quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

---

Quote:

---

"you've alwyas been defeated"

---

Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.

---

Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.

---

Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.

---

Wasn't addressing you.

---

I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it

---

Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

---

Quote:

---

"you've alwyas been defeated"

---

Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.

---

Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.

---

Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.

---

Wasn't addressing you.

---

I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it

---

Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.

---

Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

---

Quote:

---

"you've alwyas been defeated"

---

Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.

---

Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.

---

Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.

---

Wasn't addressing you.

---

I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it

---

Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.

---

Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.

---

Recyclers Unite!

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

---

Quote:

---

"you've alwyas been defeated"

---

Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.

---

Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.

---

Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.

---

Wasn't addressing you.

---

I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it

---

Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.

---

Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.

---

You eat meat?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

And you continue to provide evidence for my point.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?

For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?

For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.

---

I don't believe I have seen that thread, but I doubt there was anything of substance there. Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?

For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.

---

I don't believe I have seen that thread, but I doubt there was anything of substance there. Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.

---

If creationism is true, then so is Intelligent Design. But I understand your avoidance, your intellectual cop out.. Your religion has you knowing the answers before the questions are even asked.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?

For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.

---

I don't believe I have seen that thread, but I doubt there was anything of substance there. Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.

---

If creationism is true, then so is Intelligent Design. But I understand your avoidance, your intellectual cop out.. Your religion has you knowing the answers before the questions are even asked.

---

I don't have a religion. Creationism isn't true, so you don't have to worry about intelligent design. Science asks questions. Religion doesn't.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?

For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.

---

I don't believe I have seen that thread, but I doubt there was anything of substance there. Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.

---

If creationism is true, then so is Intelligent Design. But I understand your avoidance, your intellectual cop out.. Your religion has you knowing the answers before the questions are even asked.

---

He clearly said he didn't see the thread. For you to accuse him, again, of avoidance is untrue.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?

For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.

---

I don't believe I have seen that thread, but I doubt there was anything of substance there. Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.

---

If creationism is true, then so is Intelligent Design. But I understand your avoidance, your intellectual cop out.. Your religion has you knowing the answers before the questions are even asked.

---

I don't have a religion. Creationism isn't true, so you don't have to worry about intelligent design. Science asks questions. Religion doesn't.

---

But you're the one copping out. You're exactly the religion you describe. If you have an argument against the points in the ID thread, if creationism isn't true, then lets hear your arguments against the points there. Or do you prefer to stick with knowing the answers to the questions before they are asked?

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?

For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.

---

I don't believe I have seen that thread, but I doubt there was anything of substance there. Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.

---

If creationism is true, then so is Intelligent Design. But I understand your avoidance, your intellectual cop out.. Your religion has you knowing the answers before the questions are even asked.

---

He clearly said he didn't see the thread. For you to accuse him, again, of avoidance is untrue.

---

So he's dumb and/or blind? That's the kind of stupid, dishonest excuse you always try to pull.

Please.

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

---

Quote:

---

"you've alwyas been defeated"

---

Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.

---

Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.

---

Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.

---

Wasn't addressing you.

---

I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it

---

Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.

---

Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.

---

Try DMT, find out this reality is less real than others and then we'll see what you think.

He lives in my heart. That's all I need.

TS: "Science asks questions. Religion doesn't."


You obviously have never had a substantive discussion with a Jesuit, or a Sufi, or discussed the Milinda Panha with a senior monk .


People of faith were the first to seek the important answers. Why else would the Bible include "come, let us reason together"?

Isaiah 1:18

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?

For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.

---

I don't believe I have seen that thread, but I doubt there was anything of substance there. Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.

---

If creationism is true, then so is Intelligent Design. But I understand your avoidance, your intellectual cop out.. Your religion has you knowing the answers before the questions are even asked.

---

I don't have a religion. Creationism isn't true, so you don't have to worry about intelligent design. Science asks questions. Religion doesn't.

---

But you're the one copping out. You're exactly the religion you describe. If you have an argument against the points in the ID thread, if creationism isn't true, then lets hear your arguments against the points there. Or do you prefer to stick with knowing the answers to the questions before they are asked?

---

ID is a faith based rehash of creationism. Science is based on empirical evidence.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

---

Quote:

---

"you've alwyas been defeated"

---

Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.

---

Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.

---

Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.

---

Wasn't addressing you.

---

I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it

---

Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.

---

Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.

---

Try DMT, find out this reality is less real than others and then we'll see what you think.

---

Theorizing you live in a computer simulation does't alter the fact that general relativity and quantum theory reliably describe our universe.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

---

Quote:

---

"you've alwyas been defeated"

---

Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.

---

Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.

---

Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.

---

Wasn't addressing you.

---

I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it

---

Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.

---

Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.

---

Try DMT, find out this reality is less real than others and then we'll see what you think.

---

Theorizing you live in a computer simulation does't alter the fact that general relativity and quantum theory reliably describe our universe.

---

I don't believe in simulation theory whatsoever and I'm discussing cosmogony: quantum theory is a byproduct of cosmogony.

The theory I'm interested in posits that Consciousness, not spacetime and its objects, is fundamental reality and can be usefully described as a network of conscious agents.

Donald Hoffman and his team are working on it:

Our new paper, "Fusions of consciousness," is published today, and free. We propose a dynamics of conscious agents beyond spacetime, and a mapping of this dynamics into spacetime physics via our new application of decorated permutations to Markov chains.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN

— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) January 9, 2023

They propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents.

It's more like spacetime is a headset and tool for consciousness to have utility. Consciousness would be the substrate of reality not physicalism and this consciousness is metaphysical.

This all comes back to the false belief of there being no causality to spacetime. You can't have spacetime causing spacetime or you have a paradox. So what science is going to have to do is show how spacetime emerged without pointing to spacetime. Saying it's a random phenomenon without causality isn't going to cut it and is even more radical and requires more faith than belief in a god.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

---

Quote:

---

"you've alwyas been defeated"

---

Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.

---

Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.

---

Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.

---

Wasn't addressing you.

---

I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it

---

Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.

---

Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.

---

Try DMT, find out this reality is less real than others and then we'll see what you think.

---

Theorizing you live in a computer simulation does't alter the fact that general relativity and quantum theory reliably describe our universe.

---

I don't believe in simulation theory whatsoever and I'm discussing cosmogony: quantum theory is a byproduct of cosmogony.

The theory I'm interested in posits that Consciousness, not spacetime and its objects, is fundamental reality and can be usefully described as a network of conscious agents.

Donald Hoffman and his team are working on it:

Our new paper, "Fusions of consciousness," is published today, and free. We propose a dynamics of conscious agents beyond spacetime, and a mapping of this dynamics into spacetime physics via our new application of decorated permutations to Markov chains.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN

— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) January 9, 2023

They propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents.

It's more like spacetime is a headset and tool for consciousness to have utility. Consciousness would be the substrate of reality not physicalism and this consciousness is metaphysical.

This all comes back to the false belief of there being no causality to spacetime. You can't have spacetime causing spacetime or you have a paradox. So what science is going to have to do is show how spacetime emerged without pointing to spacetime. Saying it's a random phenomenon without causality isn't going to cut it and is even more radical and requires more faith than belief in a god.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?

For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.

---

I don't believe I have seen that thread, but I doubt there was anything of substance there. Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.

---

If creationism is true, then so is Intelligent Design. But I understand your avoidance, your intellectual cop out.. Your religion has you knowing the answers before the questions are even asked.

---

I don't have a religion. Creationism isn't true, so you don't have to worry about intelligent design. Science asks questions. Religion doesn't.

---

But you're the one copping out. You're exactly the religion you describe. If you have an argument against the points in the ID thread, if creationism isn't true, then lets hear your arguments against the points there. Or do you prefer to stick with knowing the answers to the questions before they are asked?

---

ID is a faith based rehash of creationism. Science is based on empirical evidence.

---

And this empirical evidence continues to refute your religion of naturalism, in favor of intelligent design.

And you continue to avoid the debate on the ID thread. It's obvious you don't have anything except the repetition of mantras (like a religion).

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

---

Quote:

---

"you've alwyas been defeated"

---

Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.

---

Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.

---

Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.

---

Wasn't addressing you.

---

I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it

---

Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.

---

Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.

---

Try DMT, find out this reality is less real than others and then we'll see what you think.

---

Theorizing you live in a computer simulation does't alter the fact that general relativity and quantum theory reliably describe our universe.

---

I don't believe in simulation theory whatsoever and I'm discussing cosmogony: quantum theory is a byproduct of cosmogony.

The theory I'm interested in posits that Consciousness, not spacetime and its objects, is fundamental reality and can be usefully described as a network of conscious agents.

Donald Hoffman and his team are working on it:

Our new paper, "Fusions of consciousness," is published today, and free. We propose a dynamics of conscious agents beyond spacetime, and a mapping of this dynamics into spacetime physics via our new application of decorated permutations to Markov chains.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN

— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) January 9, 2023

They propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents.

It's more like spacetime is a headset and tool for consciousness to have utility. Consciousness would be the substrate of reality not physicalism and this consciousness is metaphysical.

This all comes back to the false belief of there being no causality to spacetime. You can't have spacetime causing spacetime or you have a paradox. So what science is going to have to do is show how spacetime emerged without pointing to spacetime. Saying it's a random phenomenon without causality isn't going to cut it and is even more radical and requires more faith than belief in a god.

---

All of that is nothing more than non-evidentiary philosophical musings, at best entertaining nonsense against what we know to be true about the physical universe, and cosmogony. It's apparent the interaction of quantum
particles, energy, gravity and space time began millions, if not billions of years before consciousness even evolved. Neuroscience is a better field for understanding consciousness as a physical biological process. The evidence of reality leads in that direction.

With regard to space/time, if space/time are quantum variables, then they can be quantum fluctuations, without causation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?

For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.

---

I don't believe I have seen that thread, but I doubt there was anything of substance there. Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.

---

If creationism is true, then so is Intelligent Design. But I understand your avoidance, your intellectual cop out.. Your religion has you knowing the answers before the questions are even asked.

---

I don't have a religion. Creationism isn't true, so you don't have to worry about intelligent design. Science asks questions. Religion doesn't.

---

But you're the one copping out. You're exactly the religion you describe. If you have an argument against the points in the ID thread, if creationism isn't true, then lets hear your arguments against the points there. Or do you prefer to stick with knowing the answers to the questions before they are asked?

---

ID is a faith based rehash of creationism. Science is based on empirical evidence.

---

And this empirical evidence continues to refute your religion of naturalism, in favor of intelligent design.

And you continue to avoid the debate on the ID thread. It's obvious you don't have anything except the repetition of mantras (like a religion).

---

What ID thread? Debate it here if you like. You should to read the definition of 'naturalism.'

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?

For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.

---

I don't believe I have seen that thread, but I doubt there was anything of substance there. Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.

---

If creationism is true, then so is Intelligent Design. But I understand your avoidance, your intellectual cop out.. Your religion has you knowing the answers before the questions are even asked.

---

I don't have a religion. Creationism isn't true, so you don't have to worry about intelligent design. Science asks questions. Religion doesn't.

---

But you're the one copping out. You're exactly the religion you describe. If you have an argument against the points in the ID thread, if creationism isn't true, then lets hear your arguments against the points there. Or do you prefer to stick with knowing the answers to the questions before they are asked?

---

ID is a faith based rehash of creationism. Science is based on empirical evidence.

---

And this empirical evidence continues to refute your religion of naturalism, in favor of intelligent design.

And you continue to avoid the debate on the ID thread. It's obvious you don't have anything except the repetition of mantras (like a religion).

---

What ID thread? Debate it here if you like. You should to read the definition of 'naturalism.'

---

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/122097

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?

For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.

---

I don't believe I have seen that thread, but I doubt there was anything of substance there. Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.

---

If creationism is true, then so is Intelligent Design. But I understand your avoidance, your intellectual cop out.. Your religion has you knowing the answers before the questions are even asked.

---

I don't have a religion. Creationism isn't true, so you don't have to worry about intelligent design. Science asks questions. Religion doesn't.

---

But you're the one copping out. You're exactly the religion you describe. If you have an argument against the points in the ID thread, if creationism isn't true, then lets hear your arguments against the points there. Or do you prefer to stick with knowing the answers to the questions before they are asked?

---

ID is a faith based rehash of creationism. Science is based on empirical evidence.

---

And this empirical evidence continues to refute your religion of naturalism, in favor of intelligent design.

And you continue to avoid the debate on the ID thread. It's obvious you don't have anything except the repetition of mantras (like a religion).

---

What ID thread? Debate it here if you like. You should to read the definition of 'naturalism.'

---

Both this thread and the ID thread were at the top together often, and you've been commenting on this one. So either you have an awareness problem, or you knew your religion of naturalism would get shellacked.

Naturalism denies the existence of the supernatural, a belief that has no science behind it - it takes faith. So yours is as much a religion as those you hate.

"We haven't proven that the human brain creates consciousness."

Look at definitions of 'consciousness', we don't even have a clear way to describe it aside from vague references to 'awareness of surroundings and self'.

I actually appreciate when scientists are honest enough to admit when they don't know something, and a great deal of the human condition defies comprehension to the degree that Science could make an artificial human.

Science, for example, has created a plastic-titanium alloy which allows me to have a replacement knee which should last four decades, But it can't explain why my wife chose to marry me. Science was able to find a medicine which stopped the growth of my cancer. But it can't explain why I got cancer instead of my brother, while he got Parkinson's while I did not.

We accept the wide variety of possible choices we can make, along with consequences which seem random at times. But for all our studies and data, we still struggle with the Homeless problem, with dirty politics, with war after war, even though everyone claims to want to end those things.

We accept human chaos, because by the time we are adults we have learned that it is beyond our control. Yet when someone steps back and points out possible patterns and causes, they are mocked by the Science Cult**, even though their critics offer no better answers.

(** Science Cult in this case does not mean those who follow the Scientific Method, but those for whom Science is their sole source of any Knowledge or Causality).

I more than occasionally consider the possibility that God is having fun with those who deny Him.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"We haven't proven that the human brain creates consciousness."

Look at definitions of 'consciousness', we don't even have a clear way to describe it aside from vague references to 'awareness of surroundings and self'.

I actually appreciate when scientists are honest enough to admit when they don't know something, and a great deal of the human condition defies comprehension to the degree that Science could make an artificial human.

Science, for example, has created a plastic-titanium alloy which allows me to have a replacement knee which should last four decades, But it can't explain why my wife chose to marry me. Science was able to find a medicine which stopped the growth of my cancer. But it can't explain why I got cancer instead of my brother, while he got Parkinson's while I did not.

We accept the wide variety of possible choices we can make, along with consequences which seem random at times. But for all our studies and data, we still struggle with the Homeless problem, with dirty politics, with war after war, even though everyone claims to want to end those things.

We accept human chaos, because by the time we are adults we have learned that it is beyond our control. Yet when someone steps back and points out possible patterns and causes, they are mocked by the Science Cult**, even though their critics offer no better answers.

(** Science Cult in this case does not mean those who follow the Scientific Method, but those for whom Science is their sole source of any Knowledge or Causality).

I more than occasionally consider the possibility that God is having fun with those who deny Him.

---

I've never met you and I'm baffled by that wife thing too.

New to this thread and haven't dug into it in depth but a question that always gets me is this:

Let's just assume the big bang was indeed the start of the known universe - an intensely dense concentration of matter in a singularity that exploded outward and has expanded over billions and billions of years, allowing for the creation of stars, accumulation of matter in the subsequent orbits, and idealistic conditions on Earth for evolved life.

If all of that is true, where did the concentration of material in the singularity come from? It had to already be in existence. In what medium did it exist? There had to be a void before the Big Bang into which it expanded. What was that void? Is the Big Bang the first of such events or is this a recurring occurrence?

Ultimately, something had to build the template onto which the universe was placed. We can make plenty of scientific arguments for how the known universe came into being but there was a womb from which it was born.

BaylorGuy314 said:

---

New to this thread and haven't dug into it in depth but a question that always gets me is this:

Let's just assume the big bang was indeed the start of the known universe - an intensely dense concentration of matter in a singularity that exploded outward and has expanded over billions and billions of years, allowing for the creation of stars, accumulation of matter in the subsequent orbits, and idealistic conditions on Earth for evolved life.

If all of that is true, where did the concentration of material in the singularity come from? It had to already be in existence. In what medium did it exist? There had to be a void before the Big Bang into which it expanded. What was that void? Is the Big Bang the first of such events or is this a recurring occurrence?

Ultimately, something had to build the template onto which the universe was placed. We can make plenty of scientific arguments for how the known universe came into being but there was a womb from which it was born.

---

it was on top of a turtle

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

---

Quote:

---

"you've alwyas been defeated"

---

Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.

---

Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.

---

Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.

---

Wasn't addressing you.

---

I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it

---

Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.

---

Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.

---

Try DMT, find out this reality is less real than others and then we'll see what you think.

---

Theorizing you live in a computer simulation does't alter the fact that general relativity and quantum theory reliably describe our universe.

---

I don't believe in simulation theory whatsoever and I'm discussing cosmogony: quantum theory is a byproduct of cosmogony.

The theory I'm interested in posits that Consciousness, not spacetime and its objects, is fundamental reality and can be usefully described as a network of conscious agents.

Donald Hoffman and his team are working on it:

Our new paper, "Fusions of consciousness," is published today, and free. We propose a dynamics of conscious agents beyond spacetime, and a mapping of this dynamics into spacetime physics via our new application of decorated permutations to Markov chains.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN

— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) January 9, 2023

They propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents.

It's more like spacetime is a headset and tool for consciousness to have utility. Consciousness would be the substrate of reality not physicalism and this consciousness is metaphysical.

This all comes back to the false belief of there being no causality to spacetime. You can't have spacetime causing spacetime or you have a paradox. So what science is going to have to do is show how spacetime emerged without pointing to spacetime. Saying it's a random phenomenon without causality isn't going to cut it and is even more radical and requires more faith than belief in a god.

---

All of that is nothing more than non-evidentiary philosophical musings, at best entertaining nonsense against what we know to be true about the physical universe, and cosmogony. It's apparent the interaction of quantum
particles, energy, gravity and space time began millions, if not billions of years before consciousness even evolved. Neuroscience is a better field for understanding consciousness as a physical biological process. The evidence of reality leads in that direction.

With regard to space/time, if space/time are quantum variables, then they can be quantum fluctuations, without causation.

---

Hoffman is a neuroscientist and this isn't philosophical. He has the math to back up his theories.

This shows you don't understand the theory at all. We haven't proven that the human brain creates consciousness.

---

Mathematics is simply a description, in this case of a philosphical idea. By itself it doesn't prove anything. There are no tests, or experiments that have produced empirical evidence for their hypothesis. String theory, for example, has some interesting mathmatics, but it hasn't proven or led to anything (yet) that tells us something that is testable about our universe. We certainly know that any animal consciousness is a biologic function. There is no evidence of consciousness before or after death. The whole concept borders on mysticism.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?

For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.

---

I don't believe I have seen that thread, but I doubt there was anything of substance there. Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.

---

If creationism is true, then so is Intelligent Design. But I understand your avoidance, your intellectual cop out.. Your religion has you knowing the answers before the questions are even asked.

---

I don't have a religion. Creationism isn't true, so you don't have to worry about intelligent design. Science asks questions. Religion doesn't.

---

But you're the one copping out. You're exactly the religion you describe. If you have an argument against the points in the ID thread, if creationism isn't true, then lets hear your arguments against the points there. Or do you prefer to stick with knowing the answers to the questions before they are asked?

---

ID is a faith based rehash of creationism. Science is based on empirical evidence.

---

And this empirical evidence continues to refute your religion of naturalism, in favor of intelligent design.

And you continue to avoid the debate on the ID thread. It's obvious you don't have anything except the repetition of mantras (like a religion).

---

What ID thread? Debate it here if you like. You should to read the definition of 'naturalism.'

---

Both this thread and the ID thread were at the top together often, and you've been commenting on this one. So either you have an awareness problem, or you knew your religion of naturalism would get shellacked.

Naturalism denies the existence of the supernatural, a belief that has no science behind it - it takes faith. So yours is as much a religion as those you hate.

---

I don't constantly check this board. If I had noticed it, I likely would have participated as I have on many other similar threads. I'm an empiracist. I don't have faith in anything. Show me empirical evidence for the supernatural and I'll conform my beliefs to the evidence of reality. I don't think you will say the same, because religion is built upon faith in something without evidence. Science is at odds with all of the doctrines of religions, because there is no testable empirical evidence to support faith in the supernatural.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

I keep it simple so you can get it.

---

Is that why you avoided the Intelligent Design thread? Couldn't dumb it down enough for us?

For an atheist who thinks of the other side as an "intellectual cop out", how ironic that your rebuttal to the intellectual points made there was conspicuously absent.

---

I don't believe I have seen that thread, but I doubt there was anything of substance there. Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.

---

If creationism is true, then so is Intelligent Design. But I understand your avoidance, your intellectual cop out.. Your religion has you knowing the answers before the questions are even asked.

---

I don't have a religion. Creationism isn't true, so you don't have to worry about intelligent design. Science asks questions. Religion doesn't.

---

But you're the one copping out. You're exactly the religion you describe. If you have an argument against the points in the ID thread, if creationism isn't true, then lets hear your arguments against the points there. Or do you prefer to stick with knowing the answers to the questions before they are asked?

---

ID is a faith based rehash of creationism. Science is based on empirical evidence.

---

And this empirical evidence continues to refute your religion of naturalism, in favor of intelligent design.

And you continue to avoid the debate on the ID thread. It's obvious you don't have anything except the repetition of mantras (like a religion).

---

What ID thread? Debate it here if you like. You should to read the definition of 'naturalism.'

---

Both this thread and the ID thread were at the top together often, and you've been commenting on this one. So either you have an awareness problem, or you knew your religion of naturalism would get shellacked.

Naturalism denies the existence of the supernatural, a belief that has no science behind it - it takes faith. So yours is as much a religion as those you hate.

---

I don't constantly check this board. If I had noticed it, I likely would have participated as I have on many other similar threads. I'm an empiracist. I don't have faith in anything. Show me empirical evidence for the supernatural and I'll conform my beliefs to the evidence of reality. I don't think you will say the same, because religion is built upon faith in something without evidence. Science is at odds with all of the doctrines of religions, because there is no testable empirical evidence to support faith in the supernatural.

---

Not really. Science simply begins with the assumptions that faith explains and science cannot.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Belief in a power outside of the physical universe only comes from the imaginations of humans. There is no other source. Science does ask questions, and strives to find the answers. Religion presumes, in the imaginations of humans, to know the answers before the questions are even asked. Religion is an intellectual cop out.

---

If religion is an intellectual cop out, then how is it that you've always been defeated intellectually by Christians?

---

Wishfull thinking on your part doesn't make it reality.

---

No, it's well documented on this site here: https://sicem365.com/forums/7

There, it is also well documented how your argument solely involves repeating the same phrase over and over, like your "Religion presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked." You must have recycled this repetitive tripe at least a dozen times.

---

---

Quote:

---

"you've alwyas been defeated"

---

Hmmm? Who repeats themselves? The more you pronounce something as true doesn't change the facts or the truth. You're offended because you've been trained and reinforced to believe in what is obviously obsurd. To confront those beliefs requires you to reconcile the time, and emotional commitment you have invested in those beliefs with reality. You would be required to accept that everything you were taught to believe about your existence is wrong, the social community you identify with is wrong, your understanding about who you are as a sentient being in this universe is all wrong. That's a hard pill to ask anyone to swallow. But, deep down I suspect you know it's true. That's why it is so offensive.

---

Deep down, you know that the universe, and those of us in it, do not exist by chance, despite your wishing it was so. To face that reality, however, you would have to accept that your mind is not capable of really understanding the world in which we live or our place in it, and you take an incredible amount of pride in your own ability to understand the world. It provides you with feelings of superiority in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and you need those feeling to feel good about yourself.

---

Wrong on both counts. I find it totally humbling to exist by chance.

---

Wasn't addressing you.

---

I know. If you want a private discussion you know how to do it

---

Since I wasn't addressing you and you knew it, your claim I am wrong and your support for that argument from your own personal self knowledge isn't really relevant.

---

Relevant because TS are a lot alike on these issues.

---

Try DMT, find out this reality is less real than others and then we'll see what you think.

---

Theorizing you live in a computer simulation does't alter the fact that general relativity and quantum theory reliably describe our universe.

---

I don't believe in simulation theory whatsoever and I'm discussing cosmogony: quantum theory is a byproduct of cosmogony.

The theory I'm interested in posits that Consciousness, not spacetime and its objects, is fundamental reality and can be usefully described as a network of conscious agents.

Donald Hoffman and his team are working on it:

Our new paper, "Fusions of consciousness," is published today, and free. We propose a dynamics of conscious agents beyond spacetime, and a mapping of this dynamics into spacetime physics via our new application of decorated permutations to Markov chains.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN

— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) January 9, 2023

They propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents.

It's more like spacetime is a headset and tool for consciousness to have utility. Consciousness would be the substrate of reality not physicalism and this consciousness is metaphysical.

This all comes back to the false belief of there being no causality to spacetime. You can't have spacetime causing spacetime or you have a paradox. So what science is going to have to do is show how spacetime emerged without pointing to spacetime. Saying it's a random phenomenon without causality isn't going to cut it and is even more radical and requires more faith than belief in a god.

---

With regard to space/time, if space/time are quantum variables, then they can be quantum fluctuations, without causation.

---

No. Quantum cosmology only theorizes that these quantum fluctuations could have given rise to our space/time universe if they followed a certain mathematical construction - but only if boundary constraints were placed on it by the physicist in order to get the result that they want.... which takes an intelligent mind with intent and purpose! Thanks for supporting Intelligent Design.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, math is not a causal agent. Math doesn't bring anything into existence. It only a description of something that is already there. This is something even Alexander Vilenkin and Stephen Hawking conceded. Whatever this math was describing, by necessity it must exist outside the this universe, In other words, if quantum fluctuations produced this universe, then the math had to be there. But what's behind the math being there?

---

No, but I do agree that math is not a causal agent. Math is a language to describe what is observable, and abstract concepts yet to be tested. Quantum fluctations exist. It is plausible in quatum theory for space/time to be spontanesous along with the laws that govern our universe, which would impact the mathmatics we use to describe those laws. If there is a multiverse, each universe may have its own unique space/time with a whole different set of governing laws, and different descriptive mathematics.