The Hard Problems Of Consciousnes - One of the best cases for Intelligent Design

Discussion in 'Religion' started by LFiess1942, Oct 13, 2014.

  1. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    I think this is plain enough...............at least for me.

    " If God were your father, you would love me, since I have my origin in God and have come from him; I did not come of my own accord, but he sent me . John 8:42-43

    My little children, I shall not be with you much longer. You will look for me, and as I told the Jews, where I am going, you cannot come. I give you, a new commandment: love one another; just as I have loved you, you also must love one another. By this; love you have for one another, everyone will know that you are my disciple" John 13:33-35

    "Yes, its my Fathers will, that whoever sees the Son, and believes in him, shall have eternal life, and I shall raise him up, on the last day John 6:39-40
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    A coded language is gibberish any but uninitiated as in "Mene, mene, tekel, Upharsin!" So, even if we realized that the basics of all creation is information, as long as we cannot read it, it will never be information to us.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,147
    If there is no evidence of it, there is no reason to incorporate it into our models of reality. That is how science views these things.

    I accept that religious people may superimpose their own subjective ideas on this, but that is outside science. So long as nobody tries to muddle up religion and science I'm all for live and let live.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Muddle they will eventually. I actually have created logical models that combine philosophy, history, paleontology, epistemology, theology, psychology, and Quantum Mechanics fitting them all, and am happy. As for now, even if I presented it for a peer review it would be thrown away. But now, it makes absolute sense to me.
     
  8. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    yes, of course, religion has always been perfectly effective for a minority of people. I thought you were talking about people, not just some people. You were originally talking about consciousness, so i thought we would be looking at religion that relates to those of us who have consciousness, not religion for a particular group of special people, which is old hat. Your argument is very familiar historically, i.e. "i get it, if you don't get it, just do what i say (not what i do usually), and then everything will be fine." That kind of persuasion has already been shown not to create unity or work very well over the long term for the earth taken as a whole.
    even the idea that god and jesus are one depends on suspension of common logic. Not to say that is a bad thing, but let's not pretend it is simple. I mean is Jesus a part of God, like God's arm died for us and then God revived his arm? Or are Jesus and God separate but not separate in some non-dualism? If the trinity doesn't blow your mind, and virgin birth, et cetera, I feel you aren't looking at the phenomena deeply enough. None of the metaphysics of the bible are simple. Miracles are not "simple" in a scientific world. Period.Your relationship to miracles may be simple, but the phenomena can't be. When gravity doesn't work right, and someone walks on water, that is an automatic "not simple" in my book.
     
  9. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Of course, I do not expect to convince anyone, but who knows, it might make a difference to one or two. I do not intend to be ambitious.
    Now, you say that " i thought we would be looking at religion that relates to those of us who have consciousness, not religion for a particular group of special people, which is old hat"

    Actually I am. But as you know, Christianity, with its multitudes of divisions, does not appear as a religion that can make sense. After all, if it did, why the division? But there is a way you can look as the Doctrine, and realize that all these divisions and religiosity is a product of power, politics, money, ignorance, pride, etc. But we cannot browbeat ourselves, because divisions started way back with its founder. Remember the Sons of Zebedee and their request? Remember Peter and Paul? So, I kind of overlook these divisions, and try to understand Jesus point of view without being confused by the dogmas and doctrines that emerged later. So, to me, Christianity is actually very simple. Its based on commonsense. But of course commonsense, the problem, is not very common no?

    "Is Jesus a part of God, like God's arm died for us and then God revived his arm? Or are Jesus and God separate but not separate in some non-dualism?
    "

    No. Jesus is not part of God like an arm. Jesus is a True Image of God and Man. Jesus and God are not separate, but differentiated. See, He is a Son. Now, when Jesus says that "To have seen me is to have seen the Father, He does not claim the same Status as the Father. Rather, Jesus is the Voice of God. I mean, Jesus is like a telephone receiver. If I called you, you would as "Who's speaking?" You would not hear. "This is the receiver speaking" would you? Rather you would hear "This is Bigfoot" Get it? Jesus is merely a vessel of the Father through whom God speaks. So, when He died, its not God who died, it was the instrument of God that was denied life by Man. But God, in heaven, since He was already existing alive, and true, raised Jesus up. And now, Jesus seats, at the Right Hand of the Father. See, that Jesus is differentiated from the Father. But in His nature, the True Image of God and Man.

    Now, Jesus, was the Son of God, and also the Son of Man. Who is this Man? It Was the Human Spirit, that God created, in Genesis 1:26. This being that was created had nothing to do with Adam. When God said, "Let us Make Man, in the Image and Likeness of ourselves" That mean that this Spirit which was created, had the same attributed of God. Meaning that Man, is a Trinity, just like God. He is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Therefore So, when Jesus claimed that "To have seen me is to have seen the Father" He did not claim to have a nature that Man did not have. For Man, replicates the nature of God, just like the Christ. When God resurrected the Christ, He clothed the Human Spirit with the Christ, making Him the Lord of all Men. Now, since it was Man, (Jews and Romans) who wounded the Christ and murders Him, (Oh, turning anti-Semitic? The bible says so.) God decided that Man, will have to heal the wounds of the Christ Himself, individually. Christ, therefore, as a Redeemer of Man, owns men, and He, is a Man of Fire.

    Here is Christ before being born

    “And this is what I saw; A man, dressed in linen, with a girdle of pure gold around his waist, his body was like pure beryl, his face shone like lightening, his eyes were fiery torches, his arms and legs had the gleam of burnished bronze, the sound of his voice was like the noise of a crowd" Daniel 10:2-6 ( He, is now, the Voice of the People before God)

    Here is the Christ, after Resurrection

    "I turned around, to see who had spoken to me, and when I turned, I saw seven golden lamp stands, and surrounded by them, a figure like the Son of Man, dressed in a long robe, tied at the waist with a golden girdle. His head and his hair were white as white wool, or as snow, his eyes like burning flame, his feet like burnished bronze, when it had been refined in furnace, and his voice, like the sound of the ocean" Revelation 1:12-16.
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,923
    I do hope the irony is not lost on people that you espouse using common sense yet you seem to fall at the first hurdle in your application of it, in believing in the existence of God in the first place.
    There is no application of common sense that I can think of that leads to such a belief.
    It is very much the uncommon sense that might lead one to it, rightly or wrongly. At best common sense should lead to an agnostic position, and from there a practical overlay for most would be atheistic.

    Let's take an example: Jesus was resurrected by God.. Please apply your common sense to that.
    And do so by applying your common sense to any assumptions you wish to make.

    Or is your position that one can suspend common sense in believing in God, but should apply it in how that belief manifests?
     
  11. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    just like all philosophy, metaphysics, and religion, it takes a mountain of words to get to a basic concept like, "do good". We have an analysis which says people that are not compassionate may have damaged or undeveloped amygdala function. (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/scienc...ns-in-kids-with-severe-conduct-problems.shtml), but if that were an evolutionary advantage, science would probably label it "good". (edit - i should have said people would misuse science to try to label it "good".) If we are to be ethical, we have a big mess on our hands, and the sooner everyone stops pretending their ideas are common sense, the better off we will be.
    any time you have to use metaphor to describe something, i.e. make a meta-layer over the thing to describe it, it is clearly not simple. None of that is common sense. What you are saying is that jesus is like a telephone receiver that has it's own consciousness (not analogous to anything we know of), because clearly jesus was conscious if he was separated at any point from God. Anyway, there is no discussion in which this becomes a simple concept, this was just an example of the many ideas in he bible that are not in any way, "common sense".
    this paragraph is a solid wash of confusion, which doesn't make it bad. Perhaps it is in some sense related to how the whole thing works. However, "He is a man of fire," just doesn't fit into a rational discussion. Human logic is not the system upon which this paragraph is built. ALSO, being anti-semitic because some jews wanted to keep their power structure from being undermined by some other jew, is a ridiculous misunderstanding of the narrative.

    p.s. logic doesn't work like this: A therefore B, B= C, some miracle happens here, therefore D.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2014
  12. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Looks like most of you guys will believe the illusions of "magicians" than logic
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Is Our Universe the Ultimate Free Lunch?

    The inflationary model (described in my previous post, “What Did Go ‘Bang’ in the Big Bang?”) suggested an elegant solution to the puzzle of why our universe is expanding. The model relies on the fact that a region of space filled with a peculiar state called “false vacuum” experiences rapid expansion due to a repulsive gravitational force. But what happened before that? How did the universe get to that state? Naïvely, one would expect that a universe which began from a singularity—a state of infinite matter density and infinite curvature—would collapse rather than expand, since the gravitational attraction of the matter would overwhelm the repulsive force. Before the 1980s, the prevailing views were that the universe was already expanding (albeit in a more leisurely manner) even before inflation, thus diluting matter to the point where the false vacuum started to dominate. However, this was not a satisfactory picture, since it required an unexplained expansion that existed before inflation. We can understand the problem with a simple model of a closed, spherical universe, which is filled with vacuum energy (that generates repulsive gravity) and matter (that creates attractive gravity). Let’s examine this universe when it is momentarily at rest—neither expanding nor contracting. Cosmic evolution from there on will depend crucially on the size of the universe at that instant. According to Einstein’s General Relativity, if the cosmic radius is very small, attractive gravity will win and this universe will collapse to a point. If the radius is very large, repulsive gravity will have the upper hand, and inflation will ensue. In classical physics, the universe could not pass from a collapsing state to an inflating one without the infusion of some energy into it (which the assumption of a pre-inflation expansion attempted to do). However, in 1982 my colleague Alex Vilenkin, a physicist at Tufts University, suddenly had a brilliant realization. In quantum mechanics—the theory of the subatomic world—even processes that are forbidden by classical physics have a certain probability of occurring. This phenomenon is known as quantum tunneling, and it is being routinely observed in radioactive decays and in solid-state physics. Because of its probabilistic nature, quantum mechanics reveals that even a universe that would have been destined to collapse in classical General Relativity could actually tunnel (albeit with a small probability) to the other side, and emerge as an inflating universe. That is, our universe could have started out as a speck doomed to collapse to a singularity, but instead it tunneled through the energy barrier to a larger radius, initiating inflation (Figure 1). But this was not all. Vilenkin demonstrated mathematically that the probability for tunneling did not vanish even when he took the initial size of the universe to be zero. In other words, the universe could tunnel to some radius that allowed it to inflate from literally nothing!

    There is something I need to explain here. “Nothing” is not the same as the vacuum. The physical vacuum, or empty space, is very rich. It has energy, and virtual particles and antiparticles continually appear and disappear in it. Einstein taught us that it can also warp and stretch. By “nothing” I mean that neither space nor time exist. Put differently, if we were to go back in time from the present, Vilenkin’s scenario demonstrated that we would reach a beginning—a point beyond which spacetime did not exist.

    Two questions immediately arise: (1) What about conservation of energy? (2) Why did the universe appear at all? As it turns out, conservation of energy is not a problem. While all the mass in our universe has positive energy, the gravitational attraction has a negative energy associated with it, which precisely balances the positive one. The total energy of our universe is precisely zero, so that there is no problem with the universe materializing out of nothing. Why did the universe appear? Because the laws of physics allowed it to. In quantum mechanics, any process has a certain probability of occurring, and no cause is needed. You will notice, however, that we do have to assume that the laws of physics continue to apply even when there is nothing. I shall return to this assumption in a future post.

    I do not want to leave you with the impression that Vilenkin’s scenario of spacetime tunneling from nothingness into existence is an established fact. At this point it is no more than an attractive speculation that is consistent with the laws of physics. But it addresses what is arguably the biggest question of them all: How did it all begin?

    https://blogs.stsci.edu/livio/2012/11/13/is-our-universe-the-ultimate-free-lunch/
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
  15. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    The problem of the appearance of the universe can be solved by addressing the "Time" factor. What is "Time" Once we understand what time is, then the issue of appearance of the universe, and its existence can be solved.

    "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence, Albert Einstein said:“Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter”. (Albert Einstein, 1950)

    What is "gravity"? According to, Albert Einstein, the father of the general theory of relativity and the special theory of relativity, gravity, is not really a natural force like the others forces. Its not inbuilt in the fabric of space time and matter. It has no separate existence from matter, space and time included. Einstein claimed that Gravity is a consequence of distortion in Space and Time. Its not a force that pulls things. It’s a kind of an opportunistic force. He argued that the presence of mass and energy , in space, distorts both space and time rendering space-time to be ‘warped" or curved. Imagining space time to be like a stretched tarpaulin, when one places an iron ball on it, it sags in the middle. If one were to throws a billiard across the tarpaulin, while it tries to follow the nearest straight line across it, the curvature created by the iron ball tends to make it go around it. Einstein said that it’s the same thing that happens to space. A massive spinning body, like the earth, or the sun, tends to drag the empty space around it, rendering any other body near it, to tend to fall towards it. For example, the presence of the Sun in space, distorts space and time geometry , such that, although the planets seem to go around it, in reality, they follow a straight line, but they are pulled by the curvature of the space by the sun, to an orbit around the sun which is a line nearest to a straight line. Einstein equated gravity to acceleration, and argued that the effect of gravity on objects, is the same that is observed on accelerating objects. And that the laws of physics, acts the same, in all uniformly moving objects. That means that your weight on earth, is because we are traveling on warped space, and this weightiness, is a drag or a resistance by the earth as we fall towards the center of the earth, just like the billiard balls. When explaining his “Special Theory of Relativity” Einstein said that, “ Matter tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells matter how to move” This is where the principle of equivalence is founded. That local its impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity on objects, and an accelerated flame of reference. The earth is our flame of reference which is accelerating. Acceleration of the earth as it spins around its axis and as it goes around the sun, is the one that creates what feels like a “force” we call gravity.

    What about "space? Space actually an illusion of separateness created by subjective tools of the mind. Time, is a measure of conscious experience and it has not existence of its own. So, we have eliminated gravity, space and time. So, how did the universe appear? Well, its timeless. It has always existed.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534

    Space, time, spacetime, gravity, matter, energy are all as real as one another.
    Space exists, time exists, space/time exists. They are far more than some abstraction in our minds. They exist and have always existed [at least as far back as the BB] outside of GR or any other possible model of how the Universe works.
    All GR did was show us the true realistic nature of both as being non absolute contrary to what Newton thought.
    That is as near factual as one can hope to get and even an observable validated QGT in the future, will surely be formulated in time and space.
    Evolution depends on time.....the Universe depends on time......GR describes that Universe and talks of contracted space and time dilation.....

    Sten Odenwald sums it up quite nicely.....
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
    https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Finally, if anyone thinks time or space does not exist, perhaps they can show me a realm where that is so.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Actually, you have eliminated nothing. Not sure how you arrive at that. The Universe IS spacetime.
    And of course the Universe/spacetime as we know it, most certainly did have a beginning
     
  18. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Human concept of "Time" is not factored in the construction of the Universe. Consider what QM, has revealed about the entangled nature of particles in Quantum Realm. That information appears to travel "faster than light" And you know at the speed of Light, length contract, time dilates, and mass become infinitely expanded. So, QM tells us that at Quantum Realm, the universe is infinite, time=0, and length is also zero. So, when we consider the macro structures that have been manifested by the Quantum Systems, they appear to occupy space, have some definite length, and exists in what appears to be in time. But that, is all appearances, which we create with our subjective tools of experience, because all we will ever know is what we experience with our senses. these constructs of the mind, are only constructs of the mind, deluded about "objective Reality" which in fact, is a Unity, existing in a timeless realm.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,845
    The invention of one "logical model" of the entire observed physical universe that includes quantum mechanics alone, in its entirety, afaik remains to be accomplished.

    How did you get from "length contract" to "the universe is infinite"?
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,923
    Perhaps if you present something logical you may even find out.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    A conglomeration of meaningful words that are actually meaningless as a sentence.
    What we know of the quantum world is that at 10−43 seconds of time, and 10−35 metres of length, quantum effects take over, and as of this time we have no idea about the effects of quantum gravity at that level and can only make educated guesses.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Well, we live in spacetime, so, you know. Maybe your models could address it like a simple hairless ape might see things. And how the hell can you model philosophy and history, exactly? What distribution are you using?
     
  23. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    At the Speed of Light, the length of the object traveling at the speed of light contracts towards the direction of Light. So, the object becomes Light at the speed of light. Length shrinks to zero, (The Lorentz contraction) time slows to zero, mass becomes infinite. No object can exceed the speed of light relative to its launch point. As it travels towards the direction of the speed of light, its properties change towards the property of light. As it comes closer to the speed of light, it comes closer and closer to becoming Light. But then, look at it now from the perspective of Light. Since at the speed of light, length is zero, time is zero, and mass is infinite, it means that light, travels no distance, occupies not space, and takes no time. Light, therefore, just is. That,s all. everything else, is relative to light. Why, because God, is Light, and He just is. So the issue of infinite also is actually relative to light.
     

Share This Page