It's called faith for a reason...no proof required.

Chamberman said:

---

It's called faith for a reason...no proof required.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

You might want to look up the definition of the phrase 'virtue signaling'.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

In your view of reality, there is no actual virtue. Virtue is simply what the powerful dictate at any given moment. Eating a bad diet and dying at a younger age can be just as "virtuous" as eating grass and leaves and dying at 100. Just depends on what the powerful want to call virtue at a given time. You can have your feelings of superiority, but you have no rational argument for any particular action being virtuous.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

In your view of reality, there is no actual virtue. Virtue is simply what the powerful dictate at any given moment. Eating a bad diet and dying at a younger age can be just as "virtuous" as eating grass and leaves and dying at 100. Just depends on what the powerful want to call virtue at a given time. You can have your feelings of superiority, but you have no rational argument for any particular action being virtuous.

---

Thats what you want to think. Reality says different.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

You might want to look up the definition of the phrase 'virtue signaling'.

---

Are you overweight or morbidly obese? I have some suggestions to help you out.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

You might want to look up the definition of the phrase 'virtue signaling'.

---

Are you overweight or morbidly obese? I have some suggestions to help you out.

---

I take medical advice from my doctor, not someone I don't know with a Bidenesque track record

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

You might want to look up the definition of the phrase 'virtue signaling'.

---

Are you overweight or morbidly obese? I have some suggestions to help you out.

---

That's okay. Some people like fat bottomed girls. Queen even did a song about'em

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

In your view of reality, there is no actual virtue. Virtue is simply what the powerful dictate at any given moment. Eating a bad diet and dying at a younger age can be just as "virtuous" as eating grass and leaves and dying at 100. Just depends on what the powerful want to call virtue at a given time. You can have your feelings of superiority, but you have no rational argument for any particular action being virtuous.

---

Thats what you want to think. Reality says different.

---

Reality says that you don't have a rational basis for claiming that any particular behavior is inherently virtuous or non virtuous because you have made the argument that morality is dependent entirely on what society says it is.

If someone, or some group, has the power to persuade or coerce others to accept a behavior or belief as virtuous, that is what makes it virtuous. Therefore, any behavior can be deemed virtuous. If I am able to persuade people that eating certain foods, consuming a lot of alcohol, not exercising and, as a result, dying at a relatively young age is virtuous because it makes room on the planet for the next generation, you have no rational basis to contradict me.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

You might want to look up the definition of the phrase 'virtue signaling'.

---

Are you overweight or morbidly obese? I have some suggestions to help you out.

---

I take medical advice from my doctor, not someone I don't know with a Bidenesque track record

---

That may be the problem. You make false assumptions to conform with what you want to believe.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

In your view of reality, there is no actual virtue. Virtue is simply what the powerful dictate at any given moment. Eating a bad diet and dying at a younger age can be just as "virtuous" as eating grass and leaves and dying at 100. Just depends on what the powerful want to call virtue at a given time. You can have your feelings of superiority, but you have no rational argument for any particular action being virtuous.

---

Thats what you want to think. Reality says different.

---

Reality says that you don't have a rational basis for claiming that any particular behavior is inherently virtuous or non virtuous because you have made the argument that morality is dependent entirely on what society says it is.

If someone, or some group, has the power to persuade or coerce others to accept a behavior or belief as virtuous, that is what makes it virtuous. Therefore, any behavior can be deemed virtuous. If I am able to persuade people that eating certain foods, consuming a lot of alcohol, not exercising and, as a result, dying at a relatively young age is virtuous because it makes room on the planet for the next generation, you have no rational basis to contradict me.

---

Oh but I do. I base it upon what causes harm, and the idea that we should have a humanistic culture that is based upon not causing harm as a virtue. In some religious sects, it is a virtue to act as a suicide bomber. Virtue is a human construct that varies from culture to culture based upon what influences or deifines that culture.

TS: "You make false assumptions to conform with what you want to believe."

Actually, that's you, boyo.

I just call the pitches balls that hit the ground 2 feet ahead of the plate. You think they caught the corner.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

In your view of reality, there is no actual virtue. Virtue is simply what the powerful dictate at any given moment. Eating a bad diet and dying at a younger age can be just as "virtuous" as eating grass and leaves and dying at 100. Just depends on what the powerful want to call virtue at a given time. You can have your feelings of superiority, but you have no rational argument for any particular action being virtuous.

---

Thats what you want to think. Reality says different.

---

Reality says that you don't have a rational basis for claiming that any particular behavior is inherently virtuous or non virtuous because you have made the argument that morality is dependent entirely on what society says it is.

If someone, or some group, has the power to persuade or coerce others to accept a behavior or belief as virtuous, that is what makes it virtuous. Therefore, any behavior can be deemed virtuous. If I am able to persuade people that eating certain foods, consuming a lot of alcohol, not exercising and, as a result, dying at a relatively young age is virtuous because it makes room on the planet for the next generation, you have no rational basis to contradict me.

---

Oh but I do. I base it upon what causes harm, and the idea that we should have a humanistic culture that is based upon not causing harm as a virtue. In some religious sects, it is a virtue to act as a suicide bomber. Virtue is a human construct that varies from culture to culture based upon what influences or deifines that culture.

---

You have no basis to argue that anything is properly classified as "harm," and many things you support as "virtuous" do cause what you would classify as harm.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "You make false assumptions to conform with what you want to believe."

Actually, that's you, boyo.

I just call the pitches balls that hit the ground 2 feet ahead of the plate. You think they caught the corner.

---

It's a little early in the day for you to start drinking isn't it?

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

In your view of reality, there is no actual virtue. Virtue is simply what the powerful dictate at any given moment. Eating a bad diet and dying at a younger age can be just as "virtuous" as eating grass and leaves and dying at 100. Just depends on what the powerful want to call virtue at a given time. You can have your feelings of superiority, but you have no rational argument for any particular action being virtuous.

---

Thats what you want to think. Reality says different.

---

Reality says that you don't have a rational basis for claiming that any particular behavior is inherently virtuous or non virtuous because you have made the argument that morality is dependent entirely on what society says it is.

If someone, or some group, has the power to persuade or coerce others to accept a behavior or belief as virtuous, that is what makes it virtuous. Therefore, any behavior can be deemed virtuous. If I am able to persuade people that eating certain foods, consuming a lot of alcohol, not exercising and, as a result, dying at a relatively young age is virtuous because it makes room on the planet for the next generation, you have no rational basis to contradict me.

---

Oh but I do. I base it upon what causes harm, and the idea that we should have a humanistic culture that is based upon not causing harm as a virtue. In some religious sects, it is a virtue to act as a suicide bomber. Virtue is a human construct that varies from culture to culture based upon what influences or deifines that culture.

---

You have no basis to argue that anything is properly classified as "harm," and many things you support as "virtuous" do cause what you would classify as harm.

---

Scientific observation is the basis.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "You make false assumptions to conform with what you want to believe."

Actually, that's you, boyo.

I just call the pitches balls that hit the ground 2 feet ahead of the plate. You think they caught the corner.

---

It's a little early in the day for you to start drinking isn't it?

---

More projection from TS, I see.

Fun fact - I stopped drinking many years ago.

talk about a wild pitch, you missed the stadium with that one!

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

In your view of reality, there is no actual virtue. Virtue is simply what the powerful dictate at any given moment. Eating a bad diet and dying at a younger age can be just as "virtuous" as eating grass and leaves and dying at 100. Just depends on what the powerful want to call virtue at a given time. You can have your feelings of superiority, but you have no rational argument for any particular action being virtuous.

---

Thats what you want to think. Reality says different.

---

Reality says that you don't have a rational basis for claiming that any particular behavior is inherently virtuous or non virtuous because you have made the argument that morality is dependent entirely on what society says it is.

If someone, or some group, has the power to persuade or coerce others to accept a behavior or belief as virtuous, that is what makes it virtuous. Therefore, any behavior can be deemed virtuous. If I am able to persuade people that eating certain foods, consuming a lot of alcohol, not exercising and, as a result, dying at a relatively young age is virtuous because it makes room on the planet for the next generation, you have no rational basis to contradict me.

---

Oh but I do. I base it upon what causes harm, and the idea that we should have a humanistic culture that is based upon not causing harm as a virtue. In some religious sects, it is a virtue to act as a suicide bomber. Virtue is a human construct that varies from culture to culture based upon what influences or deifines that culture.

---

You have no basis to argue that anything is properly classified as "harm," and many things you support as "virtuous" do cause what you would classify as harm.

---

Scientific observation is the basis.

---

"Scientific observation" might allow us to conclude whether something we already deem harmful is happening, but whether something can be defined as "harm" is not a question that is answerable by "scientific observation."

A New Experiment To Test If Consciousness Gives Rise to Physics & Not Vice Versa with @donalddhoffman. Enjoy!https://t.co/CZmqPBmG8a pic.twitter.com/eyafW3leyz

— Dr Tevin Naidu (@drtevinnaidu) June 18, 2023

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

---

Then you have to believe there's no causality to the initial singularity that created the big bang.

You have no evidence of this and it defies logic. By your own standards, that's faith.

You need to explain how the singularity came into existence. Can you do that?

---

As I've explained before, quantum theory tells us a spontaneously generated universe(s) is plausible. That is not faith. And, because it is plausible, it makes god irrelevant.

We don't have to know how, to know it did. We know the Big Bang occurred.

You don't have any plausible theories that show how, or require, the involvement of a supernatural being, whose origin/cause are inexplicable - much less that entity is the Judeo/Christian/Islamic imagination god.

---

You need proof. Period.

The problem with this argument is you don't understand Quantum theory whatsoever. It doesn't tell us spontaneous creation is possible.

---

Sure does. Guth, Hawking et al have all demonstrated how it is plausible and without purpose. I've summarized here many times.

It is far more compelling than your idea that some god did it with no plausible demonstrable theory; and far more compelling than your heterodox religious idea that it is all for the purpose of some god controlling people through their brain antennas.

---

And as I've summarized to you, MANY times, the theory that quantum fluctuations caused our universe out of nothing is based on mathematics where the physicist/mathematician had to teleologically place boundary constraints on the equations with the specific goal of producing our particular universe in mind. In other words, Intelligent Design. Ahh, the ultimate rich irony when an atheist, believing to have felled God by wielding his humanist sword of Reason (science), ends up falling on the sword himself.

It takes a desperate fool and an insane amount of denial to believe that quantum fluctuations (which isn't nothing) somehow popped into existence a set of over 25+ universal constants and laws, each of which so happen to be exquisitely, exquisitely fine tuned on a razor's edge otherwise the universe would just either collapse or dissipate into nothingness, which then caused stars and planets to form, upon which abiogenesis occurred (which is impossible to explain because the prebiotic chemistry is virtually impossible) and then once over that tiny hurdle, the complexity of life increased (defying the incomprehensibly small odds of spontaneous, random generation of productive, functional genetic information, as evidenced by population genetics) to ultimately result in an unfathomably complex human being, who, already the beneficiary of an incredible amount of luck by this point, came complete with a brain which by some fantastic, unknown application of biology is able to produce subjective conscious experience, which enables us to sense the universe and contemplate our own existence - thus ultimately meaning that physics popped into existence and became aware of itself..........and believe all of it, all on its own, to be "plausible".

---

^^^^^ Nonsense.

There are no teleological boundary constraints. Your religious views are built soley upon teleology, and nothing else. The evidence of reality belies your fantasy, which is understandably unsettling to you.

---

Of course it's "nonsense" - to someone who has no argument and therefore must resort to denial.

The math for the theory of a spontaneous universe is based on the universal wave function. The universal wave function must satisfy the Wheeler-Dewitt equation, which is the central equation to quantum cosmology and is an analog to the Schrodinger equation in single particle quantum mechanics. In single particle quantum mechanics, the wave function of the particle is governed by the Schrodinger equation, and external boundary constraints are dictated by the physical system the particle is contained in, which is within space time. However, the universal wave function is NOT defined within space time - it can't be, because it is defining space time itself. Rather, it is defined on an infinite dimension known as "superspace". It is here where the Wheeler-Dewitt equation must be satisfied, and since it is in infinite space, it is a hyperbolic second order functional differential equation, which is to say it has an infinite number of solutions.

Therefore, in order to solve the Wheeler-Dewitt equation so you can arrive at the universal wave function that corresponds to our universe, it is REQUIRED to place boundary constraints on the equation. This is just a fact, and it's what the physicists behind this theory did. So yes, deny it all you want, these are teleological boundary constraints.

So, what's YOUR argument that there are NO teleological boundary constraints, as you claim?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

---

Then you have to believe there's no causality to the initial singularity that created the big bang.

You have no evidence of this and it defies logic. By your own standards, that's faith.

You need to explain how the singularity came into existence. Can you do that?

---

As I've explained before, quantum theory tells us a spontaneously generated universe(s) is plausible. That is not faith. And, because it is plausible, it makes god irrelevant.

We don't have to know how, to know it did. We know the Big Bang occurred.

You don't have any plausible theories that show how, or require, the involvement of a supernatural being, whose origin/cause are inexplicable - much less that entity is the Judeo/Christian/Islamic imagination god.

---

You need proof. Period.

The problem with this argument is you don't understand Quantum theory whatsoever. It doesn't tell us spontaneous creation is possible.

---

Sure does. Guth, Hawking et al have all demonstrated how it is plausible and without purpose. I've summarized here many times.

It is far more compelling than your idea that some god did it with no plausible demonstrable theory; and far more compelling than your heterodox religious idea that it is all for the purpose of some god controlling people through their brain antennas.

---

And as I've summarized to you, MANY times, the theory that quantum fluctuations caused our universe out of nothing is based on mathematics where the physicist/mathematician had to teleologically place boundary constraints on the equations with the specific goal of producing our particular universe in mind. In other words, Intelligent Design. Ahh, the ultimate rich irony when an atheist, believing to have felled God by wielding his humanist sword of Reason (science), ends up falling on the sword himself.

It takes a desperate fool and an insane amount of denial to believe that quantum fluctuations (which isn't nothing) somehow popped into existence a set of over 25+ universal constants and laws, each of which so happen to be exquisitely, exquisitely fine tuned on a razor's edge otherwise the universe would just either collapse or dissipate into nothingness, which then caused stars and planets to form, upon which abiogenesis occurred (which is impossible to explain because the prebiotic chemistry is virtually impossible) and then once over that tiny hurdle, the complexity of life increased (defying the incomprehensibly small odds of spontaneous, random generation of productive, functional genetic information, as evidenced by population genetics) to ultimately result in an unfathomably complex human being, who, already the beneficiary of an incredible amount of luck by this point, came complete with a brain which by some fantastic, unknown application of biology is able to produce subjective conscious experience, which enables us to sense the universe and contemplate our own existence - thus ultimately meaning that physics popped into existence and became aware of itself..........and believe all of it, all on its own, to be "plausible".

---

^^^^^ Nonsense.

There are no teleological boundary constraints. Your religious views are built soley upon teleology, and nothing else. The evidence of reality belies your fantasy, which is understandably unsettling to you.

---

Of course it's "nonsense" - to someone who has no argument and therefore must resort to denial.

The math for the theory of a spontaneous universe is based on the universal wave function. The universal wave function must satisfy the Wheeler-Dewitt equation, which is the central equation to quantum cosmology and is an analog to the Schrodinger equation in single particle quantum mechanics. In single particle quantum mechanics, the wave function of the particle is governed by the Schrodinger equation, and external boundary constraints are dictated by the physical system the particle is contained in, which is within space time. However, the universal wave function is NOT defined within space time - it can't be, because it is defining space time itself. Rather, it is defined on an infinite dimension known as "superspace". It is here where the Wheeler-Dewitt equation must be satisfied, and since it is in infinite space, it is a hyperbolic second order functional differential equation, which is to say it has an infinite number of solutions.

Therefore, in order to solve the Wheeler-Dewitt equation so you can arrive at the universal wave function that corresponds to our universe, it is REQUIRED to place boundary constraints on the equation. This is just a fact, and it's what the physicists behind this theory did. So yes, deny it all you want, these are teleological boundary constraints.

So, what's YOUR argument that there are NO teleological boundary constraints, as you claim?

---

Busy Tarp beat me to it.

Waco1947 said:

---

Deal with my argument:
If God is all loving and all powerful then there would be no pathogen. Why would God whose fullness is good and loving allow a pathogen into our lives when God had the power to not create the pathogen..
If you were God and had the power to do so, would simply not allow the pathogen in the first place.
It has to do with the nature of God. What is your definition of God? Both all powerful and all loving and yet evil exists at God's hand

---

So, you've had quite a bit of time to think about it. What is your answer to my post above, where I demonstrated to you, using your own logic, that it is indeed logical for God to allow evil and suffering, and still be all-powerful and loving? Have you conceded the point?

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "You make false assumptions to conform with what you want to believe."

Actually, that's you, boyo.

I just call the pitches balls that hit the ground 2 feet ahead of the plate. You think they caught the corner.

---

It's a little early in the day for you to start drinking isn't it?

---

More projection from TS, I see.

Fun fact - I stopped drinking many years ago.

talk about a wild pitch, you missed the stadium with that one!

---

Well then, there's not much hope for psychosis. Wish you well.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

In your view of reality, there is no actual virtue. Virtue is simply what the powerful dictate at any given moment. Eating a bad diet and dying at a younger age can be just as "virtuous" as eating grass and leaves and dying at 100. Just depends on what the powerful want to call virtue at a given time. You can have your feelings of superiority, but you have no rational argument for any particular action being virtuous.

---

Thats what you want to think. Reality says different.

---

Reality says that you don't have a rational basis for claiming that any particular behavior is inherently virtuous or non virtuous because you have made the argument that morality is dependent entirely on what society says it is.

If someone, or some group, has the power to persuade or coerce others to accept a behavior or belief as virtuous, that is what makes it virtuous. Therefore, any behavior can be deemed virtuous. If I am able to persuade people that eating certain foods, consuming a lot of alcohol, not exercising and, as a result, dying at a relatively young age is virtuous because it makes room on the planet for the next generation, you have no rational basis to contradict me.

---

Oh but I do. I base it upon what causes harm, and the idea that we should have a humanistic culture that is based upon not causing harm as a virtue. In some religious sects, it is a virtue to act as a suicide bomber. Virtue is a human construct that varies from culture to culture based upon what influences or deifines that culture.

---

You have no basis to argue that anything is properly classified as "harm," and many things you support as "virtuous" do cause what you would classify as harm.

---

Scientific observation is the basis.

---

"Scientific observation" might allow us to conclude whether something we already deem harmful is happening, but whether something can be defined as "harm" is not a question that is answerable by "scientific observation."

---

Sure it is. You can test by definition.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

---

Then you have to believe there's no causality to the initial singularity that created the big bang.

You have no evidence of this and it defies logic. By your own standards, that's faith.

You need to explain how the singularity came into existence. Can you do that?

---

As I've explained before, quantum theory tells us a spontaneously generated universe(s) is plausible. That is not faith. And, because it is plausible, it makes god irrelevant.

We don't have to know how, to know it did. We know the Big Bang occurred.

You don't have any plausible theories that show how, or require, the involvement of a supernatural being, whose origin/cause are inexplicable - much less that entity is the Judeo/Christian/Islamic imagination god.

---

You need proof. Period.

The problem with this argument is you don't understand Quantum theory whatsoever. It doesn't tell us spontaneous creation is possible.

---

Sure does. Guth, Hawking et al have all demonstrated how it is plausible and without purpose. I've summarized here many times.

It is far more compelling than your idea that some god did it with no plausible demonstrable theory; and far more compelling than your heterodox religious idea that it is all for the purpose of some god controlling people through their brain antennas.

---

And as I've summarized to you, MANY times, the theory that quantum fluctuations caused our universe out of nothing is based on mathematics where the physicist/mathematician had to teleologically place boundary constraints on the equations with the specific goal of producing our particular universe in mind. In other words, Intelligent Design. Ahh, the ultimate rich irony when an atheist, believing to have felled God by wielding his humanist sword of Reason (science), ends up falling on the sword himself.

It takes a desperate fool and an insane amount of denial to believe that quantum fluctuations (which isn't nothing) somehow popped into existence a set of over 25+ universal constants and laws, each of which so happen to be exquisitely, exquisitely fine tuned on a razor's edge otherwise the universe would just either collapse or dissipate into nothingness, which then caused stars and planets to form, upon which abiogenesis occurred (which is impossible to explain because the prebiotic chemistry is virtually impossible) and then once over that tiny hurdle, the complexity of life increased (defying the incomprehensibly small odds of spontaneous, random generation of productive, functional genetic information, as evidenced by population genetics) to ultimately result in an unfathomably complex human being, who, already the beneficiary of an incredible amount of luck by this point, came complete with a brain which by some fantastic, unknown application of biology is able to produce subjective conscious experience, which enables us to sense the universe and contemplate our own existence - thus ultimately meaning that physics popped into existence and became aware of itself..........and believe all of it, all on its own, to be "plausible".

---

^^^^^ Nonsense.

There are no teleological boundary constraints. Your religious views are built soley upon teleology, and nothing else. The evidence of reality belies your fantasy, which is understandably unsettling to you.

---

Of course it's "nonsense" - to someone who has no argument and therefore must resort to denial.

The math for the theory of a spontaneous universe is based on the universal wave function. The universal wave function must satisfy the Wheeler-Dewitt equation, which is the central equation to quantum cosmology and is an analog to the Schrodinger equation in single particle quantum mechanics. In single particle quantum mechanics, the wave function of the particle is governed by the Schrodinger equation, and external boundary constraints are dictated by the physical system the particle is contained in, which is within space time. However, the universal wave function is NOT defined within space time - it can't be, because it is defining space time itself. Rather, it is defined on an infinite dimension known as "superspace". It is here where the Wheeler-Dewitt equation must be satisfied, and since it is in infinite space, it is a hyperbolic second order functional differential equation, which is to say it has an infinite number of solutions.

Therefore, in order to solve the Wheeler-Dewitt equation so you can arrive at the universal wave function that corresponds to our universe, it is REQUIRED to place boundary constraints on the equation. This is just a fact, and it's what the physicists behind this theory did. So yes, deny it all you want, these are teleological boundary constraints.

So, what's YOUR argument that there are NO teleological boundary constraints, as you claim?

---

Hawking and Hartle resolved the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in terms of the initial conditions of the Big Bang, without any Teleological constraints. Teleology is not necessary for any explanation.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

---

Then you have to believe there's no causality to the initial singularity that created the big bang.

You have no evidence of this and it defies logic. By your own standards, that's faith.

You need to explain how the singularity came into existence. Can you do that?

---

As I've explained before, quantum theory tells us a spontaneously generated universe(s) is plausible. That is not faith. And, because it is plausible, it makes god irrelevant.

We don't have to know how, to know it did. We know the Big Bang occurred.

You don't have any plausible theories that show how, or require, the involvement of a supernatural being, whose origin/cause are inexplicable - much less that entity is the Judeo/Christian/Islamic imagination god.

---

You need proof. Period.

The problem with this argument is you don't understand Quantum theory whatsoever. It doesn't tell us spontaneous creation is possible.

---

Sure does. Guth, Hawking et al have all demonstrated how it is plausible and without purpose. I've summarized here many times.

It is far more compelling than your idea that some god did it with no plausible demonstrable theory; and far more compelling than your heterodox religious idea that it is all for the purpose of some god controlling people through their brain antennas.

---

And as I've summarized to you, MANY times, the theory that quantum fluctuations caused our universe out of nothing is based on mathematics where the physicist/mathematician had to teleologically place boundary constraints on the equations with the specific goal of producing our particular universe in mind. In other words, Intelligent Design. Ahh, the ultimate rich irony when an atheist, believing to have felled God by wielding his humanist sword of Reason (science), ends up falling on the sword himself.

It takes a desperate fool and an insane amount of denial to believe that quantum fluctuations (which isn't nothing) somehow popped into existence a set of over 25+ universal constants and laws, each of which so happen to be exquisitely, exquisitely fine tuned on a razor's edge otherwise the universe would just either collapse or dissipate into nothingness, which then caused stars and planets to form, upon which abiogenesis occurred (which is impossible to explain because the prebiotic chemistry is virtually impossible) and then once over that tiny hurdle, the complexity of life increased (defying the incomprehensibly small odds of spontaneous, random generation of productive, functional genetic information, as evidenced by population genetics) to ultimately result in an unfathomably complex human being, who, already the beneficiary of an incredible amount of luck by this point, came complete with a brain which by some fantastic, unknown application of biology is able to produce subjective conscious experience, which enables us to sense the universe and contemplate our own existence - thus ultimately meaning that physics popped into existence and became aware of itself..........and believe all of it, all on its own, to be "plausible".

---

^^^^^ Nonsense.

There are no teleological boundary constraints. Your religious views are built soley upon teleology, and nothing else. The evidence of reality belies your fantasy, which is understandably unsettling to you.

---

Of course it's "nonsense" - to someone who has no argument and therefore must resort to denial.

The math for the theory of a spontaneous universe is based on the universal wave function. The universal wave function must satisfy the Wheeler-Dewitt equation, which is the central equation to quantum cosmology and is an analog to the Schrodinger equation in single particle quantum mechanics. In single particle quantum mechanics, the wave function of the particle is governed by the Schrodinger equation, and external boundary constraints are dictated by the physical system the particle is contained in, which is within space time. However, the universal wave function is NOT defined within space time - it can't be, because it is defining space time itself. Rather, it is defined on an infinite dimension known as "superspace". It is here where the Wheeler-Dewitt equation must be satisfied, and since it is in infinite space, it is a hyperbolic second order functional differential equation, which is to say it has an infinite number of solutions.

Therefore, in order to solve the Wheeler-Dewitt equation so you can arrive at the universal wave function that corresponds to our universe, it is REQUIRED to place boundary constraints on the equation. This is just a fact, and it's what the physicists behind this theory did. So yes, deny it all you want, these are teleological boundary constraints.

So, what's YOUR argument that there are NO teleological boundary constraints, as you claim?

---

Hawking and Hartle resolved the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in terms of the initial conditions of the Big Bang, without any Teleological constraints. Teleology is not necessary for any explanation.

---

Yes, they had to constrain it from a set of infinite solutions to that which corresponded to the initial conditions of our universe. Because that's what they were wanting to get to. You're describing teleology, and you can't even recognize it.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

In your view of reality, there is no actual virtue. Virtue is simply what the powerful dictate at any given moment. Eating a bad diet and dying at a younger age can be just as "virtuous" as eating grass and leaves and dying at 100. Just depends on what the powerful want to call virtue at a given time. You can have your feelings of superiority, but you have no rational argument for any particular action being virtuous.

---

Thats what you want to think. Reality says different.

---

Reality says that you don't have a rational basis for claiming that any particular behavior is inherently virtuous or non virtuous because you have made the argument that morality is dependent entirely on what society says it is.

If someone, or some group, has the power to persuade or coerce others to accept a behavior or belief as virtuous, that is what makes it virtuous. Therefore, any behavior can be deemed virtuous. If I am able to persuade people that eating certain foods, consuming a lot of alcohol, not exercising and, as a result, dying at a relatively young age is virtuous because it makes room on the planet for the next generation, you have no rational basis to contradict me.

---

Oh but I do. I base it upon what causes harm, and the idea that we should have a humanistic culture that is based upon not causing harm as a virtue. In some religious sects, it is a virtue to act as a suicide bomber. Virtue is a human construct that varies from culture to culture based upon what influences or deifines that culture.

---

You have no basis to argue that anything is properly classified as "harm," and many things you support as "virtuous" do cause what you would classify as harm.

---

Scientific observation is the basis.

---

"Scientific observation" might allow us to conclude whether something we already deem harmful is happening, but whether something can be defined as "harm" is not a question that is answerable by "scientific observation."

---

Sure it is. You can test by definition.

---

The whole "definition" part of that is simply "what you deem harmful."

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "You make false assumptions to conform with what you want to believe."

Actually, that's you, boyo.

I just call the pitches balls that hit the ground 2 feet ahead of the plate. You think they caught the corner.

---

It's a little early in the day for you to start drinking isn't it?

---

More projection from TS, I see.

Fun fact - I stopped drinking many years ago.

talk about a wild pitch, you missed the stadium with that one!

---

Well then, there's not much hope for psychosis. Wish you well.

---

Glad you never tried becoming a therapist, much less a Psychiatrist. You'd be broke from the malpractice cases by your second year.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

In your view of reality, there is no actual virtue. Virtue is simply what the powerful dictate at any given moment. Eating a bad diet and dying at a younger age can be just as "virtuous" as eating grass and leaves and dying at 100. Just depends on what the powerful want to call virtue at a given time. You can have your feelings of superiority, but you have no rational argument for any particular action being virtuous.

---

Thats what you want to think. Reality says different.

---

Reality says that you don't have a rational basis for claiming that any particular behavior is inherently virtuous or non virtuous because you have made the argument that morality is dependent entirely on what society says it is.

If someone, or some group, has the power to persuade or coerce others to accept a behavior or belief as virtuous, that is what makes it virtuous. Therefore, any behavior can be deemed virtuous. If I am able to persuade people that eating certain foods, consuming a lot of alcohol, not exercising and, as a result, dying at a relatively young age is virtuous because it makes room on the planet for the next generation, you have no rational basis to contradict me.

---

Oh but I do. I base it upon what causes harm, and the idea that we should have a humanistic culture that is based upon not causing harm as a virtue. In some religious sects, it is a virtue to act as a suicide bomber. Virtue is a human construct that varies from culture to culture based upon what influences or deifines that culture.

---

You have no basis to argue that anything is properly classified as "harm," and many things you support as "virtuous" do cause what you would classify as harm.

---

Scientific observation is the basis.

---

"Scientific observation" might allow us to conclude whether something we already deem harmful is happening, but whether something can be defined as "harm" is not a question that is answerable by "scientific observation."

---

Sure it is. You can test by definition.

---

The whole "definition" part of that is simply "what you deem harmful."

---

What causes harm can be tested scientifically.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is quite the bigot today.


Someone must have hit him with a fact or two before he was ready to 'refute' them.

---

Fantasy, fiction and fancy do not Raquel facts.

---

Your predictive text came up with "Raquel" when I'm sure you intended "require". What sites have you been visiting with your device and when was the last time you wiped it off?

---

No where that needs wiping. How often do you wipe yours?

---

Anytime I have fried chicken for lunch. I hate a greasy screen.

---

Don't eat fried chicken. It's not healthy for you or your screen.

---

Are you good with Chic-fil-a?

---

I don't eat there. Do you?

---

Christian chicken is my favorite. The waffle fries seem a bit secular. A couple of their dipping sauces are downright sinful-you'd live'em.

---

Thanks, but I'll stick with a healthier diet.

---

Virtue signaling is fattening.

---

Thanks for associating me with having virtue. I didn't think you noticed.

---

In your view of reality, there is no actual virtue. Virtue is simply what the powerful dictate at any given moment. Eating a bad diet and dying at a younger age can be just as "virtuous" as eating grass and leaves and dying at 100. Just depends on what the powerful want to call virtue at a given time. You can have your feelings of superiority, but you have no rational argument for any particular action being virtuous.

---

Thats what you want to think. Reality says different.

---

Reality says that you don't have a rational basis for claiming that any particular behavior is inherently virtuous or non virtuous because you have made the argument that morality is dependent entirely on what society says it is.

If someone, or some group, has the power to persuade or coerce others to accept a behavior or belief as virtuous, that is what makes it virtuous. Therefore, any behavior can be deemed virtuous. If I am able to persuade people that eating certain foods, consuming a lot of alcohol, not exercising and, as a result, dying at a relatively young age is virtuous because it makes room on the planet for the next generation, you have no rational basis to contradict me.

---

Oh but I do. I base it upon what causes harm, and the idea that we should have a humanistic culture that is based upon not causing harm as a virtue. In some religious sects, it is a virtue to act as a suicide bomber. Virtue is a human construct that varies from culture to culture based upon what influences or deifines that culture.

---

You have no basis to argue that anything is properly classified as "harm," and many things you support as "virtuous" do cause what you would classify as harm.

---

Scientific observation is the basis.

---

"Scientific observation" might allow us to conclude whether something we already deem harmful is happening, but whether something can be defined as "harm" is not a question that is answerable by "scientific observation."

---

Sure it is. You can test by definition.

---

The whole "definition" part of that is simply "what you deem harmful."

---

What causes harm can be tested scientifically.

---

What causes harm can be tested scientifically. What harm Is cannot.

You test for harm based upon the definition.

TexasScientist said:

---

You test for harm based upon the definition.

---

"Science" cannot provide the definition.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

You test for harm based upon the definition.

---

"Science" cannot provide the definition.

---

What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.