Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 12:03 pm

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 11:19 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 10:31 am

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 9:10 am
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 The Big Bang is out of date, and "all" the sciences know it.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.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 12:03 pm

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 11:19 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 10:31 am

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 9:10 am
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.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 12:17 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 12:03 pm

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 11:19 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 10:31 am

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.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 2:54 pm

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 12:17 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 12:03 pm

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 11:19 am

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 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 3:11 pm It freely admits this.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 5:39 pm

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 3:11 pm 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.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 8:39 pm 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 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 2:24 am...

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

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 2:43 am 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 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 4:04 am 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.