the theory of relativity in 1905 and it is still just a theory.

                    replyreport
                3. Pcunix profile image86
                  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  That particular "debate" went away a long, long time ago. Particles are not "conscious" in any sense of the word.

                  replyreport
                  1. livewithrichard profile image72
                    livewithrichardposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    Consciousness of particles can only be inferred but the debate is hardly over. The theory of a biocentric universe is only a few years old so how can it have gone away "a long time ago?"

                    replyreport
                4. profile image0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

                  since all items in the universe are based on the 3 known energy properties ( positive, negative, neutral) and their sub-classifications --and even their sub-sub classifications down the an ad infinitum purity, "appear" and "dissolve" at will, returning to the point identified or somewhere else or not at all in the given optic. This was once considered an issue of frequency "pick up" like picking up sound or wave instances but has since been considered as something altogether different.

                  These viewed and documented particles and sub-parts have no "form" or definitive "shape", yet are ever constant, vibrations of a like grouping. This suggests further a hierarchy within this parts --ironically, according to their kind-- AND the ability to transcend/transform into another type upon unity, collision or disbursement from an instance within their groups.

                  Consider this: it would take 1.5 billion humans to form a single energy group of a single explored particle of energy. Just three of those energy units have more power, consciousness, understanding of themselves, than the collective human population.

                  As for consciousness, the ability of these parts to do what they do, not having form or shape baffles because it clearly suggests that they are actively aware yet have no "dna" or "storage container" to house information. Another suggestion is-- they in fact ARE information itself.

                  These parts are all considered light --even with a non-optic property of neutral (space). The pro and neg properties can be seen only because of mechanics used to view them. It is in this neutral that the events of appear-disappear-disburse.

                  Also, there is no evidence of a flip (binary requirement of 0 1) to relay or transmit information, as they are the information constantly in motion. Like a liquid environment (which is something a friend and I have been exploring). Furthermore, even if they had a flip operation, there must be a third operation connecting the 0 to the 1, no matter how fast/small the operation is.

                  Light is information and carries it own information, not by storage but by motion --this motion is called sound, ray, wave, frequency, pulse, etc. Light is aware, alive and conscious --it is sentient-- and communicates with additional objects (condensed/collective groups of like energy properties) which are still light. In short it is talking to itself.

                  Even if it is not "starlight" visible it is still there and still information.

                  This is why I say the concept of logic gates around storage tanks is NOT required for anything to be sentient. Not even the elements, molecules, compounds, etc that make up the pieces of this machine we are using to communicate.

                  Lead is equally light as water is equally light. Different density, frequency, vibration but the same thing.

                  James.

                  replyreport
                  1. Beelzedad profile image58
                    Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    Pure baloney, but you can turn that baloney into something more edible if you begin here with some high school knowledge:

                    http://www.fi.edu/guide/hughes/energytypes10.html

                    smile

                    replyreport
            2. Pcunix profile image86
              Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Biocentrism is a crock of theistic pseudo science.

              replyreport
        2. profile image0
          jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          again james if you do not want a discussion why you post?
          it is very easy to disprove the proof.
          just show how a decision can be made with out data storage and processing mechanisms. 
          i can't make it more simple to you and  i am waiting...
          light does not make any decision.
          i can agree that it may be used to process information, does that mean light came before god?

          replyreport
          1. Cagsil profile image71
            Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Hey Jomine,

            You asked, did light come before god.... lol lol

            God said let there be light and light came into existence. So, that means that God was already in the dark. lol lol lol

            (just joking around) But, couldn't resist. tongue lol

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              good one too

              replyreport
    2. profile image0
      jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      james you know everything about universe. tell me what is universe?
      is it something that exists?

      replyreport
  19. xrocker30 profile image59
    xrocker30posted 13 years ago

    I see where the author of this is going. But if you take God for who "God" is. Then you realize that he is the creator of all these physics you are talking about. He does things and knows things way above your comprehension.  How can you challenge the one who is the creator of everything you speak of?  How come Christianity is the most followed religion in the world? How come the Bible has been copied WORD FOR WORD for thousands of years as proved by the dead sea scrolls? You can't try and prove that there is no God if God gave you everything you try and prove him false with.

    replyreport
    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So - Majik then? lol

      replyreport
    2. Cagsil profile image71
      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, from the remainder of this your post, you apparently don't have a clue. lol
      Sounds like you still haven't a clue. So, I'll ask and I already know your answer, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt- It "God" is the creator, then what created the creator, since you supposedly have a grip on what's what.
      Interesting, you find humans so limited. In your case, you may be right. lol
      Conjecture. Certainly not a statement based on all knowable knowledge.
      Because it has the most gullible portion of the human species willing to give up guiding themselves.
      Untrue statement. Things have been omitted, therefore it hasn't been copied word for word. Not to mention, several sections of the Bible you speak of are actually from a different religion altogether. hmm
      This statement is ridiculous in and of itself. But, nice try. lol

      replyreport
      1. xrocker30 profile image59
        xrocker30posted 13 years agoin reply to this

        First of all I don't know what side of the argument you are on cagsil and whether you were just giving me constructive criticism or if you are against the belief in God.  I appreciate that your not shooting down everything I say and instead your pointing out what I said that isn't true ( whether you actually know or not). Well I am done posting on this thread cause obviously there are some stubborn people here that arn't gonna take there is a God for an answer *cough* pcunix.  By the way I actually saw the dead sea scrolls inches away from my face. Lol I just had to say that.

        replyreport
        1. Pcunix profile image86
          Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          You saw them?

          Did you READ them too?

          replyreport
    3. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So - when people first proposed that the earth rotates the sun, you would have opposed that on founds of "How come everybody says it doesn't then?"

      By the way: you plainly know nothing about your Bible or the Dead Sea scrolls.  That has nothing to do with this, , but it does show the ignorance of Christiansts about  the very underpinnings of their religion.

      replyreport
  20. Accenor profile image61
    Accenorposted 13 years ago

    jeez man... mr.pcunix i cnt believe wat a lame stupid guy u can be...

    and a moron..

    i think by that thing abov u call an article probably u sumhw acc to ur funny mind, proved or disproved the existence of God itself...

    nvr stepped accross such deluded an indiviual as u..

    hope ur nt taking me wrong till now.. m nt a supporter of God theory or nethng alike.. its jst wat u wrote above in order to dsprove Him is wt seems soo silly.. dat m giving a li'l time suppose to react.. 

    frst of all my friend... wat do u know bout nethng bout ur existence.. huh.. ? do u kno there are ppl right now dying of hunger n poverty, ppl rite now hvng sex ith the sexiest of girls in the world, ppl rite now duing soo many bloody things dat ur mind wuld cease to imaginethem.. yet they r happening...

    yet if i ask... wat do u kno of dose experiences.. u mite tell me imaginging hw u'd supposedly feel...

    bt damn.. its a helluva morechance u'll land up dead in the nxt second dan u'll ever experience everydamn thng there is to experience...

    if u cnt even experience a 0.01% of shit n this world... wat kinda insight or knowledge u seem u do hv dat would allow to prove or disprove anythng dat could beby the most exlusive intellectuals and the most wise n spiritual men over the span of human history... ??

    u shud actually take a look rie thru ur core... n think wat ur thinking instead of just thinking wtvr comes in that plce above ur neck..

    try to figure out that, there are things that for you to figure out there will take experience.. and alot alot more than just proving...


    its not that god or nethng relative canot create is wrong.. the truth is quantum energy is wat has always existed... n it cnt b created or desroyed... its jst transformed.. alchemic submutations of proprtions dat are still to be proven...

    bt bro.. remembr.. to kno the rite answers we must ask the rite uestions... disapproving sumthng is easier than sounds... bt going deep down to actually stae facts in order to realize its not a face.. opens up ten other facts... if u truly experince proving n disproving u'll kno wat m saying..

    tkcr..
    love, wisdom n light...

    replyreport
    1. Beelzedad profile image58
      Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      We might if you decided to use the English language. smile

      replyreport
    2. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I have reported this as violating the rules of this forum(personal attack).

      You said nothing of value in what followed that charming introduction.

      replyreport
  21. aware profile image66
    awareposted 13 years ago

    if someones trying to be taken seriously . interviewing for a job. or applying for a loan. or on a first date. appearance and presentation is everything. you ware a clown wig  while doing any of those things . chances are you'll be judged as a clown.

    replyreport
    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Spelling and grammar aside - of course. wink

      replyreport
    2. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Personal attacks are not only against the rules of this forum, but do not refute the proof presented.

      I'm going to let you slide this one last time: any more personal comments will be reported.

      replyreport
  22. aware profile image66
    awareposted 13 years ago

    any deified object or thing. its one of the definitions for god in the dictionary.  if i take the sun to be my idea of god.  can you prove to me that the sun dose not exist?

    replyreport
    1. Tumbletree profile image61
      Tumbletreeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Actually the sun doesn't exist. The sun is only a concept in your mind. A false concept.  How big is the sun? I bet you think the sun sits inside the solar system, but in one manner of looking at it, the planets sit within the sun. Step out side, and you you can feel the sun. The sun is touching you. As it is touching Pluto. The outer edge of the sun extends past Pluto. All definitions and concepts are just that, definition and concepts, to be invalidated or validated by the rules of such concepts. But they are limited in that they are only concepts and ideas, they rush forward to symbolically represent the world, but they can never equal it, they can never grasp the totality of anything. You can have an image of a tree in you mind, a creation of you mind, color, all of our sense are a creation of the brain, but you can never have the tree in you mind. Unless its the mind of God. But the sun doesn't exist. It is just an idea in your brain, like the gold or yellow color you think it is.

      replyreport
      1. Accenor profile image61
        Accenorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        good one man.. hats off to that expaination..
        @pcunix.. obviously.. y wud u care..

        replyreport
      2. profile image0
        jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Tumbletree can you please tell what is a concept?
        what is the difference between "object" and "concept"?
        if not what you say is all nonsense

        accenor can you write English?

        replyreport
        1. VoltaireZ profile image59
          VoltaireZposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          To a degree it is all nonsense. We root ourselves in certainties that time erases. We look to finite edges to things like the sun and like "object" and "concept", but their are no finite edges. The further closer we focus the more re see that every blends into each other. Within or own worlds we can have certainties and absolutes, we can individually and collectively measure our symbolic representations by how well they predict the near future, but our conceptual world, is not a dogs world, is not some advanced alien world, it's just our reality, actually it's your reality and my reality, and so on. The sun can be a distant object or it can be something the whole solar system is inside. Or it can be nothing, an illusion. Objects are defined concepts. Concepts are the palate of colors our mind paints with. What are you painting?

          replyreport
    2. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Why would I care?

      replyreport
  23. aware profile image66
    awareposted 13 years ago

    the church try's so hard to make people believe . you try even harder to make them not. both side  need others to believe as they to quantify their assumptions i think

    replyreport
  24. aware profile image66
    awareposted 13 years ago

    interesting .ty tumbletree. you know this all might be a dream .

    replyreport
    1. VoltaireZ profile image59
      VoltaireZposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It might be a lot of things, which is my point. When we look to some absolute definition of what shit is, we end up like Socrates, "realizing we know nothing." So we are left working within the bubble of our knowledge, both collective and individual. By individual, I mean we all have limits to our intelligence and misconceptions, so one person's bubble is different than another's. You can argue with someone all day long about some "truth" but if they don't have the ability to understand it, then it's pointless and not going to be a factor in their "bubble."

      Really, while we are all driven by our egos to be right and to discover a new edge to truth, we should also remember that our "reality" is a creative act. Human rights didn't exist, until man invented them during the European Age Of Enlightenment.  We're racing forward with technology, but aren't being nearly as creative with our collective manner. There are so many "dreams" other than this one we could be living in. So so many possibilities. Tomorrow doesn't have to look like today, if we don't want it to.

      replyreport
  25. aware profile image66
    awareposted 13 years ago

    god is a word is it not? dose it exist in that sense? do wish to remove the word from Websters ? your idea of god is derived from what  others have claimed it to be and you don't like their god. its cool . i understand the angst.  i see two wrongs dancing together to the tune of righteousness.  i know enough to know i don't know

    replyreport
    1. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Apparently you do not.

      Redefining words is a favorite trick of theists.  It doesn't help against this proof.

      This proof is only about sentient creatures.  If your god is sentient, it is as natural as you or I.

      It helps when you make an effort to understand an argument before you shoot off your mouth claiming it is wrong.

      replyreport
      1. VoltaireZ profile image59
        VoltaireZposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        redefining words is a favorite trick of people who seek truth. Gravity has been redefined several times.  The Earth has been redefined several times, or do you still think its flat and at the center of the universe? Words are redefined as our definitions for them are discovered to be false or unhelpful (of course they are redefined for other reasons too).

        The word god is just a pointer, like a compass needle, indicating a direction, on a distant horizon, very distant. Just like science and logic are pointers, we don't know where they are ultimately taking us. Look at Einstein, one of the smartest people to ever live. Relativity turned our whole world upside down, so much so, it seemed irrational: time dilation, a universal speed limit, mass and length dilation- the faster you go the more mass you have. No one saw Einsteins reality coming. But even as bright as he was, he resisted some of the logic of his own theories and some of the theories of quantum mechanics, why because it seemed irrational or magical to him. "Spooky action at a distance," in the case of quantum entanglement. Take a subatomic particle entangle it with another and you can separate those particles any distance, put them on opposite side of the universe, and anything you do to the one is instantly affected by the other. Or infinite universes with infinite versions of you and I, and infinite versions of you as a Christian fundementalist.

        "Either everything is a miracle or nothing is." Another Einstein quote.

        Do you know the difference between magic and science? There is none. Science grew out of magic. Magic was the first science. Magic tried to explain what reality was and how it work, just like science, because it is science. It's just dis-proven hypotheses. And our science may one day look as ridiculous to a future society as magic does to you.

        Einstein showed that Newton got gravity wrong. Einstein re-defined it, but even though Newton got it wrong, his model of it still allowed us to get to the moon and back. Just like discredited theories of a universe, such as the Earth in the center, allowed us to predict the rise of the Moon. Even saying that Apollo pulls the sun across the sky every day, allows for some predictions. The will rise tomorrow, Apollo has never missed a day yet. But every time we get a step closer to understanding, our old models seem really silly. Even now, despite how accurate Einstein's theory predicts many things, it's got some problems, and may be wrong. Einstein's Chariot across the heavens maybe "magic" too.

        "You can't open the watch" Einstein. All we can do is look at the watch's hands and make models of what is in the watch to explain how the hands move. The better are model the more accurate our predictions, but we can never open the watch. It may be that two completely different theories predict the movement of the hands perfectly.

        No I don't have to read your proof. My cousin makes the same argument about me watching some science program that proves god, I didn't watch it. The minute some starts out on a false premise, I stop reading or watching. There are as many definitions for God as there are people in the world, and even undefined concepts of God. Anyone making absolute science and logic claims in this regard can take their work to a peer reviewed paper and submit it. When it's been validated by a body of scientist I'll consider it. Again go get yourself a noble prize, instead of arguing with us dummies.

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Absolutely, spot on.
          And that magic gave birth to all forms of theology & mysticism (sensation) and all forms of alter sciences (equation). In short, it created The Ism ©™ --Humanism¹ that is.

          James.


          ¹ the denial of any power or moral value superior to that of humanity;
          the rejection of practical theologies, in favor of a belief in the advancement of humanity by self effort.

          replyreport
    2. Accenor profile image61
      Accenorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      @aware... and every1 else trying to make pcunix understand... cz he is taking it as violting...

      omg... phew.. hope u nderstand b4 too late.. bt ur wish cant br granted sir..
      ur article has nothing credible, or worthful to start an arguement...
      atleast one dat would hv a reason or logic to back up...

      nice meeting bro... tkcr.. wishing btr reads frm u nxt.. smile

      and as i always say.. be wise... every third is intelligent...

      replyreport
  26. aware profile image66
    awareposted 13 years ago

    there is a difference between debate and discussion .esp . on this topic.  debating  drives a wedge and is counter productive.On this issue we need to understand each other not seek to prove  each other wrong.  The statement  that started this forum. Is a blatant  act of aggression.angry in its intent. a dagger thrust into the heart of others beliefs . There are reasons for the way things are today for the wars being waged.One of those reasons is because there are a lot of clowns out there poking peoples ideas with sticks.

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      i'll summaries for the last time
      god is generally considered the creator.
      if any difference of opinion then you have to define what your god is before we can discuss further.

      a creator should be a sentient being and every sentient being needs data storage and decision making mechanisms to arrive at a decision, so matter has to exist before the creator and consequently creator is not the creator of everything.

      these is the only argument pcunix is making and if anybody can, please contradict it logically without any intervening magic.
      there are other reasons to say creation is impossible but this is the only argument in this forum .

      replyreport
  27. manlypoetryman profile image81
    manlypoetrymanposted 13 years ago

    I can prove he does exist...but you'll just have to wait a few more years.

    replyreport
    1. Cagsil profile image71
      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      lol lol lol

      replyreport
  28. KFlippin profile image60
    KFlippinposted 13 years ago

    Pcunix, I suppose you do not believe there is a sixth sense as you can't pinch or sniff or taste or see or hear it. I would be interested to know if you acknowledge the sixth sense.

    replyreport
    1. Cagsil profile image71
      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Hey K,

      I realize you're not talking to me nor did you address me, but the sixth sense can be felt, so it can be determined to exist. wink

      Just a thought. smile

      replyreport
      1. KFlippin profile image60
        KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        I don't think so, the person experiencing the 6th sense knows it, hears and sees and feels it in an intangible unproveable way, they can not prove it to another, it is not tangible in any way beyond their own personal experience, they can't share it with another like an apple.  Nor can those who have a sure sense of a Higher Power provide proof, tangible proof of what they sense and therefore believe spiritually.

        replyreport
        1. Cagsil profile image71
          Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          A sixth sense doesn't need to be proved either way, because most often a sixth sense is with regards to the individual's life and not someone else's life.

          As for the spirituality of it, that is just rubbish. It's not spiritual in any manner, but is part of the human consciousness that exists in all. wink

          replyreport
          1. KFlippin profile image60
            KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            And you know that so emphatically because you have a keen sixth sense??  Apparently not.  A sixth sense absolutely is not just about an individual's life, it would essentially be a dull and selfish sense if it were so turned inward, either that or we wouldn't need health care for those with a darn good sixth sense about just what to eat or drink each day to keep them healthy. 

            I would say your grasp of the sixth sense is rubbish, and that you have not personally experienced it with either another human or animal.

            replyreport
            1. Cagsil profile image71
              Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              It is useless to argue with you about. Go learn something about Human Consciousness. hmm

              replyreport
              1. KFlippin profile image60
                KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Amazingly, I don't need to reference a book on Human Consciousness, I can merely reflect back on my own life experiences thus far.  Perhaps you should expand your indvidual mind, do some open-minded research on the sixth sense and meditate a bit, and perhaps a light bulb of insight will brighten for you.  wink

                replyreport
                1. VoltaireZ profile image59
                  VoltaireZposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  reality paints the mind and the mind paints reality. Within the bubble of our understanding we can debate, but the edges fray and bleed into the unknown. Always our bubble is expanding. Perhaps a sixth sense is "other" perhaps it is the result of quantum effects of the mind. Perhaps it is as if only a few people in the world possessed color vision, how would they convince others that colors exist, when colors don't. Colors are created by the mind, but their is a physical phenomenon beneath them. Perhaps one day we'll understand the sixth sense the way we understand color, and then there will be the next mystery, but we will still be in the bubble. Our minds will still be repainting reality as reality repaints our mind.

                  replyreport
                  1. KFlippin profile image60
                    KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    ". . . reality paints the mind and the mind paints reality."

                    Apparently so................ smile

                    replyreport
        2. VoltaireZ profile image59
          VoltaireZposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          One experiment has just proven that humans can predict the future. The idea that the six sense is unprovable makes a rational mockery of all your arguments. You are trying to prove it, by arguing that it is unprovable. That which cannot be proven cannot be proven so why don't you quit. Are you suggesting people should have "faith," and believe in what cannot be proven? Are people who refuse medical treatment for their children because of unprovable beliefs right?

          replyreport
          1. VoltaireZ profile image59
            VoltaireZposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            This sounds a little harsh. Reality is a program the mind is running. It takes the inputs of our perspectives and glues them together and says this is real.  That program feels very very real to us, duh, but it's highly subjective. We are still so far understanding. (I think). Our interpretations of reality are mostly likely false. We need to surrender our certainties. Reality, is still a mystery. We can still embrace a private mythology, that's healthy actually, and even a collective one, but we should leave room for doubt. A six sense is a mystery. It may not always be a mystery, though. It may one day be explainable. You have an interpretation of it, don't commit the same mistake as others and your is correct, particularly since you say you can prove it.

            replyreport
            1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
              ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Voltaire, in order for you to understand this, you should have atleast a very basic comprehension of quantum mechanics.

              The person you're talking to is UNABLE to understand what you're talking about. Meaning, even if he tried, he wouldn't be able to, unless ofcourse you send him links, and IF he reads it. Quantum Mechanics is very strange. Almost as strange as Neuroscience.

              replyreport
              1. Pcunix profile image86
                Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Cecilia, we have already established that it is you who has little understanding of science or mathematics. You have been handed your hat in every thread where you have tried to assert otherwise.

                You can cast aspersions at my intelligence, but it doesn't change the facts.

                replyreport
    2. Pcunix profile image86
      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Which sense is that?

      replyreport
  29. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 13 years ago

    oops

    http://markpknowles.com/wp-content/uploads/vatican.jpg

    I just did it to annoy. lol

    replyreport
    1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
      ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      how did you get up there? lol

      replyreport
      1. Mark Knowles profile image58
        Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Long story. wink

        replyreport
      2. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Nice Photo Marcus. You two make a cute couple. kudos.

        replyreport
        1. Mark Knowles profile image58
          Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks. Taken in September last year. Great views from up there.

          I never knew Rafael had done so many ceilings. smile

          replyreport
          1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
            ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Do the japanese still own them? You may have to delete that file because they still belong to the Japanese government unless that expired already. Oh wait, I was talking about the Sistine Chapel.

            replyreport
            1. Mark Knowles profile image58
              Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              I have no idea what you are talking about - sorry. Did the Japanese government Inc throw some money at the Vatican? If so - I suspect they got shafted. wink

              replyreport
              1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
                ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                when I was there, we were told not take pictures because the rights belonged to the Japanese government, I don't know if you read that whole feature in National Geographic about the restoration of the Sistine Chapel and there was this huge controversy about the vibrant colors. Some critics were saying the washing process was changing his colors. But they say, nope those are the original colors. The morose colors were dust.

                replyreport
                1. ediggity profile image60
                  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I was told that the flashes from a camera might cause damage to the art work.  Maybe not just one flash, but many over time, so they didn't want to take any chances.

                  smile

                  replyreport
                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image67
                    ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    That too, but we weren't allowed to take pictures. Normally they are ok with no-flash photography. But there was one time I went that they mentioned the rights belonged to Japan, maybe it expired already.

                    replyreport
  30. janni321 profile image60
    janni321posted 13 years ago

    everything is real that our five senses can feel. god is not real because no one ever see, listen, smell, touch or taste it. the biggest problem with humans is that we are physical and we can only feel and think physical things. the god if exists is not physical in nature. He is not bound by any of the physics laws, you can say it is magic or something like that. the definition of magic is the same like god that we cant find any physical or logical reason of it. the religion's god is more like a human, that's why it doesn't explain much. I am sure that there is something that we cant understand. for example just think about the boundaries of the universe, you soon realize that there are no boundaries, they are keep going and going as far you imagine. same is the case with time and many other things like counting 1,2,3....infinity. This infinity sign give us the hope that there is something at the other end.
    Now again come to religion that claims to be god's word like bible. If this book is god's word and god wanted us to worship him then why he do not explains about him in the bible. If he wants us to believe him then why don't he show himself? these are very simple points that shows there is no god smile   
    p.s excuse my poor english sad

    replyreport
jump to first post
 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

 Necessary
 Features
 Marketing
 Statistics

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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 ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis 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 LibrariesJavascript 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 SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis 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 YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis 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 LoginYou 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)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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 AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore 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 PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)