(December 22, 2011 at 3:34 pm)amkerman Wrote: And I never said gravity had a consciousness. Blam just made that up so he could attack me.

I didnt think I'd seen it which is why i said 'if true'.

But you have implied that gravity is somehow 'not physical' please elucidate.

This is comedy gold.

Well, this thread just got a whole lot cleaner and more sane for me. You know I've learned something about myself on these boards. I simply cannot be trusted to keep my mouth shut when I have inanity available to comment on about a subject I'm interested in. I have to take physical action. I'm powerless in the face of my own personality quirk in that regard. If I want to make a stand I can't do it by silence alone, it's beyond my ability..lol.

So, to clarify after this meaningless discussion about the definition of gravity, we have established that gravity is a force - that force does not have effects, but rather is the effect. This would then make consciousness something other than a force, because consciousness does effect objects and is not simply the effect.

Can we get back to the actual discussion?

Blam: can you give me a reference to when amkerman said: "gravity is under the influence of God" which caused you to make the statement: "Why do you have to make the baseless claims like "gravity is under influence of god" or "gravity has consciousness" shit? Really, you challenge me with claims even without slightest evidence?"

But wait, if god is the first cause, wouldn't gravity be an effect of its mighty wind?

(December 22, 2011 at 3:46 pm)Epimethean Wrote: But wait, if god is the first cause, wouldn't gravity be an effect of its mighty wind?

I'm interested, what purpose did that comment serve?

Can I answer? Amusement?

(December 22, 2011 at 12:13 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Assuming evolution is true, is there an end goal to evolution? Does it conceivably have a purpose or reason? If the answer is no then does that simply mean that evolution is and that the process of natural selection will never end even as 'perfection' is reached?

Evolution is a process that emerges from a set of simple rules (children take after their parent, but they are not the same, those differences can influence survival, those that survive better have more children, goto step 1). I do not see room for a purpose.

I do not know exactly what you mean by "evolution is", but I think evolution happens. It is not a thing, it emerges from rules on a lower plane.

Evolution will not stop on it's own accord (there is no perfection, circumstances change), but if one of the rules no longer applies the evolutionary process will come to a halt. This could be because there is no more life, no more mutation, no more death or no more children; take your pick.

(December 22, 2011 at 3:41 pm)Perhaps Wrote: So, to clarify after this meaningless discussion about the definition of gravity, we have established that gravity is a force - that force does not have effects, but rather is the effect. This would then make consciousness something other than a force, because consciousness does effect objects and is not simply the effect.

Can we get back to the actual discussion?

Blam: can you give me a reference to when amkerman said: "gravity is under the influence of God" which caused you to make the statement: "Why do you have to make the baseless claims like "gravity is under influence of god" or "gravity has consciousness" shit? Really, you challenge me with claims even without slightest evidence?"

This.

Quote:"God" wouldn't be physical in nature, it would be a force of the universe like gravity.... Forces manifest themselves physically by acting on physical objects. Much like consciousness.

(December 22, 2011 at 12:13 pm)Perhaps Wrote: I'd sincerely appreciate if you could write down a proof of your existence. Mind you, a true proof assumes no axioms, it must be true objectively without the need for assumption.

Sure, you can have a copy of my birth certificate. Or maybe my credit report. Or maybe a list of things I own. You can also have my words as typed, as proof of me.

If you try and be clever and say "that does not prove you are the person you claim to be!", well 1) it fucking does, 2) if I was conning you over my identity, I would still be a being engaging you no matter who I was, and still proving that I, whomever I am, exists

If you still need further proof that I exist - maybe I can threaten to kick you in the face, you can send me your address, and I can turn up at your address (you can pay travelling expenses) and I'll kick you in the fucking face.

Just to rule out co-incidence, we can pre arrange a code word only known to you and I, that I can repeat as I'm kicking you in the fucking face. Over and over, you annoyingly smug little bastard.

If that does not prove my existence to you, then it is not MY problem that the evidence isn't good enough for you, it is not reality's problem that the evidence is not good enough for you - it is YOUR problem, and YOUR fault for being WRONG.