Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Joshua10]

Hey,I am merely claiming that I don’t talk absurd nonsense which is what you stated.

Here are you comments and why they are absurd..

You hope, because that is all you have at the end of the day like everyone else.

This is absurd since you are assuming you know what another person is feeling.
I do not "hope". It's just not part of my vocabulary not my plans and goals.
I have a lot more than hope, and I am not "like everyone else".



Why not, all you can do is hope that your statements are true.You definitely can’t definitively prove they are true or not true that’s or sure.


How absurd can you get? I can do a lot more than hope. I have no need to know if you think my statements are true. Truth has its own way of emerging. And there are many ways to establish proof. And in this case I think I am better qualified to know the content of my own mind than you, who is incapable of knowing what I think.


You can only hope that hope is meaningless.

I can do a lot more than hope.
This is a self defeating statement, since hope is required to give meaning to it. And since I have no need for hope I am fully aware of the absurdity of your statement.

There is absolutely nothing absurd about my comments.If you meditated deep enough and with the right type of meditation rather than inward only “out of the moment” meditation you would realise the absurdity of your unaware claims.All you have is HOPE in one view or the other.You cannot make a claim one way or the other without definitive proof and you don’t have it.Until you do have it you reason in HOPE.

Don’t rely on the secular sciences either.Their single Big Bang theory is second hand ,yesterdays fake news.All reputable or non reputable sciences know this already but they are too embarrassed to admit it.They are still wiping the egg of their faces.

Tune into natures sciences.

This has nothing to do with what we are saying, and is full of unfounded assumptions about what you think about a stranger- me. It's also full of meaningless phrases. e,g, "Secular Science" is a tautology. And whoppdedo. The Big Bang is out of date, and "all" the sciences know it. This is all just confused nonsense from a person who does not know the meaning of science and its uses of cosmological theories.
All science is nature's science.
Jog on!

I would suggest that it’s fair to say that secular sciences single Big Bang theory was based upon unfounded assumptions then because it was a wildly speculative theory which is slowly being proven to be complete and utter nonsense.

It is crystal clear that you know nothing about science.
I'm going to suggest that you have no idea what the assumptions were upon which the BB theory was developed.
Care to say what they were and why you think they are wrong??
I shall not hold my breath.

All science is natures science I agree and it’s all interconnected and natures science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with secular science which the single Big Bang theory derived from.

That is a confused statement.
All science is secular and natural.

I would suggest that I do know about science,natures science, which definitely isn’t secular science.Natures science knows about consciousness.Secular science doesn’t.It’s it’s hard problem.

I am not remotely interested in secular science because it makes no connection whatsoever at the psychological level which I would suggest why mental health issues are rapidly getting worse.People cannot relate to secular science psychologically.I would suggest that it is secular science that is confused and is not natural because it doesn’t understand consciousness.

It freely admits this.

[Joshua10]

Secular science is slowly giving up on ever coming up with a united science as well.Why? because secular science is totally confused.

[Joshua10]

Hey,I am merely claiming that I don’t talk absurd nonsense which is what you stated.

Here are you comments and why they are absurd..

You hope, because that is all you have at the end of the day like everyone else.

This is absurd since you are assuming you know what another person is feeling.
I do not "hope". It's just not part of my vocabulary not my plans and goals.
I have a lot more than hope, and I am not "like everyone else".



Why not, all you can do is hope that your statements are true.You definitely can’t definitively prove they are true or not true that’s or sure.


How absurd can you get? I can do a lot more than hope. I have no need to know if you think my statements are true. Truth has its own way of emerging. And there are many ways to establish proof. And in this case I think I am better qualified to know the content of my own mind than you, who is incapable of knowing what I think.


You can only hope that hope is meaningless.

I can do a lot more than hope.
This is a self defeating statement, since hope is required to give meaning to it. And since I have no need for hope I am fully aware of the absurdity of your statement.

There is absolutely nothing absurd about my comments.If you meditated deep enough and with the right type of meditation rather than inward only “out of the moment” meditation you would realise the absurdity of your unaware claims.All you have is HOPE in one view or the other.You cannot make a claim one way or the other without definitive proof and you don’t have it.Until you do have it you reason in HOPE.

Don’t rely on the secular sciences either.Their single Big Bang theory is second hand ,yesterdays fake news.All reputable or non reputable sciences know this already but they are too embarrassed to admit it.They are still wiping the egg of their faces.

Tune into natures sciences.

This has nothing to do with what we are saying, and is full of unfounded assumptions about what you think about a stranger- me. It's also full of meaningless phrases. e,g, "Secular Science" is a tautology. And whoppdedo. The Big Bang is out of date, and "all" the sciences know it. This is all just confused nonsense from a person who does not know the meaning of science and its uses of cosmological theories.
All science is nature's science.
Jog on!

I would suggest that it’s fair to say that secular sciences single Big Bang theory was based upon unfounded assumptions then because it was a wildly speculative theory which is slowly being proven to be complete and utter nonsense.

It is crystal clear that you know nothing about science.
I'm going to suggest that you have no idea what the assumptions were upon which the BB theory was developed.
Care to say what they were and why you think they are wrong??
I shall not hold my breath.

All science is natures science I agree and it’s all interconnected and natures science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with secular science which the single Big Bang theory derived from.

That is a confused statement.
All science is secular and natural.

Firstly, any scientist with an ounce of awareness would realise that matter is exiting and entering many many holes (not black) because consciousness is involved.Matter never did exit from a single hole and never will enter back into a single hole.Observations are totally confirming this and secular scientists know it.How embarrassing for them.Secular scientist are totally confused now by their own science and beginning to give up on ever making any sense of it.

Secondly,secular science is based upon gravity and nobody knows what it is.Scientists haven’t a clue.Not a good start.Tesla was right, gravity was invented from flowery maths.The workings of the cosmos can be perfectly explained by electromagnetic processes which is the exact workings of the psychological processes as well.Natures science is not secular science,no, not at all.Natures science fully incorporates consciousness, something secular science doesn’t because it is totally trapped in unawareness and is totally confused about consciousness and how it relates to science and the “”I am”.

[Sculptor1]

Here are you comments and why they are absurd..

You hope, because that is all you have at the end of the day like everyone else.

This is absurd since you are assuming you know what another person is feeling.
I do not "hope". It's just not part of my vocabulary not my plans and goals.
I have a lot more than hope, and I am not "like everyone else".



Why not, all you can do is hope that your statements are true.You definitely can’t definitively prove they are true or not true that’s or sure.


How absurd can you get? I can do a lot more than hope. I have no need to know if you think my statements are true. Truth has its own way of emerging. And there are many ways to establish proof. And in this case I think I am better qualified to know the content of my own mind than you, who is incapable of knowing what I think.


You can only hope that hope is meaningless.

I can do a lot more than hope.
This is a self defeating statement, since hope is required to give meaning to it. And since I have no need for hope I am fully aware of the absurdity of your statement.

There is absolutely nothing absurd about my comments.If you meditated deep enough and with the right type of meditation rather than inward only “out of the moment” meditation you would realise the absurdity of your unaware claims.All you have is HOPE in one view or the other.You cannot make a claim one way or the other without definitive proof and you don’t have it.Until you do have it you reason in HOPE.

Don’t rely on the secular sciences either.Their single Big Bang theory is second hand ,yesterdays fake news.All reputable or non reputable sciences know this already but they are too embarrassed to admit it.They are still wiping the egg of their faces.

Tune into natures sciences.

This has nothing to do with what we are saying, and is full of unfounded assumptions about what you think about a stranger- me. It's also full of meaningless phrases. e,g, "Secular Science" is a tautology. And whoppdedo. The Big Bang is out of date, and "all" the sciences know it. This is all just confused nonsense from a person who does not know the meaning of science and its uses of cosmological theories.
All science is nature's science.
Jog on!

I would suggest that it’s fair to say that secular sciences single Big Bang theory was based upon unfounded assumptions then because it was a wildly speculative theory which is slowly being proven to be complete and utter nonsense.

It is crystal clear that you know nothing about science.
I'm going to suggest that you have no idea what the assumptions were upon which the BB theory was developed.
Care to say what they were and why you think they are wrong??
I shall not hold my breath.

All science is natures science I agree and it’s all interconnected and natures science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with secular science which the single Big Bang theory derived from.

That is a confused statement.
All science is secular and natural.

I would suggest that I do know about science,natures science, which definitely isn’t secular science.Natures science knows about consciousness.Secular science doesn’t.It’s it’s hard problem.

I am not remotely interested in secular science because it makes no connection whatsoever at the psychological level which I would suggest why mental health issues are rapidly getting worse.People cannot relate to secular science psychologically.I would suggest that it is secular science that is confused and is not natural because it doesn’t understand consciousness.

It freely admits this.

LOL

1) What is the "IT" in the last sentence?
2) So what are the assumptions were upon which the BB theory was developed?
3) Why do you say they are wrong?
4) Oddly now you admit you know nothing about "secular" science, and yet you think you know it is wrong.
5) Do you expect me to take you seriously?

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that it’s fair to say that secular sciences single Big Bang theory was based upon unfounded assumptions then because it was a wildly speculative theory which is slowly being proven to be complete and utter nonsense.

It is crystal clear that you know nothing about science.
I'm going to suggest that you have no idea what the assumptions were upon which the BB theory was developed.
Care to say what they were and why you think they are wrong??
I shall not hold my breath.

All science is natures science I agree and it’s all interconnected and natures science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with secular science which the single Big Bang theory derived from.

That is a confused statement.
All science is secular and natural.

I would suggest that I do know about science,natures science, which definitely isn’t secular science.Natures science knows about consciousness.Secular science doesn’t.It’s it’s hard problem.

I am not remotely interested in secular science because it makes no connection whatsoever at the psychological level which I would suggest why mental health issues are rapidly getting worse.People cannot relate to secular science psychologically.I would suggest that it is secular science that is confused and is not natural because it doesn’t understand consciousness.

It freely admits this.

LOL

1) What is the "IT" in the last sentence?

Secular science doesn’t understand consciousness.

2) So what are the assumptions were upon which the BB theory was developed?

Secular scientists will need to explain that one.Gravity! I suggest, is one huge and wild assumption that is the basis for the BB theory.

3) Why do you say they are wrong?

They are wrong because they make no connection whatsoever across the sciences especially psychology hence all the mental health problems now that many individuals autopilots are now playing up.If you don’t understand consciousness then you don’t understand science.

4) Oddly now you admit you know nothing about "secular" science, and yet you think you know it is wrong.

Secular science is wrong because it makes no allowance for consciousness.Secular science is a totally unaware science that knows nothing at all about consciousness.

5) Do you expect me to take you seriously?

You don’t have to if you don’t want to.

[Joshua10]

Secular Scientists will never understand natures science or consciousness until they become a part of their own experiments and stop thinking they can remain separate from them.Obvious really,well,probably not for secular scientists who as I say are totally unaware and confused.

[Sculptor1]

It freely admits this.

LOL

1) What is the "IT" in the last sentence?

Secular science doesn’t understand consciousness.

2) So what are the assumptions were upon which the BB theory was developed?

Secular scientists will need to explain that one.Gravity! I suggest, is one huge and wild assumption that is the basis for the BB theory.

3) Why do you say they are wrong?

They are wrong because they make no connection whatsoever across the sciences especially psychology hence all the mental health problems now that many individuals autopilots are now playing up.If you don’t understand consciousness then you don’t understand science.

4) Oddly now you admit you know nothing about "secular" science, and yet you think you know it is wrong.

Secular science is wrong because it makes no allowance for consciousness.Secular science is a totally unaware science that knows nothing at all about consciousness.

5) Do you expect me to take you seriously?

You don’t have to if you don’t want to.
[/quote]
[/quote]
You say IT freely admits this. I asked what was "IT". You did not answer.
Just because you are ignorant of gravity and consciousness is not a reason to say others do not.
The BB is based on many things, one of which is OBSERVATIONS of the universe including what we call gravity.
BB describes a possible beginning from those observations.
QED you have not answered this question either.
This is the funniest thing. You say they are wrong about the BB because of psychology??
I'd ask what you mean about "autopilots playing up", but I can't take any more groans.

I do not take anything you say seriously.

[Sy Borg]

There is so much wrong information said about the Big Bang. The Big Bang, like Dark Energy and singularities are theoretical placeholders that are the best current guess until more relevant information is obtained. There is not claim by science that these are actual phenomena, but the best we have so far - based on data and information that none of us here would have a hope of understanding, aside from Astro Cat.

Joshua, the Big Bang certainly does seem absurd. Within the near-nothingness of a vacuum without time or space, an imbalance caused a cascade effect and there was a wild and uniform expansion of whatever unbelievably hot and dense stuff emerged. It seems ridiculous. However, it is not as ridiculous as the idea that a giant spirit created it.

The idea is not to eliminate apparent absurdity, which is impossible, but to minimise it. At this stage there is even less evidence of a creator God than a natural Big Bang. Exponentially less evidence. There is, however, evidence that ancient people tended to personify natural phenomena, which they believed would allow them to influence natural events with rituals and sacrifice (it's no accident that God's blood sacrifice ins a main story of the Bible).

Thus, we have descended from a long line of ancestors who believed in personfied natural phenomena - be it a volcano god, Apollo, God, Allah or Zarathustra. A few generations of rational thinking about nature does not erase millennia of belief, so even Richard Dawkins's brain is wired to believe in deities, just that he overrided it with logic.

So God does exist - as a potential within the evolved dynamics of our brains. It is not a creator God, it's a created God. The creator God, as far as we know, is the universe itself, as a self-shaping entity.

I see no folly in people working with this evolved and deeply ingrained brain hack. However, it's a mistake for them to extrapolate God into an ontic entity. No, it is clearly purely subjective. Given that life is lived subjectively (with ontics being just an aid achieving the desired experiences), a subjective God is not a trivial matter. However, pasting human personalities onto natural phenomena is a deep epistemological error.

[Joshua10]

It freely admits this.

LOL

1) What is the "IT" in the last sentence?

Secular science doesn’t understand consciousness.

2) So what are the assumptions were upon which the BB theory was developed?

Secular scientists will need to explain that one.Gravity! I suggest, is one huge and wild assumption that is the basis for the BB theory.

3) Why do you say they are wrong?

They are wrong because they make no connection whatsoever across the sciences especially psychology hence all the mental health problems now that many individuals autopilots are now playing up.If you don’t understand consciousness then you don’t understand science.

4) Oddly now you admit you know nothing about "secular" science, and yet you think you know it is wrong.

Secular science is wrong because it makes no allowance for consciousness.Secular science is a totally unaware science that knows nothing at all about consciousness.

5) Do you expect me to take you seriously?

You don’t have to if you don’t want to.

[/quote]
You say IT freely admits this. I asked what was "IT". You did not answer.
Just because you are ignorant of gravity and consciousness is not a reason to say others do not.
The BB is based on many things, one of which is OBSERVATIONS of the universe including what we call gravity.
BB describes a possible beginning from those observations.
QED you have not answered this question either.
This is the funniest thing. You say they are wrong about the BB because of psychology??
I'd ask what you mean about "autopilots playing up", but I can't take any more groans.

I do not take anything you say seriously.
[/quote]

I am not ignorant of consciousness at all.I am totally aware of it.The issue secular science has is that it is totally unaware of consciousness and how it relates to the 2 part “I am”.As I have said if secular science understood consciousness then it would realise that its science is in error.However,for now it is totally confused and it’s big theories are being exposed for what they are.Fake News,

I am totally ignorant of gravity,You are correct on that one.So are secular scientists.They haven’t a clue what it is.

It is the funniest thing to you because I would suggest that like secular scientists you are totally unaware of the need for science to make the connection across the sciences.The reason secular scientist have not made that connection yet is because secular scientist refuse to get involved in the game.They will never understand consciousness unless they become apart of their own experiments.We are all embroiled in consciousness.This is where the psychological aspects comes into the overall equation.The reason secular scientist don’t see the need to do that,YET, is because they have already decided that the 2 part “I am” doesn’t exist through their belief systems.They haven’t come to this conclusion by sound scientific experiments that’s for sure.I prefer the experiment route myself to obtain confirmations.

As far as autopilot playing up is concerned.The autopilot part of our mental make up works perfectly well and controls us in total unawareness even when we are requested to take control by the “autopilot” which happens all the time.The problems come about when autopilot starts playing up and the plane starts going into free fall.If the autopilot can’t cope then the 2 “part” I am is given more and more of the control.As the 2 “part” I am cannot take control,the plane goes into free fall and can crash, (nervous breakdown).Many peoples planes are in serious trouble at the moment because they don’t know how to fly them in manual because they are so used to their planes being flown on autopilot.The only way to control the plane is by understanding consciousness and how the 2 “part” I am relates to it.

AWARENESS is key and AWARENESS sits above consciousness.The 2 part “I am” sits above awareness.Secular scientist would know this if they were apart of their own experiments but as I say for now they are not.

If secular science understood consciousness then it would understand the absurdity of its science.

[Joshua10]

There is so much wrong information said about the Big Bang. The Big Bang, like Dark Energy and singularities are theoretical placeholders that are the best current guess until more relevant information is obtained. There is not claim by science that these are actual phenomena, but the best we have so far - based on data and information that none of us here would have a hope of understanding, aside from Astro Cat.

Joshua, the Big Bang certainly does seem absurd. Within the near-nothingness of a vacuum without time or space, an imbalance caused a cascade effect and there was a wild and uniform expansion of whatever unbelievably hot and dense stuff emerged. It seems ridiculous. However, it is not as ridiculous as the idea that a giant spirit created it.

The idea is not to eliminate apparent absurdity, which is impossible, but to minimise it. At this stage there is even less evidence of a creator God than a natural Big Bang. Exponentially less evidence. There is, however, evidence that ancient people tended to personify natural phenomena, which they believed would allow them to influence natural events with rituals and sacrifice (it's no accident that God's blood sacrifice ins a main story of the Bible).

Thus, we have descended from a long line of ancestors who believed in personfied natural phenomena - be it a volcano god, Apollo, God, Allah or Zarathustra. A few generations of rational thinking about nature does not erase millennia of belief, so even Richard Dawkins's brain is wired to believe in deities, just that he overrided it with logic.

So God does exist - as a potential within the evolved dynamics of our brains. It is not a creator God, it's a created God. The creator God, as far as we know, is the universe itself, as a self-shaping entity.

I see no folly in people working with this evolved and deeply ingrained brain hack. However, it's a mistake for them to extrapolate God into an ontic entity. No, it is clearly purely subjective. Given that life is lived subjectively (with ontics being just an aid achieving the desired experiences), a subjective God is not a trivial matter. However, pasting human personalities onto natural phenomena is a deep epistemological error.

Sy Borg,I would suggest that you try to walk before you try to run and to not make wild guessing statements.

I have got where I have got by tried and tested experiments.I believe in science,NATURES science.NOT a secular science that has no clue about consciousness and therefore makes no connection whatsoever to it in relation to the workings of the mind but then has the arrogance to state that we are no more than it in that total unaware and ignorant state.

Im sure that secular science will blunder on in its unaware state but as I say scientists won’t be able to truly understand consciousness until individual scientists get involved in their own experiments.How else can they begin to understand consciousness.They are totally embroiled within it.

Natures science explains the workings of the cosmos and the psychological workings perfectLy fine.Secular science will not except Nature science though.Like Tesla said it prefers a science based upon flowery maths and wild assumptions and guesses.

[Sy Borg]

Okay, that's enough patronising. The wild guesswork is yours, Joshua. The work of scientists is not guesswork, it is based on extremely detailed evidence, tested and re-tested - which is very much not like your claims.

You invent ideas like "nature's science" and "secular science". This is incoherent.

You ascribe to the Electric Universe hypothesis, which has been thoroughly discredited.

You seemingly believe in an anthropomorphic spirit that created everything, which is also incoherent.

Tesla would be uncomfortable with you evoking his name to support your anti-scientific ideas.

[Sculptor1]

...

If secular science understood consciousness then it would understand the absurdity of its science.

Please learn to use the quote function.
I'm not going to trawl through a confused post.
Please note that you are provided with a "preview" to assist you.

[Sculptor1]

Sy Borg,I would suggest that you try to walk before you try to run and to not make wild guessing statements.

Joshua, you are not even crawling. ALl you do is rant against something you know nothing about.

I have got where I have got by tried and tested experiments.

Name one!

I believe in science,NATURES science.NOT a secular science that has no clue about consciousness and therefore makes no connection whatsoever to it in relation to the workings of the mind but then has the arrogance to state that we are no more than it in that total unaware and ignorant state.

Define "science"
Define "secular"
Define "nature".
Science is the study of nature through observation and experiment. It is naturally secular since the divine is not observable, nor has experiment revealed divinity.

Im sure that secular science will blunder on in its unaware state but as I say scientists won’t be able to truly understand consciousness until individual scientists get involved in their own experiments.How else can they begin to understand consciousness.They are totally embroiled within it.

If you think science's understanding of consciousness is "blundering" then perhaps you will furnish us with your better version?

Natures science explains the workings of the cosmos and the psychological workings perfectLy fine.Secular science will not except Nature science though.Like Tesla said it prefers a science based upon flowery maths and wild assumptions and guesses.

This is ********.
What is "nature's science"?
Please show us

[Joshua10]

Okay, that's enough patronising. The wild guesswork is yours, Joshua. The work of scientists is not guesswork, it is based on extremely detailed evidence, tested and re-tested - which is very much not like your claims.

You invent ideas like "nature's science" and "secular science". This is incoherent.

You ascribe to the Electric Universe hypothesis, which has been thoroughly discredited.

You seemingly believe in an anthropomorphic spirit that created everything, which is also incoherent.

Tesla would be uncomfortable with you evoking his name to support your anti-scientific ideas.

I differentiate between natures science and secular science.Secular science is definitely not natures science because secular science doesn’t understand consciousness and its relationship to the other sciences.Secular science is a totally unaware science in that respect t, as I have already mentioned.

I do not ascribe to an electric universe as I have also already mentioned.I ascribe to an electromagnetic universe and so would secular science if it wasn’t so totally unaware.

My explanations are not based upon pure guesswork at all.They are based upon experiential facts which have been tried and tested.As I say secular scientist need to become apart of their own experiments or they will never understand consciousness.If they did get involved then they would know exactly what I was talking about.

I’m pretty sure me an Tesla would have got on just fine.

I’m sorry If I come across as patronising to you.

[Joshua10]

To understand consciousness then I would suggest that you cannot see yourself as separate from it like a secular science experiment.Each of us are totally embroiled within consciousness.This is where secular science gets things wrong because it is totally unaware.Natures science is “player” science i.e. the individual becomes apart of the experiment and does not continue thinking consciousness can be understood with ”spectator” science i.e. secular science.Natures science IS different to secular science.