04 Feb 2015, 2:44 am
04 Feb 2015, 7:02 am
sophisticated wrote:
AspE wrote:
A thing might not be able to be the cause of itself, but a thing could be uncaused.
Not true.
Given that "nothing" is non-existent and is nowhere to be found, we cannot test your theory.
Again, this is an element of QM, which is more than just quarks, muons and bosons. But beyond that, it's a difficult to explain concept. I'll try an analogy - my analogy, so whether it's right or wrong, don't blame dogma.
At a non existent party, there is the absence of the party. But then people show up spontaneously and we have a party. It's not about the "where," but about the party, and the party becomes the "where." Its existence is its own "where." But before that, there was no party, and hence no "where." - Narrator's corollary
04 Feb 2015, 8:16 am
04 Feb 2015, 12:23 pm
04 Feb 2015, 1:18 pm
04 Feb 2015, 2:46 pm
04 Feb 2015, 2:50 pm
04 Feb 2015, 3:02 pm
04 Feb 2015, 3:07 pm
04 Feb 2015, 3:12 pm
04 Feb 2015, 3:37 pm
sophisticated wrote:
aghogday wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
AspE wrote:
A thing might not be able to be the cause of itself, but a thing could be uncaused.
Not true.
Given that "nothing" is non-existent and is nowhere to be found, we cannot test your theory.
Hmm.. and just beCAUSE something cannot be tested does NOT MEAN IT'S NOT TRUE.
IT MEANS SCIENCE HAS no adequate way to MEASURE IT, whether IT exists or NOT.
Science is incredibly inadequate, particularly in the most important part of existence THAT IS THE HUMAN MIND and BODY IN BALANCE.
THE rest of the scientific pie is cool but that ain't what life is truly about.
Life is about living in a human mind AND body in balance that includes regulation of emotions, sensory integration, physical intelligence, social cognition, cognitive and affective empathy, cognitive executive functioning and short term working memory, proprioception, imagination, dreams, creativity, and OH MY GOD THAT potential LIST IS as large as the number of neuronal connections in the brain as metaphor for stars that light all of night skies....
Science relatively speaking AIN'T GOT A CLUE ABOUT WHAT REALLY COUNTS.
AND THE ILLUSION IS IT DOES.
IT DOESN'T.
AND THAT'S THE simple and complex TRUTH.
The human mind AND body in balance is a Universe unto Itself.
Some folks live in little bitty Universes and some live in Universes that are simply and complexly IMMENSE.
AND SCIENCE DOESN'T EVEN SPEAK TO THIS TRUTH, AS SCIENCE HAS NO EMPIRICAL RESTRICTED WAY TO EVEN COME CLOSE TO FULLY MEASURING WHAT HUMAN BEING EVEN IS.
HELL, THEY (science) DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT AUTISM IS BEYOND A FEW BEHAVIOR RECIPROCAL SOCIAL COMMUNICATION deficits and RRB's abstractly constructed in a diagnostic manual.
I for one will never wait on science for my wisdom of life.
And empirically speaking, if I did, per medical science, with the 19 medical disorders that medical science had no clue how to cure, I will be dead now, instead of something around the def. of the Nietzsche defined 'superman', in REAL LIFE.
Philosophy of my life saved my life; science, relatively speaking, STILL S**KS! AS MUCH AS A FLAT EARTH THEORY, when it COMES to what REALLY COUNTS, HUMAN BEING MIND AND BODY BALANCE, and much fuller potential human intelligences, practiced and excelled at, as such.
Figuring out how human being works in mind and body balance, is just a first step in science, per empirical scientific method science; figuring out how GOD works in total, per Mother Nature True aka ALLTHATIS, IS SO DAM FAR BEYOND WHAT SCIENCE KNOWS NOW, EVEN ABOUT THE SCIENTIST THAT STUDIES IT, IT IS RIDICULOUS TO EVEN INCLUDE SCIENCE IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT GOD.
SCIENCE IS ONLY AN IGNORANT CHILD.
AND TRULY AN IGNORANT CHILD KNOWS MORE ABOUT HUMAN LIFE IN BALANCED MIND AND BODY, THAN SCIENCE DOES NOW.
SCIENCE STILL, AIN'T GOT A CLUE.
AND IT NEVER likely WILL, AS HUMAN EMOTIONS AND ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE HUMAN ABSTRACT FUNCTIONING MIND and body in balance or NOT, IS SIMPLY AN EMPIRICALLY NON-REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT.
AND SO IS GOD.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJMKupY14I[/youtube]
Right, but every theory must have a basis. If you argue particles can appear out of nowhere, I will ask you where "nowhere" is, if you can't show me where "nowhere" then your argument falls part.
You anthropomorphize God, and if I ask you why you do that, you just say that feel it or you experience it or something like that, but that is not good enough for me. Your belief that God is every where, this belief has no basis, it is an idea you plucked out of thin air.
For me, we can establish that there is a God through common sense, but that is it. His exact nature, where he resides, why created us, these are things which only he can communicate to us.
I DO NOT ANTHROPOMORPHIZE GOD.
GOD IS NATURE.
IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
And while human is part of Nature; HUMAN IS CERTAINLY NOT ALL OF NATURE AKA GOD.
THERE IS NO HE IN GOD. That is anthropomorphizing GOD and I DO NOT REFER TO GOD AS HE.
AND HeLL NO, I DIDN'T PLUCK IT out of thin air, GOD is everywhere including AIR.
And nothinG, IF nothing exists TOO.
The definition of GOD is a bigger pie than the Anthropomorphizing of an IDOL OF HE IN OLD ANTI-QUATED Abrahamic religions that use religion as the best substitute for human sciences then.
That is no longer necessary, as GOD is available VIA video observance NOW.
AS ELOQUENTLY VISUALIZED AND DISCUSSED IN THE FOLLOWING VIDEO USING the metaphor called NATURE.
NATURE AND GOD, are only frigging human abstract concepts.
The same frigging essence of TRUTH ABOUT GOD BEING ONE AND SAME AS Nature, is the same truth that most all philosophies and religions in ancient days before modern science comes, points to, as the same dam limited or more limited essence of abstract constructs of words, whether it is Nature or GOD, per 6 letter or 3 letter word, to describe the essence of the same dam truth that everything in existence, AS IS NOW, IS ONE BIG GOD OF ALL THAT IS.
MY CAT understands this without abstract language, collective intelligence, or complex culture, much better than most human beings who become 'ret*d' in separation from GOD AS IS NOW, THROUGH THE USE OF ABSTRACT CONCEPTS.
IT IS SCIENCE THAT ANTHROPOMORPHIZES GOD IN SYSTEMIZING WAYS.
NOT human innate nature that INSTINCTUALLY AND INTUITIVELY flows with the rest of NATURE THAT IS GOD ONE AND SAME, when set free from cultural illusions.
BUT ANYWAY, here is science and its limited but rather nice attempt to scribe GOD more fully as Nature, AS IS.
BUT OF COURSE AS ALWAYS, IT IS LIMITED BY HUMAN EYES.
THOSE HUMAN EYES who ADMIT that IN A DEFINITION OF GOD, ARE NOT ANTHROPOMORPHIZING GOD into little chains and prisons of human paradigms, as they clearly understand that is what humans live in, less or MORE.
04 Feb 2015, 7:34 pm
04 Feb 2015, 7:46 pm
04 Feb 2015, 7:51 pm
04 Feb 2015, 8:16 pm
kraftiekortie wrote:
It would have been great if you would have actually been a "narrator."
What did you used to do for a living?
What did you used to do for a living?
I'm attempting to rewrite a 650 page novel that I finished last August.. hence the narrator tag.
I spent the last 6 years teaching numeracy and literacy in a program for disadvantaged kids in years 10 to 12. Before that, I spent 15 years in IT, maintaining business networks. Before that I was a mechanical engineer, designing aircraft refueling equipment. Jack of all trades, master of none. Currently I'm doing what I need to become a commercial drone pilot. At 57, I still don't know what I want to be when I grow up. Astronaut, cosmologist, garbage collector, window cleaner...
04 Feb 2015, 8:19 pm
