RE: Proof of God
March 18, 2015 at 1:04 pm
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2015 at 1:08 pm by pocaracas.)
(March 18, 2015 at 11:09 am)Harris Wrote:So, it seems to me that, while you want that not-absolute-nothingness that was absent of Universe to be a god, Krauss puts it as "quantum vacuum".(March 14, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Yeah... it's so great when I get misunderstood... -.-'
I didn't ask if whatever you want "nothing" to be had a beginning.... I asked if nothing of what exists ever had a beginning. As in.... was always there, but just got transformed into different things.
There never was “absolute nothingness” because if there was such a thing then right now you and I were not exchanging our thoughts here. “Absolute nothingness” can produce only nothing.
If you think that quantum vacuum is eternal then you should bring convincing theory to support your idea that conform to the norms of standard conventions in contemporary theoretical science.
Krauss has with him, the benefit of measurements corroborating that "quantum vacuum" actually does what he suggests.
You have a god.... that does nothing, except hide behind the ever-receding gaps of scientific knowledge.
How do you expect me to accept your version over the Krauss'?
(March 18, 2015 at 11:09 am)Harris Wrote:
I want to know, why would we ever refer to an infinite number of universes, governed by the principles of string theory, as a Nothing or having Zero Energy?
Because Krauss wanted you to stir people like you with that word.
(March 18, 2015 at 11:09 am)Harris Wrote:At the heart of the matter, it seems to me that the brain is just a mechanistic organ - the mind generated therein is also mechanistic...(March 14, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: As far as I'm aware, you need a brain to have a mind and consciousness.
If consciousness requires a mind, then how can mindlessness be an element in consciousness?
Initially, you have stated that “Natural phenomenon is mindless” and this natural phenomenon has constructed the brain and according to you, there resides mind and extremely complex processing (the consciousness).
If you say you are the product of blind, mindless, and unguided process then why should I believe in any of your word or what makes you confident in your own actions.
If I find something mindless, blind, and unguided then my first priority would be to keep myself away from it.
It's just that it's such a complex beast that we cannot hope to comprehend it without the proper tools... and, as of today, we do not possess such tools.
So, charlatans and mystics will go on convincing people that there's some great mind that requires no brain, so we can calm our own awareness of mortality.
(March 18, 2015 at 11:09 am)Harris Wrote:If my body kept fixing itself perfectly, I guess that yes, I could be immortal...(March 14, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: My body remains lively through feeding, breathing, healing of sporadic damage... and... sleeping
Is life responsible for your feeding and breathing or feeding and breathing keep you alive? If feeding and breathing, keep you alive does that mean with the infinite supplies of food and other necessities you can be immortal!
But the copies introduce mistakes which, ultimately, lead to death.
(March 18, 2015 at 11:09 am)Harris Wrote:A human is typically considered dead when he is brain-dead.(March 14, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Harris Wrote: Only dead can tell what death is and I think you are still alive.
Pocaracas Wrote:
Be not so sure...
Death is, to put it simply, the cessation of an individual's life.
Can you define “cessation” and its cause?
And brain death occurs when the brain doesn't get enough oxygen to keep working for about 5 minutes.
Without oxygen, the information that is carried through the synapses stops.
Simultaneously, the immune system stops working, so bacteria begin their relentless task of surviving by eating away at the human's fleshy bits.... and the body deteriorates.
(March 18, 2015 at 11:09 am)Harris Wrote:Have you tried a dictionary?(March 14, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Harris Wrote:
Perhaps you know the mechanics of sensory system and I do not argue on that but can you or anyone interpret what actually SENSE is.
Pocaracas Wrote:
Make sense man. What do you mean?
Sense is the relation of experiences to objects, to language and to the perceiving self or subject. In addition to the five types of senses, sense is also identified as “mental perception” (as of pleasures, pains and desires) and apperception (awareness of awareness).
I repeat my question, What is pain. What is Pleasure? What is sadness? What is delight? …“What actually SENSE is?”
pleasure: enjoyment or satisfaction derived from what is to one's liking; gratification; delight.
sadness: affected by unhappiness or grief; sorrowful or mournful
delight: a high degree of pleasure or enjoyment; joy; rapture
Sense: a feeling or perception produced through the organs of touch, taste, etc., or resulting from a particular condition of some part of the body
What you want to say is that the actual sensations of those and other events are impossible to put into words, except through the usage of the words which have been made up purposefully for describing them.
e.g: yellow is the color of most of this smiley:
![Smile Smile](https://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/smile.gif)
(March 18, 2015 at 11:09 am)Harris Wrote:What? photons?(March 14, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Harris Wrote:
Do not overlook the fact that the law of gravity is based only on experience.
“Gravity must be Caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether that agent be material or immaterial I leave to the consideration of my readers”
(Newton’s Letter to Bentley 25 February 1692).
Pocaracas Wrote:
Like all physical laws...
Other than gravity, we know the nature of agents in almost all physical laws.
Why do photons exist, where do they come from? what are they made of?
(March 18, 2015 at 11:09 am)Harris Wrote:Science may, one day... it tries.(March 14, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Harris Wrote:
My question was “Is the universe finite or infinite?” and
Your answer is “Who knows?”
Pocaracas Wrote:
Do you know?
Do you know of anyone who knows?
I don't know and I fail to realize how anyone could know.
So you agree that science cannot answer whether “universe is finite or infinite”
Religion knows nothing...
(March 18, 2015 at 11:09 am)Harris Wrote:Have you read his paper?(March 14, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Harris Wrote:
Quantum Vacuum has PHYSICAL PROPERTIES and so it is not NOTHINGNESS.
Pocaracas Wrote:
No way!!!!!
Krauss' nothing is not really nothing?!!?
No shit, Sherlock!?!!
That's the whole basis of the thing: the nothing you want to be prior to some god's creation of everything... that nothing was never there.... according to the theory.
The vacuum that has always been and is commonly thought of as nothing is, in fact, something.
That's the whole point and Krauss was pulling your leg when he called it nothing.. very well aware of all the crap that would flow from it!
Krauss is not a philosopher and he may not understand the difference between “Absolute Nothingness” that is no space, no time, no matter, no equations, no anything that human mind can conceive and “Vacuum” which is the absence of matter and it is not “Absolute Nothingness”
If Krauss emphasising that Quantum Vacuum is not “nothing” rather it is eternal then he should not build his conclusions on speculative ideas rather as a physicist he should come up with some elegant scientific theory, which can clearly demonstrate that quantum vacuum is eternal.
Or are you just going by his book written purposefully for the broader audience and to annoy religious, specially, creationists?
(March 18, 2015 at 11:09 am)Harris Wrote:And you expect to be taken seriously?
I always try to bring common sense ideas based on intuitive logic that require no scientific background.
It is known that our intuition is ill-equipped for the most basic questions of reality, and yet you wish to make use of it to answer some even more complex questions?
Grow up.