Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

[Zzyzx]

.

Let me ask you this; "and what exactly do the good debaters on this Forum bring to the table of this Forum?

I will start a thread in General Chat entitled "What makes a good debater" " starting with "There is no set pattern for "good debaters" " all are different. There are, however, some characteristics that occur with frequency among those I consider good debaters."

I think you need to look to yourself, your presentation and your manner, that shoots you in the foot. The people you hope to convince are right here in front of you, face to face (as close as we can get other than visiting you in AZ).

Yes, now visiting me here in AZ would be face to face, and my invitation stands for anyone and everyone here.

Some time ago when you bemoaned that no Forum members would meet with you, I clearly said that I would do so at the Little Rock, AR airport. Failing to take advantage of that opportunity, it seems as though now you suggest that people come to your location.

Why would anyone do that? Who would care about your books and sticky notes? Some of us might be willing to travel in order to meet members we respect or admire (and I have done so).

The question it should arise is "where in Heavens name does this guy come up with his ideas? What forms his thoughts? Is it coming from 4 billion years of accumulated evolution of his brain?

Who cares where Arian gets his ideas? Some may have suggestions but probably should not state them in threads.

]

If as yet we remain unconvinced, blaming social media, corporate commercialism and everything that has drowned out that 'small still voice' conveniently leaves out how poorly your ideas are constructed. It stops you from examining them. It's obviously important for you to communicate them.

Look, it's no secret, nor do I keep it hidden that I have no formal education, and that I respond as I learn, fighting my past religious indoctrinations, re-reading Scripture over and over again to make sure I am not responding from my old 'Christian Religious POV' as many here erroneously keep telling me I do, I also look up words to make sure I have the correct definition before I just blurt it out, as I noticed that many Very Smart and educated people here do.

Some of us do not have the problem of overcoming religious indoctrination. In my case, indoctrination was attempted but failed completely and as a child I rejected those strange tales and notions. Instead, I focused on and learned about the real world.

I mentioned the social media and the power of commercialization to bring it to our attention, why would I reveal something if I was just using it to hide behind? Like playing hide go seek, and saying: "I'm not hiding behind the curtain!", .. I mean gee-whiz, I hope you don't see me that simpleminded!?

Decorum and Forum Rules preclude comments on "simpleminded" or other descriptive terminology.

Could it be possible that peoples responses to my observations are from the brainwashed mind-controlled perspective?

Of course it is possible at least in some cases. Others may regard your pontifications and claims of special knowledge (as well as encounters with demons, UFOs, and mysterious men) as poppycock.

And that this is why it is strange for you guys to hear someone mention brainwashed, mind controlled, religious?

That is not strange to hear at all. We hear nonsense quite frequently. When we hear such things it is common to ask for verification. When the response is nothing more than personal anecdotes and opinions that is not considered convincing.

Have you ever heard anyone refer to their Big-bang and Evolution stand as religious?

I do not recall that being claimed other than in your oft repeated opinion (that has not been shown to be accurate or truthful).

I mention that when I hear Richard Dawkins speak, I see no difference from how any other religious fanatic speaks. Absolutely no difference.

Confirmation bias works wonderfully, doesn't it?

Say you invent something and want to market it. And everyone you take your invention to says "It doesn't work." Would you blame (literally) every extenuating circumstance like the weather, corporate greed, and the stupidity of every single person who can't get your invention to work? Or would you take a long look at your invention and examine it for what is going wrong?

You tell me? After all the ingenious things Nicola Tesla came up with, including HAARP, why did he spent the rest of his life after that in a small apartment, alone and the world outside believing he was a mad-scientist who was out to destroy the world (see early Superman cartoons and comics), instead of being known for what he really intended to do; to to provide everyone with free-energy?

Newton defined gravity, .. did he produce another greater in mass object to pull things off the earth before people started believing in him? Or did he just suggest things like that till other intelligent scientists started visualizing it and agreeing with him?

Newton observed what happened in the real world. He had no need to create anything.

Again, .. for the hundredth time, .. I am not inventing God our Creator, the Only One Possible here, but just as Newton, I am defining Him.

Correction: you are expressing opinions that have not been supported with credible, verifiable information.

And just as Newton's gravity, yes, people can go on living without the definition of gravity, just as people could go on living without my scientific evidence of our Creator.

Yes, and people can go on living without evidence of fairies, leprechauns, and unicorns too.

For people who care less about some 'scientific proof of our Creator', and are very satisfied with 'created gods' that they claim they don't believe in, it really is baseless to argue about this.
You see it was Z who posted it, and obviously it wasn't so he could consider the possibility of the Creator being defined, because he makes it clear he does not believe in a Creator God, especially the Hebrew Bronze/Iron aged one.
Why?
Well obviously he did his homework and found the 'undeniable evidence' that those gods, or the best one of those gods the Creator don't exist.

CORRECTION: Z NEVER claims that "gods" (including "creators") do not exist. Instead, I repeatedly state that ANY of the thousands of proposed "gods" MAY exist " awaiting credible, verifiable information regarding which, if any, is more than the product of human imagination.

Is it necessary to create a straw-man and attribute it (falsely) to Z? Try debating against my actual position.

As you can see from his responses, he never ONCE even considers the possibility.

Dead wrong. I am HAVE considered the possibility that one or more of the thousands of proposed "gods" MAY exist.

It would be prudent (and honorable) to debate against my REAL position " not one you invent for me.

So in summary; "Mind, .. what mind, all it is, is the product of the brain, unable to create anything then dreams, hallucinations and wishful thinking!"

What, exactly, have you presented that can be show to be something other than opinions, imagination, dreams, hallucinations or wishful thinking?

Same like gravity, .. what's gravity Newton? We throw things up, and they come back down, and this happened for the past millions and billions of years, .. I know, Big-bang Evolutionists have all this documented, and they should know, they even have complete details, videos, pictures, everything depicting the Big-bang and how 'time evolved' as a dimension, evolving space and everything we observe in the universe today.

Sure enough, those "evolutionists" and "scientists" steadfastly maintain that water flows downhill unless constrained or restricted AND demonstrate that for anyone interested and motivated. Isn't that terrible of them?

Supernaturalists (of any ilk) tend to claim special knowledge of invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities and events " but fail to demonstrate any such thing. Isn't that terrible of them?

All of these things to blame, yet again, because your claim is rejected.

It's not really just blame, I am pointing out the obvious possible reasons why you guys cannot understand me.

The most important reason that I reject (not fail to understand) what you present is it appears to be fantasy and/or unverifiable claim of "special knowledge" (though some have suggested less complimentary evaluations).

I understand rejecting something that just doesn't work,

Excellent. Unverifiable claims, stories, testimonials DO NOT work in debate. Time to try something different " like credible, verifiable evidence.

you know, like black holes, parallel universes, the observation of dark matter etc. You see as I have been pointing out that we can reject things for many various reasons like; religion, religious indoctrinations like being taught that things could and do pop out of 'nothing', or that God cannot be proven scientifically but is only a product of religious doctrine, and each religion produces a little different 'concept' of god/gods, and creators which are not to be questioned but graciously accepted as facts based on faith alone.

It is not unwarranted to reject claims that one has encountered "demons" and similar anecdotes that cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination, emotional turmoil or delusion.

It could be that in the final analysis, there is much wrong with your claim.

I have seen/read all ya's analysis, and as I have said countless times, we have not yet reached the first step which must be agreed upon by both of us, that is to understand the meaning of Infinite vs. finite, Eternal vs. time, the mind vs. the brains 4 billion years of accumulated evolution product called instinct, the Creator vs. the created to avoid infinite regress, and so on, and so forth.

Is this a claim that you understand "infinite" and "eternal" and "creator" but no one else here has that level of knowledge?

So just because I am not being understood, you shouldn't be making any 'final analysis', .. I mean would a final analysis of something you have absolutely no idea of be rational?

Not being understood may reflect not making any sense and not being able to substantiate claims and stories.

I have a question for you; what is the 'final analysis of the hypothetical 'Dark Matter'?

Is that somehow related to "Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator"?

Dictionary: Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe.

I mean it's not like they went on and built on this hypothesis, or God forbid teach it in schools to our children how the universe works or anything, have they?

See comment above.

Blaming everything else around you for the paucity of your claims is not convincing evidence at all. Going round and round about the President(s), the fall of Mankind, 911 and evil mind bending commercials causing people to not buy your claims is just self pity. I'll wager the denizens of this forum respond no differently than other people in your life when it comes to your claims. The common denominator in all this? Your bogus claims.

So you don't think "blaming why you just can't get a grip on what I am telling you"
could very well be that cause? Can it be at least possibly be the cause?

Of course, you MAY have special knowledge. With that superior position it should be quite easy to present it in convincing, compelling fashion.

Paucity of me claims? Really? Maybe you should read again all that I have written, all the definitions we debated, then tell me where is the scarcity in the information I gave?

What appears to be missing is verification / substantiation for your claims

OK, let's start with you, .. from the beginning: the word Infinite, do you understand that there could exist various sizes of 'infinite'?

Better yet. Let's begin with YOU demonstrating "Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator." that you claimed to possess.

So far the "smoke and mirrors" and various pontifications have evidently not convinced anyone.

[arian]

.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

Any truth can be denied.

But that doesn't make it not true.

The fact that there is a creation is probable cause for a "Creator" of some sort. (AKA "THE Creator")

There is no excuse for a person who cannot accept that. (Rom:1:20:)

You're absolutely right!

The fact that there is a God is probable cause for a creator of some sort. Aka THE super creator.

Any truth can be denied.

But that doesn't make it not true.

All praise the entity that created God, Amen!


Wait, do you disagree? Do you think that just becuase God exists, it doesn't mean that he was created? What? But you just said that the existence of something is probable cause for the existence of something that created it. Right? god exists, right? That's probable cause for the existence of God' creator.

Good. I'm glad we're on the same page again. For a moment I thought you'd commit the logical fallacy of special pleading.

So, where were we?? Oh yeah, All praise Super God, who created God, who created us!

But wait! Who created Super God?

All Hail Super Duper God! Who created Super God, who created God, who created us!

Good point atheistbuddy, that's why we here, to identify the un-created Creator. 'The Creator', and not by sci-fi stories, or religious stories, but by something we can all identify with! The Creators identity must be revealed through scientific observation which anyone should be able to reproduce and agree with.

Take care.

Very good! So let's explore the concept of an un-created creator.

The first thing we MUST assume, if we're going to comtemplate an uncreated creator is this: It's possible for something as complex as the universe (or more) to exist without having been created.

No, .. nothing 'created', no matter how complex can be considered 'uncreated'.

We MUST make that assumption if we're going to consider an uncreated creator, right? Becuase if it's impossible for something as complex as the universe to exist without being created, then the creator cannot possibly be uncreated.

Again, we cannot 'assume' anything about the 'created' being 'uncreated', it just cannot happen. Just as nothing finite can ever become infinite, no matter how long or how fast it expands, or grows within infinity.

So, axiom 1: It's possible for something as complex as the universe to exist without having been created.

Nothing created, no matter how ID'd it was, can be considered not having been created.

This is a NECESSARY axiom. You CANNOT deny it. If you do, then you negate the possibility that an uncreated creator can possibly exist.

It's not a rational axiom.
finite can never become Infinite, and everything that has ever been created is finite. There are finite-created creators that can create, but only ONE uncreated Creator, the Infinite and Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am". We all have a part of Him, which was given to us and was not created, .. it is our 'mind/spirit'.

We humans were created from the dust of the earth, the part we examine through science, that is the body part. Our mind/spirit which can never be created, was given to us, and placed (breathed) inside this body made of dust by the Creator Himself, which makes us both 'created and uncreated'.
The body/tent as I said is the created, and our mind/spirit is of God our Creator, which can never be created because it is Infinite and Eternal, .. so He always existed, or in simple terms He IS. No beginning, and no end, just Is.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

We 'created-creators' can create with our minds, then use this finite body, and take materials from the created stuff our Creator made for us to use, and create whatever we imagined.
You cannot create something without imagining it first, then, Intelligently Design it UNLESS you have been indoctrinated by this Big-bang Evolution Religion that claims that universes could just pop out of 'nothing', and that you, the real Infinite Mind you is just an illusion created by evolution, which as I have said 'popped out of nothing' for no apparent reason.

axiom 2: The universe exists.

You agree with that, right?

That's right my friend, .. the universe exists. And 'because' the universe exists, and EVERYTHING that we have available IS from the universe, proves that there must be an uncreated Creator who is NOT part of this 'created' universe. Tillich really gets into that, but I believe he still didn't understand, or possess a real definable concept of God our Creator, .. which I have.
Go figure, here was a genius, educated, smart, well known, yet God chose an idiot, and uneducated and simpleminded vermin like me to reveal Himself through!?

Now, let's look at axioms 1 and 2 at the same time. Please read them out loud:

The universe exists, and it's possible for something as complex as the universe to exist without having been created.

Wrong.
Tell me, can you examine the universe? I mean scientifically, can you look at, crush, burn and change its energy-character of the things we have in this universe? Then you know it has been created, and is NOT THE Creator.

Now let's look at our mind, can you look at, burn, or change the minds physical characteristics in any way?
No.
Why?
Because the mind is who you are, and it is not made up of anything created, or anything physical, .. so even think to 'burn something' is created by the mind.
I can dream up a beautiful mansion, and burn it right there in my mind, but has my mind been effected in any way?
No.
Only what I have created IN my mind can be burnt, my mind remains unaffected.

Now the 'brain' is another story, which is what I warned people not to do, to imagine the 'nothing' with the brain, as a source of being, as some kind of darkness, or 'non-existence' and your 'mind' will fry your brain, for all things are possible if you believe it strong enough.

Now don't mess this up, what I said was that "anything is possible with the mind, .. to achieve ON the created things" like the brain, not on the uncreated mind. Another words our mind can alter/change/have effect on creation, not the uncreated Creator, the Mind.

Now, although axioms 1 and 2 show that the universe doesn't NEED a creator, it's possible that a creator exists nonetheless. And it's also possible that, as per axioms 1 and 2, this creator was not created.

Buddy that comment (which is very common for atheists) is as irrational as anything could get. This is why I ask that people leave their religion out of this particular debate because religion just clouds the mind.

Once we've determined that the universe was created (remember that anything that we can alter or examine, even if it's a thought, it is created) and nothing created of 'finite' could ever become the Infinite, or the Un-created, or something that has not been created by a Creator.

This means that it's possible that the universe was created by an uncreated creator.

Not only is it possible, but that is the only logical conclusion, that the Universe must have been created by an un-created Creator.

Or it's possible that the universe was created by something that was created by an uncreated creator.

Etc.

This is also possible, but that is once we the created creators evolve/grow in the wisdom of our God and Creator and are able to create material things from our dreams. But imagine the task, like creating a car for instance starting with a dream, then planning and creating the laws that defines and creates every atom, that makes up every part of that car.

But we are so far away from reaching that at this point, that we can't even walk on water for long. Any distraction and we start sinking.
Whose fault is this? That's right, it's religions fault, like the atheistic Big-Bang Evolution religion that tells people they are nothing but evolving animals with no real mind or free will. That; Time is the main cause of their existence AND the cause of their evolution, not some plan and a lot of hard work, but time alone. Talking about brain damage, these religions, along with all them other religions whose Priests and prophets tell you the only way humanity will survive, is if we all just killed ourselves, kill each other like the Heavens Gate cult, Jim Jones and many others.
This last one like Agenda 21 is a real whopper, effects the entire worlds population, and it's long term plan is to make sure no biological life would survive after the total human annihilation, by nuking the Earth into something like Venus.

This is against even their own Big-bang Evolution theory, since in Evolution everything evolves for the better, .. it 'evolves' by its own, not try to Big-bang an already complete and beautiful universe with biological life that can reason into oblivion!?

It could be that there are 2 levels, or 187, or 327.

But isn't it really silly to assume the existence of levels that we have no evidence exist?

Yes it is, and it is even sillier to try to create a level we have absolutely no evidence of, don't you think? You know, like they are trying and hoping to achieve in the LHC, by CERN. To Big-bang another universe into existence right in the middle of this one? lol.

Let's just assume the existence of things for which there is evidence of existence.

The universe exists. We know that.

If that's ALL we have evidence for, then the only reasonable conclusion is to assume that it exists and it wasn't created, since a creator is not necessary.

If we can see it, examine it, take it apart and see how it works, the ONLY logical conclusion is that it was created. Now there is another view which has never been observed, which is that 13.75 billion years ago it popped out of 'nothing' for no reason, it created this dimension in nothing called time, which evolved it to what we see and observe of the universe today. But this one needs high doses of religion to believe, since it goes against everything we have observed in science so far.

Science has never been around 13.75 billion years ago, nor has any real scientist ever claimed he witnessed and observed a universe popping out of 'nothing'. THAT there takes religion to believe, and religion requires blind faith, not scientific evidence?

The only way it makes sense to assume additional layers of creators, is if there is EVIDENCE for these additional layers. In the absence of evidence of additional layers, to assume that there are 2, 17, or 99583 layers is totaly silly.

So. Can you please show the evidence that something created the universe, and that nothing created this entity that created the universe?

We know the universe was created because of the reasons I listed above, and also that no scientist has ever observed anything popping out of nothing, let alone an entire universe, right?

I have shown that our mind, which is infinite and eternal is able to create, plan and design things and then we create this with the finite created body, hands, so I have also shown a creator by how we plan and create things, which is us humans.

The universe is created, we create, but the design part comes from our imagination, our mind which cannot be seen. So, if we can create with our mind, from the things already created that we 'did NOT create', .. which our body is made out of, what would be the best scientific guess as to who created the things we didn't?

The choices are obvious;

1. The things that we didn't create, no one has. So it must have popped out of nothing, and created itself for no reason or plan, and the best explanation for the reasons for all existence is, .. that it HAPPENED.

2. Since we have a mind that is infinite and eternal, that cannot be seen or detected by any created physical thing, yet we know we dream and design things with it, then create what we dreamed up, .. the best conclusion would be that there must exist a Mind like ours, who can dream, plan and create like we can, who must have created the things we didn't!?

Now, once you demonstrate this, you'll instantly become the most famous person in the history of the world. You'll be revered by scientists in a way that Einstein and Newton never were.

Wow, .. how long have you been on this earth? The entire Big bang and Evolution theory was created to keep God our Infinite and Eternal Creator out of peoples minds. As I have shown that it is the biggest unscientific BS ever devised, and it came by a religious priest, a Jesuit Catholic who spent his life bowing down to an idol of Marry and spent hours praying to this idol counting a rosary. He worshipped Deities who reside in the supernatural realm, .. ah that would be demons according to the Bible, which is an abomination to our Creator God.

Real scientists are warned never to 'speak against' these two religious beliefs, the Big-bang theory or the Evolution theory if they want to keep their job. Teachers and Professors are warned directly, or indirectly of the same thing. "Teach it and shut up!"

And why should real genuine scientists who have never claimed to witness any of the bs that those Sci-Fientists claim have observed and documented, like Big-Bang's and single celled bacteria popping out of a wet rock and slowly (over 4 billion years to be exact) turning into apes, of which now 7.2 billion are showing that their brains are instinctively calling out forming words and even asking stupid questions like "who am I, where did I come from?" when they know the truth? Only they have become scared, not willing to risk it all for something much bigger and greater!

No Real Scientist believes in either the BB, or the Evolution theory, only you will not find many to admit it.

Did you notice that every Movie Star, especially if they want to work for Jewish Directors or Producers have to do so many gay/transvestite scenes in order to keep their jobs? The same with Scientists, they are required to contribute a certain minimum amount of Big bang and Evolution rhetoric, to get recognition for their hard work in real science. The last thing that the controlling mighty Nazi/Zionist controlling powers would do is make me famous.

I mean just look here on this forum, NOT ONE person has even acknowledged the possibility of what I reveal here as scientific evidence as even a possibility. You don't think that after working so hard demeaning what I said that they would now acknowledge that Creator God exists do you?

I mean that would be like asking Mormons to give up their demon-god Mormo, .. or Christians who have been worshipping triune gods, plural demons and Lucifer himself (as the Pope announced) for the past 1,700 years to give them up for our Creator God, the only One possible?

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

You will be revered by theists to the point that you will be considered as important theologically as Moses, Jesus and Mohammed.

lol, .. again my friend, why would theists, who go to Schools of Divinity, and Trinity (that's three gods minimum) Colleges revere someone who has revealed that God our Creator, the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am", the only ONE possible by no other means then through science? I mean that destroys all their gods they've been worshipping for the past 1,700 years? What would happen to all them colleges that teach theology (understanding of gods) and how to become Diviners, mediums to all them gods?
That would mean that instead of blind faith, people could know God through evidence from real observable substance, and that they could know this God by their own free will, not being threatened with hell to accept the religious versions.

You will instantly win the Nobel Prize. Every monarch in the world will want to knight you, and every country will build monuments in your glory. It will become inevitable that you will be unanimously elected the leader of the world.

Yeah, be made a King like my beloved Brother Jesus was, right? There it lay right over his head: "The King of the Jews!".
And do you see the monuments they have been building for Him for the past 1,700 years? Yep, .. still bleeding from his scars, with a tormented expression on his face, a crown of thorns on his head and still hanging on that accursed cross. Do you actually believe that THAT is how Jesus wants to be remembered, .. as a criminal sentenced to death? Or as the resurrected Victor who took the sin of the world upon His innocent self, and won the victory over the greatest enemy, Satan?

Now they have created a demonic 'Post human' New Age following called "The Burning Man" where all the different pagan religions come together and build a temple for their favorite deity in the desert, and worship there. At the end, they have 'The Man' on this huge wooden cross which they catch on fire, and if they dose it with enough charcoal fuel and get those flames going really high, they call it a "Good burn!"
Now that's more what that 'Nobel Prize' would look like for me too. I do agree would be a noble prize I am not worthy of.

So, once that happens, don't forget about me. I'm the one who asked that you provide the evidence that made you famous!

I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THAT EVIDENCE! Until you provide that evidence, of course, to assume the eixstence of multiple layers of creators without evidence, is completely silly. All we can assume until you provide this evidence is that the universe is the uncreated creator.

I only pray that I could convince you of the truth, and to be know only for having saved another soul from eternal doom.

I can only show you THE Creator, the One without infinite regress, .. onions have layers, religions have layers, gods upon gods which you can study through theology in a good Religious school like the Trinity collage. So what is it you want, scientific truth, or gods created by the tens of thousands of religions?

[KenRU]

I'm guessing you don't have much hope then of swaying people to your POV, based upon your response.

Well it doesn't look too promising that's for sure, because of the total control of social media, and everyone, especially if they want to make it in business knows that commercialization works, worth even a million$ for a 30 second commercial during the big Games is worth it.
Once they have the control of peoples minds, a little reminder here and there (church, school, movies etc.) is all it takes to keep them from listening to that still small voice.

"Hey, let's rob that house, they're gone on vacation!"
Mikey: "No, that's wrong, they're our neighbor."
"What, .. no? Where did that come from? Are you having some mental issues? Hey guys, Mikey here still listens to voices in his head!"

Well then you contradict yourself.

In Post 495: "But I have hope that a few here may realize the differences, and demand we go back to 'before Constantine's creation of the Christion Religion' .. where Believers were called 'Christian' simply based on them being seen by the world as "Christ-like", not something they called themselves. Actually calling the name of your church back then as "The Church of the Christ-like", or something like "The Church of the Holy-ones", .. or "Church of Righteousness" etc. would not be considered very 'Christ-like'."

Which is it?

Do you or do you not have hope of swaying people? If so, why not start a thread? Find out just how many see logic in your arguments?

I also find it remarkable that you know that everyone has some small voice in their head saying that they should be believing something else. How do you possess such knowledge? Have you polled many people?

Or is this just guesswork on your end, again?

When I was younger it was more obvious that even B.A. gang members had that still small voice they had to contend with, .. but as the technologically advanced time went by, where now they are able to have every corner/angle covered, home, school, church, job, .. including debating sights, .. so that's right, it is becoming less and less obvious. It's more and more like "Hey, just do it! Stop thinking man, what, .. you're waiting for someone's approval or something? Come on dude, remember you are an animal, so Go For It, .. don't think just Do It, .. Rah, .. Rah, .. Rah!"

Like 9-11 and the wars associated with that, I mean just listen to the Presidents speeches. Does it look like he cared what he was blurting out, all them incriminating comments? Of course not. He knew that it no longer mattered, that if he said "aliens from Mars downed those 3 buildings and that these aliens ordered him to blame the Arabs, .. or Jews, .. or the Russians, they would simply accept it.

Yes, .. that 'still-small-voice' has finally been silenced, .. or the 'noise' in peoples head blocks it out, and you and the most outspoken here should be proud of that, because you do your part better than the commercials. Actually the commercials just put it out there, but you have to debate it. So you are really like the back-bone of these agendas, .. like not just telling people that they are dumb animals, but keeping them believing it.

Take care KenRU

None of this explains how you come to "know" what is in other people's minds.

[arian]

I'm guessing you don't have much hope then of swaying people to your POV, based upon your response.

Well it doesn't look too promising that's for sure, because of the total control of social media, and everyone, especially if they want to make it in business knows that commercialization works, worth even a million$ for a 30 second commercial during the big Games is worth it.
Once they have the control of peoples minds, a little reminder here and there (church, school, movies etc.) is all it takes to keep them from listening to that still small voice.

"Hey, let's rob that house, they're gone on vacation!"
Mikey: "No, that's wrong, they're our neighbor."
"What, .. no? Where did that come from? Are you having some mental issues? Hey guys, Mikey here still listens to voices in his head!"

Well then you contradict yourself.

In Post 495: "But I have hope that a few here may realize the differences, and demand we go back to 'before Constantine's creation of the Christion Religion' .. where Believers were called 'Christian' simply based on them being seen by the world as "Christ-like", not something they called themselves. Actually calling the name of your church back then as "The Church of the Christ-like", or something like "The Church of the Holy-ones", .. or "Church of Righteousness" etc. would not be considered very 'Christ-like'."

Which is it?

Well, .. I have hope, but I also know it doesn't have to manifest on this forum. We have the strong debaters kind of 'speak' for others, I'm sure you noticed that, right? Like you, Z and the rest of us that debate a lot, we may sound intimidating to newbies, but for us we pretty much know what the others next response will be, so we may seem to come on strong.

What my hope is that some people may read my posts, and act upon it, or at least bring it up in their Bible study group, .. like for instance: "This arian guy on this Debating Christianity and Religion Forum mentioned that we, of the Constantine created Christian Religion may have always worshipped various Devine beings (demons), or plural demons like Legion for the past 1,700 years, and not the God of the Bible "I Am Who I Am"! And he even brought up that the Jesuits were sworn protectors of the Christian Deities, especially the plural triune gods, and the new Pope announced, .. more like clarified who exactly was that Deity; Lucifer!"

Do you or do you not have hope of swaying people? If so, why not start a thread? Find out just how many see logic in your arguments?

I have here and there through PM and debates, but this un-Biblical 'Trinity Doctrine' seems to be seared into the 'Christian mind'. It's like the un-scientific, unobserved word/theory 'Evolution', people right away associate it with the word 'science'.
Or the word 'God', it is almost immediately associated with 'Religion'. No different then the good old days when we used to get the guys together and go to the Park to play some baseball, or soccer and have a really gay day, now as we come home from the game, the neighbors look at us through their windows as a bunch of homo's.
Martha peels back the curtains and says: "George, look at those gay men coming from the park, I wonder what they been doing there again? They sure look awfully gay!"

So yea, .. we've been playing the word-game for quite some time now, and since definitions have been so diversified that they could mean two or more opposing things, it's not really worth debating any longer.

And when words loose their meaning, Lucifer's plan for "A World Without Rules!" has been achieved. It is then that people will realize just how important a victory for Lucifer it was to legalize 'Gay Marriage'. Let's see the Christian Preachers mention how our God of the Bible sees homosexuality as an abomination!? Legally this is now considered discrimination open for persecution. And for many here the Bible will officially be considered the most evil Book on Earth.

I am sure you are looking forward for that glorious victory day, when people will be banned from Debating Forums, and maybe even arrested for mentioning, or quoting from the Bible.

I also find it remarkable that you know that everyone has some small voice in their head saying that they should be believing something else. How do you possess such knowledge? Have you polled many people?

Or is this just guesswork on your end, again?

When I was younger it was more obvious that even B.A. gang members had that still small voice they had to contend with, .. but as the technologically advanced time went by, where now they are able to have every corner/angle covered, home, school, church, job, .. including debating sights, .. so that's right, it is becoming less and less obvious. It's more and more like "Hey, just do it! Stop thinking man, what, .. you're waiting for someone's approval or something? Come on dude, remember you are an animal, so Go For It, .. don't think just Do It, .. Rah, .. Rah, .. Rah!"

Like 9-11 and the wars associated with that, I mean just listen to the Presidents speeches. Does it look like he cared what he was blurting out, all them incriminating comments? Of course not. He knew that it no longer mattered, that if he said "aliens from Mars downed those 3 buildings and that these aliens ordered him to blame the Arabs, .. or Jews, .. or the Russians, they would simply accept it.

Yes, .. that 'still-small-voice' has finally been silenced, .. or the 'noise' in peoples head blocks it out, and you and the most outspoken here should be proud of that, because you do your part better than the commercials. Actually the commercials just put it out there, but you have to debate it. So you are really like the back-bone of these agendas, .. like not just telling people that they are dumb animals, but keeping them believing it.

Take care KenRU

None of this explains how you come to "know" what is in other people's minds.

Oh come on, all you have to do is talk to people, and they will be more than happy to reveal what's on their mind.

[KenRU]

I'm guessing you don't have much hope then of swaying people to your POV, based upon your response.

Well it doesn't look too promising that's for sure, because of the total control of social media, and everyone, especially if they want to make it in business knows that commercialization works, worth even a million$ for a 30 second commercial during the big Games is worth it.
Once they have the control of peoples minds, a little reminder here and there (church, school, movies etc.) is all it takes to keep them from listening to that still small voice.

"Hey, let's rob that house, they're gone on vacation!"
Mikey: "No, that's wrong, they're our neighbor."
"What, .. no? Where did that come from? Are you having some mental issues? Hey guys, Mikey here still listens to voices in his head!"

Well then you contradict yourself.

In Post 495: "But I have hope that a few here may realize the differences, and demand we go back to 'before Constantine's creation of the Christion Religion' .. where Believers were called 'Christian' simply based on them being seen by the world as "Christ-like", not something they called themselves. Actually calling the name of your church back then as "The Church of the Christ-like", or something like "The Church of the Holy-ones", .. or "Church of Righteousness" etc. would not be considered very 'Christ-like'."

Which is it?

Well, .. I have hope, but I also know it doesn't have to manifest on this forum. We have the strong debaters kind of 'speak' for others, I'm sure you noticed that, right? Like you, Z and the rest of us that debate a lot, we may sound intimidating to newbies, but for us we pretty much know what the others next response will be, so we may seem to come on strong.

I never considered myself a strong debater, especially on this forum. But there may be a compliment in there somewhere, so thank you.

If youre worried about strong debaters intimidating responses, why not use the start a Poll feature. That should give you the results you expect then.

Do you or do you not have hope of swaying people? If so, why not start a thread? Find out just how many see logic in your arguments?

I have here and there through PM and debates, but this un-Biblical 'Trinity Doctrine' seems to be seared into the 'Christian mind'. It's like the un-scientific, unobserved word/theory 'Evolution', people right away associate it with the word 'science'.
Or the word 'God', it is almost immediately associated with 'Religion'. No different then the good old days when we used to get the guys together and go to the Park to play some baseball, or soccer and have a really gay day, now as we come home from the game, the neighbors look at us through their windows as a bunch of homo's.
Martha peels back the curtains and says: "George, look at those gay men coming from the park, I wonder what they been doing there again? They sure look awfully gay!"

So yea, .. we've been playing the word-game for quite some time now, and since definitions have been so diversified that they could mean two or more opposing things, it's not really worth debating any longer.

Words with multiple meanings will always be a truth, Arian. If you ignore context (as you did above) then yeah, its a problem.

And when words loose their meaning, Lucifer's plan for "A World Without Rules!" has been achieved. It is then that people will realize just how important a victory for Lucifer it was to legalize 'Gay Marriage'. Let's see the Christian Preachers mention how our God of the Bible sees homosexuality as an abomination!? Legally this is now considered discrimination open for persecution. And for many here the Bible will officially be considered the most evil Book on Earth.

There are soooo many things wrong with the above paragraph, it boggles the mind. Each sentence warrants a thread of its own. My advice, start a couple of new threads based on the topics above. I predict you will gets lots of responses.

I am sure you are looking forward for that glorious victory day, when people will be banned from Debating Forums, and maybe even arrested for mentioning, or quoting from the Bible.

The is no universe or alternate reality that would ever see me glad about repressing free speech. Nor is there a reality where it is a logical conclusion that repressive government regimes arise from rational thinking.

How you get from A to B here is about as circuitous as possible.

I also find it remarkable that you know that everyone has some small voice in their head saying that they should be believing something else. How do you possess such knowledge? Have you polled many people?

Or is this just guesswork on your end, again?

When I was younger it was more obvious that even B.A. gang members had that still small voice they had to contend with, .. but as the technologically advanced time went by, where now they are able to have every corner/angle covered, home, school, church, job, .. including debating sights, .. so that's right, it is becoming less and less obvious. It's more and more like "Hey, just do it! Stop thinking man, what, .. you're waiting for someone's approval or something? Come on dude, remember you are an animal, so Go For It, .. don't think just Do It, .. Rah, .. Rah, .. Rah!"

Like 9-11 and the wars associated with that, I mean just listen to the Presidents speeches. Does it look like he cared what he was blurting out, all them incriminating comments? Of course not. He knew that it no longer mattered, that if he said "aliens from Mars downed those 3 buildings and that these aliens ordered him to blame the Arabs, .. or Jews, .. or the Russians, they would simply accept it.

Yes, .. that 'still-small-voice' has finally been silenced, .. or the 'noise' in peoples head blocks it out, and you and the most outspoken here should be proud of that, because you do your part better than the commercials. Actually the commercials just put it out there, but you have to debate it. So you are really like the back-bone of these agendas, .. like not just telling people that they are dumb animals, but keeping them believing it. (

None of this explains how you come to "know" what is in other people's minds.

Oh come on, all you have to do is talk to people, and they will be more than happy to reveal what's on their mind.

I have asked people, and most of them dont hear that voice you speak of.

[arian]

Thank you Hamsaka.
Let me ask you this; "and what exactly do the good debaters on this Forum bring to the table of this Forum?
How exactly do they form their opinions, I mean I hope you are not suggesting everyone here went through some de-programming sessions to remove all the years of 'mind control' they have been subjected to are you?

You make so many assumptions in this brief paragraph that must be reasonably confirmed before communication can even happen, Arian.

Yes of course, and I thank you again.

First, the assumption you know for truth that 'everyone here' is 'programmed' and then you assume this 'programming' is specific to making one incapable of perceiving the truth claims you present. Two assumptions right there and that's just for starters.

Well of course I feel my assumption is correct, I men if you live in this country or any of the technologically advanced countries, we would all be subjected to the same 'programming'.
Have you ever taken a class in 'advertising', or better yet, advertising art where you get to design the art on the boxes for different products? Then you would better understand what I mean by 'programming'. I also lived in a Communist country, where TV was used especially for 'programming' people to think a certain way.
How much do you know of N. Korea? Tell me, do you think 'everyone' gets to be 'programmed' there?

I disagree that you or anyone can support that people here (or anywhere) has a conditioning that does what you claim it does. We would need to establish some evidence for this, as it is quite an extraordinary claim.

If you live here in the States, you would have somewhat different 'conditioning' then let's say if you lived in Australia, or England, or even Canada, and the 'evidence' is in ones writing/speech.

Extraordinary in that this claim indicates the minds of persons who you do not know are characterized by some very particular limitations -- limitations that prevent them from understanding YOU and your claims. These are serious assumption and therefore needs serious evidence to support them. There is nothing casual about being 'programmed', and therefore no casual toss-off claim made that people are programmed is going to be taken seriously.

Like the word 'infinite', .. now below you say there should not be any 'different sizes of infinite', correct? Well others would disagree with you, and if you really did follow this thread from the beginning, you should have seen that because we went deep into it.
This was may whole 'basis' of my argument for this OP, that a single definition of infinite, or like the word 'nothing', the absolute definition of 'mind' etc.. be established. But if ones 'faith' does NOT allow for a Creator (un-created Creator-God), that person can't very well agree that there is just One Infinite, which contains ALL of the finite things, because he/she would be agreeing to my Undeniable scientific evidence of the Creator.

I think you need to look to yourself, your presentation and your manner, that shoots you in the foot. The people you hope to convince are right here in front of you, face to face (as close as we can get other than visiting you in AZ).

Yes, now visiting me here in AZ would be face to face, and my invitation stands for anyone and everyone here. Otherwise, I have no idea what anyone here is Googling, or what books that are laying open at the side of their keyboard that they are into reading that influenced what they just said?

I only have a bachelor's degree -- in nursing. That is hardly a big ole education. Your education (in terms of the amounts of sheer knowledge that you've gained) is less important than the logical and reasonable mental processes with which you organize and utilize the knowledge you have.

There are people who have not attended college that can make sense out of extremely difficult material with only their native reason and intellect. There is nothing wrong with that.

A person with graduate degrees can have memorized gads of executive-level theories, but if their faculties of reason and logic are stunted, that knowledge cannot be communicated OR utilized. The accumulation of facts and theories is a separate process from the individuals capacity to correctly USE them.

OK, so some here claim that 'infinite' can be many, with different sizes, and I said that infinite cannot be different sizes, for infinite is boundless, and only ONE Infinite exists.

Tell me which part of what I said wasn't communicated clearly? I can explain this in many ways.

So more important than a peacock's tail display of erudite knowledge is the person's capacity to use reason and logic. Facts and theories are the least dynamic and relevant part of the mix, and this is obvious when the reason faculties are stunted or grossly skewed by attachment to preferred beliefs.

Exactly. Once someone sets himself in the belief that there is No Creator God, it is useless to debate such person about the Scientific Evidence of a Creator. It is futile.

Yes, they can also see the piles of scraps of papers, sticky notes I myself jotted down which forms my ideas and responses. It would be like looking into an open book, you would see that some of my notes are as simple as a 2nd graders, and then there are these quantum mechanic notes right beside them.
Now what would seeing this for yourself prove? For one, you would say that this guy may not have had any schooling at all.

The quality of your notes and jotted down ideas, again, is not the driving force behind them. Your capacity to reason with them, and apply the basic rules of logic to them and with them are. We've all seen the desks of geniuses IRL or on TV. You'd think they were a fifth grader with unmedicated ADHD (and that includes the handwriting).

Your challenge is not WHAT you know. It is how you know it, and how you can show others, with whom you hope to share, how you know what you know. We need to be able to follow your trail step by step or else we cannot hope to get to your conclusions and see them as you propose. If we cannot follow you, it is a matter of 'take my word for it'. Most skeptics (who are skeptical by nature) won't go there. And since most people are skeptical to some degree, you have to cope with this skepticism by working WITH it.

Yes I agree, very well put.
Yes, I have been 'working with it', and keep pointing out the problem why I am not being understood, .. which is anything from religious indoctrination, programming to brainwashing.

The question it should arise is "where in Heavens name does this guy come up with his ideas? What forms his thoughts? Is it coming from 4 billion years of accumulated evolution of his brain?

Yes, where in Heaven's name does this guy come up with his ideas?

You have to be able to SHOW US. While it may be absolutely apparent to you where the ideas come from, and seem like intentional denseness that people doubt your ideas, that is only one of many reasons why people doubt your ideas. To be so sure that people are 'programmed' and blinded to 'get' your ideas is just too convenient -- you can blame the people for not 'getting you', and justify continuing on in your lone voice in the wilderness. While that may be a comforting thought to explain why you remain misunderstood, it is not the only possibility -- just a very self serving one. Then you don't have to question your ideas, or where they come from. You don't have to confront yourself, when the blame lies with the brainwashed masses.

You know, a dear friend and atheist co-worker died just a few years ago, and since we both worked the night shift on CNC Mills, we were able to debate a lot of issues, and back then I was much younger (30 some years ago) and with no formal education, I didn't know much. Anyways, I remember him telling me that my one directional stand (tunnel vision) was because of my religious upbringing. And he would point them out, one by one until I was convinced he was right.

This was my main reason to first become an atheist, because as he made me realize that NONE of the gods out there was real, much less be able to create the universe, or have all my questions answered.

He made me realize I was just moseying along with the rest of the Christian brainwashed masses.

I have proven my point over and over again, and none of you actually debate that. What you want is to hope to derail my scientific proofs by concentrating on my explanation why I believe you guys don't understand me. Instead of looking to yourselves (as I did) and at least consider the possibility that religious indoctrination could be the result of your inability to understand even the basics like infinity and so on, you try to turn it on me, that "I think everyone is brainwashed", .. instead of reading my facts and proofs and consider he possibility that you may be?

If as yet we remain unconvinced, blaming social media, corporate commercialism and everything that has drowned out that 'small still voice' conveniently leaves out how poorly your ideas are constructed. It stops you from examining them. It's obviously important for you to communicate them.

Look, it's no secret, nor do I keep it hidden that I have no formal education, and that I respond as I learn, fighting my past religious indoctrinations, re-reading Scripture over and over again to make sure I am not responding from my old 'Christian Religious POV' as many here erroneously keep telling me I do, I also look up words to make sure I have the correct definition before I just blurt it out, as I noticed that many Very Smart and educated people here do.

I mentioned the social media and the power of commercialization to bring it to our attention, why would I reveal something if I was just using it to hide behind? Like playing hide go seek, and saying: "I'm not hiding behind the curtain!", .. I mean gee-whiz, I hope you don't see me that simpleminded!?

It makes no sense at all that you would deliberately play hide and seek just to hide yourself. Yet you have to admit there is a lack of reasonable (to you) success in sharing your ideas.

LOL, .. I said I lacked schooling, not an idiot. I can read as well as I can write, and maybe my writing skills are not as polished as someone with college education, I can still see that I make my points clear, with different POV's, from different perspectives. So when I say you guys just don't understand what I am telling you, it is because I have done my homework, I have debated those same issues with that same person, with the same results, denial.

I also see that (as I mentioned before) that many here could never allow themselves to accept the evidence I have pointed out, because it would go against their system of beliefs, .. their religion. And yes, as I have shown over and over and over again that the Big-bang Evolution Theories are religions.

What is the cause of this lack of success? Mass commercialization? The Devil's work a-befuddling the minds of your listeners? Those are possibilities -- among many many others. You can't just CHOOSE your favored explanation for why your ideas are ill received, you must pursue the TRUTH, and this involves serious self-examination and taking personal responsibility for why your claims remain poorly received. What are YOU doing that limits or prevents people from understanding your ideas? Ideas are neutral until sufficient evidence is supplied, and to date, you've been either unwilling or unable to supply sufficient evidence for your claims.

OH Boy, ... here we go over and over again, it is your fault arian why your ideas are not received, instead of debating my ideas. Who says people have to accept the truth?

Point out my actual ideas, and show me why YOU can't accept it?

I'll go farther than that -- you don't seem to even try to supply evidence. Or, what you perceive TO BE evidence is not considered 'evidence' in the Webster's Dictionary definition.

See, .. right here would be a good idea to put down my evidence, and show me why YOU don't believe it is not evidence? You may use Webster's Dictionary if you wish.

Could it be possible that peoples responses to my observations are from the brainwashed mind-controlled perspective? And that this is why it is strange for you guys to hear someone mention brainwashed, mind controlled, religious?

It could be possible. But is it probable? Flying pigs are possible. It is 'possible' that Satan is twisting the minds of the most devoted Christian mystics. It is possible the mystics are mentally ill. But is it probable? Logically, there are many many unlikely things that are possible -- but it doesn't stop there. It must also be probable. It must be explainable in ways that are recognizable and reasonable to others -- at least some of them. We both know we humans are easily 'led' by what we'd prefer to believe, that goes for atheists, Communists and social conservatives . Humans are in regular 'battle' with the seductive calling of what we'd really LIKE to believe, kind of like bedtime stories.

There you go, .. so it's 'probable too'!

Have you ever heard anyone refer to their Big-bang and Evolution stand as religious?

Yes I have, many times. And exclusively from theists. Never (and I say this honestly) from scientists, or atheists who prefer science as their primary venue to what is true.

Exactly, not from scientists. And why? Because scientists observe the world around them, no religious claims of billions and billions of years ago stories involved. THAT part they leave to the Religionists called Big-bang Evolutionists, or those Sci-Fientist who can write books upon books on things they have never seen like black holes, dark matter, multiverses, worm holes, and some really good Star Trek stories.

Atheists? What in the world does 'not believing in all them fake idol gods have anything to do with science?
I mean an alarm should go off if a scientist whose job is to observe the world around him, which includes biology, and says: "I'm an atheist!" What does your religious affiliation has to do with observing and documenting the world around you?

New guy: "Just so you scientists know, .. I'm an atheist!"

Scientists: "OK, so will this be a problem for you observing and documenting your observation of the world around you? Because if yes, we would rather not hire you."

I suspect theists, who perceive the world through 'religious' lenses, conclude non theists to ALSO perceive the world in terms of religious-type thought processes. We most certainly do not. This is why non theists deny that 'religion' has anything to do with accepting the theory of evolution, or the BB theory. "God" doesn't even show up to the table, any more than Zeus or Thor shows up to YOUR table.

Non theists, atheists who accept the Big-bang theory are not supposed to have God show up, THAT'S the whole purpose of this Big-bang religion, to deny God. Scientists care less about making up billions of year old stories on how the universe may, could, possibly assumed to have popped out of nothing and evolved, or that God, any god may have created it!? Observing a rock and finding metals, or dissecting an animal and finding the liver and accurately documenting it, .. has nothing to do with how Zeus may have created it, or even Bible God?
ANY, .. that is any real scientist knows that what they are observing was meticulously designed and made, no different then an auto mechanic can tell the meticulous design in a Mercedes.

Two Auto Mechanics working on a Mercedes: "Wow, now that's some design right Heinz? What do you think of dis one, Zeus, or evolution?"

You see how silly that would be?

I mention that when I hear Richard Dawkins speak, I see no difference from how any other religious fanatic speaks. Absolutely no difference.

That is no surprise, Arian. You are a theist. You trust the universe around you operates on theistic principles (there is a God . . . he is alive . . .). That's how you see reality, overlaid with your theistic suppositions. It's like decorations you put on a Christmas tree. The non theists don't use the same decorations, and don't call it a Christmas tree at all. The common denominator? Both have bare nekkid trees to clothe.

Again, .. I don't worship any theistic made up gods out there, nor do I go around saying which religiously created god/gods that they study in theism I Don't Believe in (atheist), especially when I am examining the universe and the world around me.
BUT, .. I am also a philosopher, and as I was reading about the Blue Brain project and how they are trying to 'create' a mind that they could somehow digitize and store it on disk, I said: "Hmm, let me take a look at this 'mind' thing? Now these people are obviously religious because they believe the brain came about by evolution, and that the mind is just an evolutionary product of the brain, how in the world are they trying to 'capture' the mind 'separate' from the brain and store it on disk then?
So either they don't really believe in all the evolution b.s. and are honestly trying to capture the human spirit/mind before the body and the brain dies, you know, so aging and dying man could have eternal life in some Matrix or CHAPPiE suit? But if they believe that the mind/spirit of man is separate, then they should see like I see that this mind/spirit is a part of something, or Someone much, much bigger and Greater!?

But anyways, .. I don't want to bore you with science, as you guys always say: "Science and religion don't mix!" So I'll just let you go back and keep decorating your Christmas Tree.

Of course you see no difference between foaming hell-n-brimstone preachers and Richard Dawkins. They are equally confident in their ideas. They may be so confident that they arrogantly stand in pulpits (or university lecterns) and get downright intense about their ideas.

None of these qualities are the sole property of religion. They are the sole property of rhetoric and polemics, of persuasive speech making.

I would say: "They are equally confident in their religious ideas." .. yes, I would definitely agree there.

Say you invent something and want to market it. And everyone you take your invention to says "It doesn't work." Would you blame (literally) every extenuating circumstance like the weather, corporate greed, and the stupidity of every single person who can't get your invention to work? Or would you take a long look at your invention and examine it for what is going wrong?

You tell me? After all the ingenious things Nicola Tesla came up with, including HAARP, why did he spent the rest of his life after that in a small apartment, alone and the world outside believing he was a mad-scientist who was out to destroy the world (see early Superman cartoons and comics), instead of being known for what he really intended to do; to to provide everyone with free-energy?

Because Thomas Edison stole his ideas and failed to credit their true inventor. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here. Tesla's brilliance may have cost him some self-promotion skills, and they were no match for Edison's bulldozing ambition.

Yes, .. I kind of see myself and my Scientific Evidence of our Creator, the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am", vs. the Blue Brain Project.

My finding can prove to people that we are more than just this dying flesh, that all we have to do is redefine our understanding of who we really are, the mind/spirit, and with a renewing of our mind become One with the Creator, where the flesh would no longer be a problem. He created all this, then just imagine what He could do, .. or what we will be able to achieve once we become of the same mindset, purpose with our God?

While the Blue Brain Project is an attempt to gain immortality in some humanoid-robotic body, to continue with the greed, and power over others. It is a last attempt to escape facing up to the Truth, and try to escape the judgment of their actions. Even though they are playing with the truth, but continue to deny it which is why they call it; "The Blue BRAIN Project" when in actuality it is hoping to capture the human mind.
Well here, .. let me ask; you as a Transhumanist, what do YOU think about this Blue-Brain Project and all the associated projects along with it?
What do you think of the 'artistic expression' on the future of mankind the 'Burning Man' events?

But wait . . . could there be another, more ethereal, poetic reason the ingenious Tesla was almost ignored? Such as . . . he was just an unlucky, unfortunate victim of powers greater than himself (ie, evil dishonest powers)? Sure it's possible, but is it probable? That some mythic-poetic reason exists implies that Tesla is some kind of martyr . . . and kind of starts heading into religious, paranoiac, and imaginal realms that can't be SHOWN, but only believed. And why believed? Because if you can't make it on your own efforts, there must be something wrong with EVERYONE ELSE. HAARP ditzing people's minds, along with mass commercialization and 'programming'. Poor, poor Tesla -- so unfortunate. So unlucky. At least we have the Catholic saints/martyrs' fates as a secondary reward.

Yes, there definitely were Principalities and Powers greater then Tesla and greater than Edison at work here. The Bible explains this in many great details, where good is used for evil, such great powers that Tesla shown to exist were turned into and eventually caused the greatest Energy Crisis know to mankind. Where now even the sun is giving up its light, and even that little is robbed from people (Solar City).
Water (Global Water co) is being moved around causing horrible droughts on one side of the States and terrible floods on the other.
It's not just Poor-poor Tesla, it's poor - poor humanity! Can't say God hasn't provided, because the US alone could produce enough to feed the entire world 5 times over. Same with free energy, but the powers that be (for the present anyways) would rather starve half the world going on the entire world, turn the most productive States like California into a Post-Apocalyptic dry-Wasteland, make countries like the Philippines suffer Typhoons to punish the starving children that are already there even more.

Newton defined gravity, .. did he produce another greater in mass object to pull things off the earth before people started believing in him? Or did he just suggest things like that till other intelligent scientists started visualizing it and agreeing with him?

Again, .. for the hundredth time, .. I am not inventing God our Creator, the Only One Possible here, but just as Newton, I am defining Him.

You appear to be struggling somewhat unsuccessfully at defining him. That's the underlying point in most of the feedback you are getting. Look to yourself, and use discernment, ruthless honesty and fair reasonable judgement in examining your ideas if you hope to communicate them and have them received.

Oh this here feedback I'm getting is nothing compared to the 'feedback' Believers get in Communist and Muslim countries. "Look to yourself Believer, and use discernment, ruthless honesty and fair reasonable judgment in examining your ideas if you hope to communicate them and have them received by the Communist brotherhood/Islamic State" as they slowly touch the blade of the sharp knife to their throat, or as they pointed the riffles at so many Christian Believers.

For people who care less about some 'scientific proof of our Creator', and are very satisfied with 'created gods' that they claim they don't believe in, it really is baseless to argue about this.

I agree, it sure looks that way, when the preponderance of the evidence points away from the existence of our Creator AND 'created gods' alike. They both weigh about the same in the mind of a skeptic.

When 'The Creator' and the created weigh about the same, we have not yet reached step #1. A long, long way from actually being able to even begin to understand the Scientific Evidence of The Creator.
Are you sure you guys/gals want to continue?

Neither one is more believable than another. One thing you can count on with non theists and atheists is they will stick with the Abrahamic "God" of the Bible as this is the one god we have the most evidence for (ie, the Bible). We rely on the one impersonal description of God that does not rely upon personal revelation, because all those personal revelations are DIFFERENT -- just like yours is different than the current Christian paradigm.

Well I'm glad that you noticed the DIFFERENT POV's provided in the Bible of God and His Son Jesus Christ, his message, everything is covered in 3-D.
But may I bring your attention to the unscientific Big bang theory? How many different POV, and perspectives do the religionist provide there? Oh yea, Georges Lemaitre was alone at the time of his divined insight, correct? So maybe he only thought he heard a Big-bang, but since no one else was there to remind him before he documented his, .. ah, .. his findings, that a quantum speck of whatever could not make a Big-Bang in nothing, because even in space sound doesn't travel. But since that's all you have,.. that is all you'll get, no matter how silly it sounds.

Now imagine if there were 50 - 60 different scientists actually observing this quantum speck popping out of nothing, or just laying there in nothing getting denser and hotter before space and time, .. you would have all kinds of angles from each observing scientist giving his slightly different POV, right?
Would that be considered bad, or actually make the theory stronger?

Because you have yet to provide reasonable evidence for your 'version' of God, the weight of the god-description in the Bible is what remains for non theists to go with. Sure, this is a 'created god' too, and as yet, it is just as created as yours appears to be -- lacking the evidence we continually request.

Again you, just as the others are interpreting the Bible and our Creator in there from the Christian Religion's perspective. That's like a Carpenter looking at and trying to describe the cockpit gauges and controls of an Airbus A350XWB to an Airbus Pilot. The theists/atheists being the carpenters.

So what is the Pilot to do, especially if he already gave the proper definitions of the gauges to the carpenters, but they keep using carpenter terminology?

Theism/atheism is two sides of the same coin, and the coin is 'religion'. Religion create their own gods, with their own definitions, of which none are real, and they even tell you they are not meant to be real, I mean real as in being able to describe their god/gods through science, but they all admit that each god/gods requires blind faith to be believed in. You know, like the BB-theory story.

You are in a position of demanding that we take your word for what you say, which is asking way too much. This contributes to your sense that we are just playing stupid, or just playing. We non theists/atheists who are here are not just playing, at least not on this forum. Insincere members end up being banned or restricted in their posting privileges, so what you have left are people that do not have to be here except that these issues are THAT important to us to have a dialogue about.

Yes, and if they are THAT important, why not try to define the word religion by what it really means? The word God does not = to the word religion, and defining the word 'mind' is not = to religion.
Theism and atheism as I said is also religious opposing beliefs, so don't think that will help you in this case. This is the reason one god is like all gods, it's all the same to you guys, and when I point out why that is, because of your religious POV, that you are interpreting the Bible and everything in there through a religious POV, and that you will never see or understand what I tell you unless you leave religion out of it. I mean read the comments, .. you guys/ladies cannot even imagine God being outside of religion. I mean you even admit it, yet I keep asking you not to use religious interpretations to what I tell you!?

But of course you'll just come back with another religious perspective to why I don't make any sense, and why I am struggling, .. and I'll just explain this all over again and again hoping that one day someone will finally pop their head above the religious mire and say: "Oh I get it!"

You see it was Z who posted it, and obviously it wasn't so he could consider the possibility of the Creator being defined, because he makes it clear he does not believe in a Creator God, especially the Hebrew Bronze/Iron aged one.
Why?
Well obviously he did his homework and found the 'undeniable evidence' that those gods, or the best one of those gods the Creator don't exist.

As you can see from his responses, he never ONCE even considers the possibility.

I can't speak for Zz, but I'll speak for myself, as I can be described in much the same way as you described Zz's position.

You see, we have ALREADY plundered the existing knowledge and evidence base and over many years, concluded (rather helplessly I might add) that a creator God is just simply . . . unsupported. Unknowable, as we know everything else about our lives. Impossible to examine in a way that leads to direct knowledge.

did you ponder 'A Creator God', as in the One I am defining through scientific observation, or you pondered the 'religiously created gods and creators' like the ones in theology, and found their religiously defined definitions hopelessly unsupported?
Why do I ask? Because the religious theistic god/gods are NOT supposed to be 'pondered upon', but simply accepted on faith alone.

I mean let's go back to the Roman times, where there were tens of thousands of gods, one in the bedroom, another in the garden, another front of the house, in the study etc. Now imagine someone come and tell you that he/she doesn't believe in, .. oh let's say; the god they have in the bedroom! That this particular god just doesn't do anything for the human sex-life, and should not be worshipped.
Now how silly would that be, right?

You see this is what I am trying to get across to you guys, but seems we are separated by an ocean of religious doctrines and their gods, and since more and more doctrines and apologetics keep building upon such vein and unprovable assumptions (gods, creators like the BB theory etc.) the distance between us is getting greater and greater .. until .. well like we have it now, that you cannot even see what I am talking about.
All you see is an ocean of gods you don't believe in as an atheist, and the same distance is between me and the theists, only there it is the ocean of gods they do believe in.

I have had personal experiences that many people would call 'the divine'. I feel confident that many people do have these experiences -- and depending on where they live, and what world area they grew up in, attribute their experience of 'the divine' to the local preferred gods. Yet this experience of 'the divine' is a common human experience, enough to where it is openly acknowledged by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and other out-spoken atheists.

Have you ever read books like "Seth Speaks" by Julia Roberts? She actually wrote books on her experiences with the 'divine', and her husband documented as she was having them. Seth was her preferred divine god who channeled through her as a medium and answered h4er many questions.

But again I remind you that our Creator, the One I am revealing here is not divine, He is not from amongst the local gods in your area, He does not speak through mediums, or Christian Diviners, so everything Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris is talking about are as real as the plastic toy soldiers are in your children's toy box.

My personal experiences were real, and did not inform me that they were delivered from a god, or 'the' God, any more than Zeus or Vishnu. They did not present with a 'knowledge' of whence they came. I got the generic version I guess .

Yes, these deities (divine beings who reside in the supernatural realm) sole purpose is to please their audience, to answer in place of Gods Holy Spirit. If you ask them to identify themselves, they'll do that. If you ask them: "Are you my great, great grandma?" they will most likely answer "Yes! Was her name Joyce, .. Jodie, .. something with a J, .. ?"
and the person will answer "Yes, .. Yeas, Oh my God it IS you, my great, great grandma Julia!" .. or something like that.

This is why we have to be able to discern between spirits.

So, speaking for myself, I did not decide to be an atheist.

It was the only valid conclusion my own mind and heart could reach, given the evidence of religions around me and how it dovetailed with my own personal experience. I'll admit I was disappointed to finally admit God so unlikely to exist as to not exist at all.

Yes I understand more than you think, because I had similar experiences. I also came to the conclusion that God did not exist at all, and all these religions were full of you know what?

UNTILL, .. until I realized that I was disbelieving the wrong concepts of God. I learned that the whole idea behind all these man-made gods was to suppress the human mind from seeking the One True Creator, the One in whose image I was created in.

I was not rubbing my hands gleefully and planning my next fornication, trust me. It was a loss, but one I've recovered from and found many new ways of relating to this cosmos that are MORE enriching, beautiful, poetic, touching, self-obliterating than I yearned for before I gave up.

Of course you weren't happy that now you can go out and sin all you like, .. I was there once myself. And JUST as you, I was relieved of all the burden and guilt that religion placed upon me.
Like I said, I also went into the New Age Utopian ideology (something like your Transhumanism), and found it MORE enriching, beautiful, poetic, touching, just as you have. But here is what I have found out, that just as there are tens of thousands of 'god-ideas' out there, there are also tens of thousands of 'non-god ideas' out there, just as fanatic as the god-ideas, and Richard Dawkins is a good example of this. So is Steven Hawking! Religion goes both ways, .. if you know what I mean?

So in summary; "Mind, .. what mind, all it is, is the product of the brain, unable to create anything then dreams, hallucinations and wishful thinking!"

Same like gravity, .. what's gravity Newton? We throw things up, and they come back down, and this happened for the past millions and billions of years, .. I know, Big-bang Evolutionists have all this documented, and they should know, they even have complete details, videos, pictures, everything depicting the Big-bang and how 'time evolved' as a dimension, evolving space and everything we observe in the universe today.

You are overlooking (however unintentionally) the sheer WONDER of the mind, the human experience, coming from, perhaps, a 3 pound blob of unset gelatin called the brain. What kind of incredible instrument is this brain? This gets brushed under the rug by theists as if it were so disappointingly mundane as to send them to Dr Kevorkian. I used to think that way, too. In the absence of a creator, who we are as human beings is not rendered into dumb matter and chemical processes. That is like saying the Titanic and my toy bathtub boat are not fundamentally different in meaning. Theism seems to be the great Limiter of human potential at this date, while it may have provided just what we needed to get going as a social species. I don't know why theists resist allowing their religion to evolve along with everything else -- our ethics, our philosophies, our sciences, our humanities -- all extraordinary things coming from a pile of protoplasm! It must be that this pile of protoplasm is itself extraordinary, all on it's own

Yea, them theists with all their gods, .. that's why I'm not a theist. But I don't think that only theists limit human potential, atheists (like Richard Dawkins) and other sci-fientologists are just as limiting,. I would sum it all up to 'religionists', that all religions in general are against the human advancement, stunning human potential.

Like these, .. what I call 'Sci-Fientists', they come up with all kinds of ideas clothed in the promises of post-Utopian futures for humanity (Marshal Applewhite's Heavens Gate cult is a good example) and now it's the post-human and Transhumanist movements (Burning Man, etc.) that are offering far beyond what they can come close to understanding with their evolving animal brains.

All these religious ideas are a detriment to human progress, .. and damned dangerous too. So stay away from religion, stick to observing the world around you by good old fashioned science.

All of these things to blame, yet again, because your claim is rejected.

It's not really just blame, I am pointing out the obvious possible reasons why you guys cannot understand me. I understand rejecting something that just doesn't work, you know, like black holes, parallel universes, the observation of dark matter etc. You see as I have been pointing out that we can reject things for many various reasons like; religion, religious indoctrinations like being taught that things could and do pop out of 'nothing', or that God cannot be proven scientifically but is only a product of religious doctrine, and each religion produces a little different 'concept' of god/gods, and creators which are not to be questioned but graciously accepted as facts based on faith alone.

Again, you slipped in several assumptions as if they were already established to be true. However compelling these assumptions are to you, this compelling does not ensure they are true in any objective way. We observe black holes and dark matter on a daily basis and have for decades. Not so much the parallel universes, those are more like your clever term 'sci-fientism', lovely speculations supported by some obscure mathematics, but no more.

Your reasons for us not understanding you are NOT obvious. "Obvious" includes the observer, too, not just the claim maker

I don't know, I have watched some cop-videos of drunk people being pulled over, and they swore they didn't have more that two beers, and whether the "I'm not drunk" admits it or not, it is obvious to the cop that he is drunk.

We observe dark matter and black holes on daily basis? Aahumm.. OK!?

It could be that in the final analysis, there is much wrong with your claim.

I have seen/read all ya's analysis, and as I have said countless times, we have not yet reached the first step which must be agreed upon by both of us, that is to understand the meaning of Infinite vs. finite, Eternal vs. time, the mind vs. the brains 4 billion years of accumulated evolution product called instinct, the Creator vs. the created to avoid infinite regress, and so on, and so forth.

That is because there is refusal to accept the 'other sides' definitions and meanings. Definitions are static because if they aren't, then we are all lost and talking past each other. Many debates stall right there when no mutual agreement can be reached, and that is unfortunate.

Yes it is unfortunate my friend, and what I mentioned above is critical in the basic understanding of God, our Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am". I have debated this with my fellow debaters for how long now, and still they will stick to;
nothing not being nothing anymore,
* different sizes of Infinite,
* time being eternal (like if the BB-theory was possible, there would have had to be time AND space while the quantum speck of whatever was getting hotter and denser, which came before the Big-bang or that sudden inflation that supposedly created time and space)
* the refusal to at least consider my clear explanation of the mind being separate from the brain (just ask why are all these great new scientists trying to capture the mind and store it on disk if it is the 'product of the brain'??) If that was the case that the brain produces the mind, I would say; "Save the brain, the hell with the mind. Once you have the brain, it will produce the mind!"

So just because I am not being understood, you shouldn't be making any 'final analysis', .. I mean would a final analysis of something you have absolutely no idea of, be rational?

Agreed I would not go so far as to make a CLAIM about what's really going on in your head or in your life or circumstances, based upon whatever you postulate that I don't agree with. Too many variables to fairly make a judgment, though making provisional judgments and conclusions can be drawn. I think that has been the rule, rather than the exception with those who have directly engaged you and your ideas. At least I hope that's what it feels like to you.

Oh no, I understand if I was saying one thing, and thinking another, sure, that would be mental illness to expect others to understand me. No, I point out what they don't understand and why they don't understand, and we debate these with poor results because of the multiple definitions offered for critical words as I have again mentioned above.

"Tire iron"
"What, .. lollypop?"
"No, .. tire iron"
"Ha, ha, ha, arian, how are you going to jack the car up with a lollypop, .. huh? You make no sense arian, and you wonder why people don't understand you!"

Actually there is a slight possibility to jack up the car with a lollypop, but there is absolutely no chance of a finite thing to become infinite, or a quantum speck of whatever to exist in 'nothing' and get denser and hotter before this speck itself created time and space. This is not about apples and oranges, this is about apples and ____?_____.

I have a question for you; what is the 'final analysis of the hypothetical 'Dark Matter'?

Dictionary: Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe.

I mean it's not like they went on and built on this hypothesis, or God forbid teach it in schools to our children how the universe works or anything, have they?

I have no idea what the final analysis of 'dark matter' is. So far we are unable to 'see' it or examine it except through inference (ie, how it affects the observable matter around it). We lack the technological know how as yet to make instruments that can more closely examine 'dark matter', even though it's existence has been postulated since . . . the 1920's or so? We have though developed the technology to 'see' it's effects, like gravitational lensing. But what it IS, and what else it does besides have enormous mass and hold galaxy clusters together against the expansive force of 'dark energy', we don't know.

Another words I have more proof of our mind being separate from the brain then they have for 'dark matter'. So is it is OK for them to postulate, hypothesize and use deduction, conclusion, reasoning, conjecture, speculation, guess, presumption, assumption, supposition, reckoning, and to extrapolate something to have enormous mass and hold galaxy clusters together against the expansive force of 'dark energy'?

How is the situation around 'dark matter' similar or related to your points above?

It's not similar, because I can actually observe my mind at work, and so can you, .. and with fMRI actually we can see its reaction on the brain, but 'dark matter', and its purpose (what it may be doing) is pure speculation, so is black holes, the fabric of space, time as a dimension, the Big-bang and everything else that have been built on those pure speculations.

Blaming everything else around you for the paucity of your claims is not convincing evidence at all. Going round and round about the President(s), the fall of Mankind, 911 and evil mind bending commercials causing people to not buy your claims is just self pity. I'll wager the denizens of this forum respond no differently than other people in your life when it comes to your claims. The common denominator in all this? Your bogus claims.

So you don't think "blaming why you just can't get a grip on what I am telling you"
could very well be that cause? Can it be at least possibly be the cause?

Like I said before YES, it can possibly be a cause. One cause among many.

While it is possible, we can't just stop there. We have to go further. Is it also PROBABLE. And that is where we end up going in different directions. A helluva lot more work is necessary to take a possibility into a cause, a LOT more.

OK, so let's see after what, .. some 513 posts where are we at on this OP, .. you guys say not a shred of scientific evidence of The Creator.
So we are at the mercy of a hypothetical creator like the Big-bang that was made up by a Jesuit Priest who claims his god revealed it to him through divination.

I have explained my scientific evidence, so isn't it fair to at least debate what I said on page 7? Why all the diversions, the derailments, the denial, the use of different meanings to words that I clearly defined?
Why can't we use the definition of Infinite as Infinite? Why must we consider it being finite, or of different sizes?

Paucity of me claims? Really? Maybe you should read again all that I have written, all the definitions we debated, then tell me where is the scarcity in the information I gave?

Again, the quality and amount of your information is impacted by HOW you reason and process it logically. Logic is like a fork or a spoon, it's no high falutin' special trick of the intelligensia . I've followed this thread from the beginning, and I have yet to have any real problems with the gamut of your information. I have yet to even GET to examining it, for one reason, as you have yet to provide logical/reasonable SUPPORT for your claims, so that your claims can be understood well enough to follow ourselves.

OK, let's start with you, .. from the beginning: the word Infinite, do you understand that there could exist various sizes of 'infinite'?

By definition, 'infinite' ought have no various sizes. Infinite includes all measures including measures beyond our ability to measure. Not sure why you ask this, but that's what I understand about 'the infinite' and thus the existence of different sizes of infinity doesn't follow reasonably.

Awesome, thank you Hamsaka, this may be a new beginning, a true attempt in understanding what I am talking about! You don't have to answer all the things I said above unless you feel you do not agree with me on some points. If we could just concentrate on the basics i told you about. (and watch how others will jump in to derail it)

Can you imagine Infinite as being ONE (you did say there cannot be different sizes of infinite), so can you agree that ONE Infinite is all that is needed, since it can contain every conceivable sizes, lengths, of finite things?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 62 by arian]

I read this post on page 7 back when I first joined in March, but I'm glad you referenced the page so I could go back and review it again. I've learned a lot since then, mostly in terms of rigorously applying the process of reason/logic (to the best of my ability, that is, always room for improvement).

You wrote a thoughtful and deeply meaningful-to-you explanation of how you arrived at your conclusion, which you claim is scientific evidence. It reads like a personal, subjective journey from questions to answers. This doesn't mean that you came up with 'nothing'. Folks refusing to accept your explanation for themselves is as natural as the different subjective states of different people.

Your use of the term 'infinite regress' is incorrect, though; by definition, infinite regress is INFINITE, and does not 'end' with a 'thing' -- like a Creator, however uncreated.

Infinite regress tells me that there has to be someone uncreated that created man, that is us humans. So there has to be a Creator. But whoever He is, he would have to be infinite and eternal, He cannot have a creator or be of the finite.

A claim arrived at via an incorrect use of the term 'infinite regress' capped off with a "So there has to be a Creator" is not going to be acceptable regardless of 'programming' or 'religious indoctrination' on a debate forum, where the implied agreement is that we adhere to the rules of basic logic. As well, the implication is we adhere to consensus-derived definitions of terms, because we must have a common ground from which to proceed.

You expect the impossible of yourself. A subjective revelation cannot be disguised as 'scientific', as approaching an objective truth. Without reading your 'manifesto' at all, the job you gave yourself was doomed to fail to meet basic criteria for 'scientific' anything. That's the nature of subjective experience. It belongs to the individual. This is YOUR personal construct, to organize and make sense of your world using your personal, and unique, subjective impressions, and influenced by deep impressions that are unique to you.

That it isn't recognized as a supported claim to others is a function of it's nature. I also have deep and abiding subjective notions, many of which operate beneath my awareness and inform my choices and actions. My inborn temperament, the environment(s) I've lived in, the experiences I've had -- all these helplessly impact my subjective assessments of 'what's going on' out in the world, outside my individual self as it were.

Because I am so deeply influenced, often unawares, by fifty years of life experiences, my perceptions may lead to conclusions that do not have an objective existence outside my own head. You and I watch the same movie and come away from it remembering different parts and impressed by things the other doesn't remember happening. Our subjective inner life is by definition personal, it's more about US as individuals than it is about an objective order that everyone can agree with (like the definition of a word, or a measurement).

In our culture, we aren't well taught to differentiate between subjective impressions and objective truth. As a species, we struggle with this, perhaps it is developmental. Anyway, what I see is that we are actually encouraged to believe things that serve egoic needs as objective 'truth', rather than set aside these deep personal preferences to perceive what is actually happening REGARDLESS of what we'd prefer.

We aren't particularly aware of what those egoic needs even are; in a nutshell, they are belonging/acceptance, recognition, and power. Unaware of these things motivating us from the depths of our experience, we mistake for objective 'truth' that which assures our belonging in a group, that which assures us special recognition (however imagined or real), and that which gives us a sense of control over our immediate environment.

For what it's worth, this is my response to your 'scientific' evidence as proof of a Creator. It isn't that much different, aside from a detail here and there, of my own explorations in the past. Fairly recently (less than ten years) I realized that there is an objective reality that exists quite apart from my subjective, personal perceptions. I realized what I believe can be a thing apart from what IS.

This dissonance challenges those deep egoic needs; I am not particularly unique or special; I want to exercise a lot more power and control than I legitimately have, and I crave the security and assurance of mutual agreement and acceptance. These are universal human needs. They color our every perception; but they must take their rightful place in submission to 'what is really going on', whatever that is.

No one, especially not scientists, claim to know precisely 'what is going on' -- and thus we have scientific inquiry that leads us through the maze of helpless subjectivity and into more clear perception and hopefully, knowledge.

Then we have valid information and can make important decisions that we can count on a lot more than the vagaries of subjective whim.

Your explanation is yours, you earned it and have every right and permission to live your life according to it. But that is where it ends. For all of us. It must end there, if we are to avoid oppressing others with demands that can only belong to an individual. This doesn't decrease the MEANING or purpose you draw from your revelation, because it never was anything but yours. It doesn't need to be believed, understood, or accepted by anyone else to make it a valid revelation for you. It's a lot less exciting, and there's a lot of self-importance to be lost, but that self-importance is just another personal 'ghost' that when insisted upon, brings strife. Nothing is lost because it was never owned in the first place. You are back where you started from, just like the next person, and that's good enough.

[arian]

[Replying to post 62 by arian]

I read this post on page 7 back when I first joined in March, but I'm glad you referenced the page so I could go back and review it again. I've learned a lot since then, mostly in terms of rigorously applying the process of reason/logic (to the best of my ability, that is, always room for improvement).

Thank you Hamsaka, yes, it is important to apply the 'proper' reasoning and logic, the thing is, our world view can have such a huge influence on it, don't you agree?

You wrote a thoughtful and deeply meaningful-to-you explanation of how you arrived at your conclusion, which you claim is scientific evidence. It reads like a personal, subjective journey from questions to answers. This doesn't mean that you came up with 'nothing'. Folks refusing to accept your explanation for themselves is as natural as the different subjective states of different people.

Sounds a little bit like; "You are in your own little world arian, and it's nice to hear you talking to yourself, but just to remind you, it's loud enough where we could hear you!"

When I realize something incredible, I want to share it, .. free, no strings attached. I don't expect folks to accept what I say, if I did, I would of post it in the Preaching section of the Forum.

Now tell me, what exactly do you mean by: "Folks refusing to accept your explanation for themselves is as natural as the different subjective states of different people?"

First, I know who I am, which is my 'mind', and I understand that it is infinite, and that there is 'nothing' natural about it.
Now the body/brain we reside in for the time being IS natural, created, finite.

Natural man is who YOU think you are, a product of a cosmic accident, and naturally you can just as easily accept the original meaning of the word gay (happy) as you can at the same time to mean homosexual. It's all part of 'evolution' for you and it can have a huge impact on how we understand each other.

arian: "I had a wonderful gay time at the Perk today with the kids!"
Homo Sapiens: "Oh that's nice arian, .. and you should not be ashamed to express that. There is nothing wrong with being gay, it's all part of our 4 billion year evolution. Good for you for sharing that with us!" .. see what I mean?

You believe that you ARE the physical body/brain that can be studied and known by science, but yet look at your responses, they are intuitive, creative, a little naughty with a hint of deception, a pinch of arrogance, and the ability to reason and respond to reason on a drop of a hat, .. which in no way could come from an evolving, no purpose, no plan but the result of 4 billion years of evolutionary mutation expressing itself by a bunch of neurons firing off? Now you may argue this all to kingdom-come, but that will only prove I am correct. The more you argue a different objective/subjective stand, the more you reveal who you really are, created in your Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirits image, and not a 'result' of evolution.

If you want to be a human created in your Creators image and debate this; subjective and objective states, we could do that, but I will ask you (since you claim you have followed this OP from the beginning in which I explain things over and over again) that you 'choose a side'; either you debate from you 4 billion years of accumulated instinct, as an evolving animal/brain (in which case i will hold you to that and will not allow you to use 'free-will' responses, but hold you to respond from an 'evolutionary mindset' and will ask you how you believe those responses 'evolved' into your brain? (even that is being lenient, but because I don't want to drag this debate out for another 4 billion years) so I will allow certain un-evolutionary things like seeing your response within a day or two. Because you know evolution would never work that fast, everything in evolution takes 'time', .. long, unplanned, unpredictable "whoop, there it is! .. and whenever it is, and whatever it is, .. it just is because of time!" responses.

Your use of the term 'infinite regress' is incorrect, though; by definition, infinite regress is INFINITE, and does not 'end' with a 'thing' -- like a Creator, however uncreated.

You're confusing the word regress to mean infinite, like others here who confuse 'numbers' to mean infinite. Numbers can go on throughout infinity, just as created creators can, but never become Infinite.
again, for I don't know how many times, .. Infinite is not a 'thing'.
Also, Infinite being conscious/aware of himself, (again, .. not itself like a thing, but Himself as in "I Am Who I Am") is not a thing either, it is (in Tillich words) 'the ground of being'.

Infinite regress tells me that there has to be someone uncreated that created man, that is us humans. So there has to be a Creator. But whoever He is, he would have to be infinite and eternal, He cannot have a creator or be of the finite.

A claim arrived at via an incorrect use of the term 'infinite regress' capped off with a "So there has to be a Creator" is not going to be acceptable regardless of 'programming' or 'religious indoctrination' on a debate forum, where the implied agreement is that we adhere to the rules of basic logic. As well, the implication is we adhere to consensus-derived definitions of terms, because we must have a common ground from which to proceed.

Another words; the more people (consensus) you convince by any means, trickery, brainwashing, religion, force (like they did in my communist country) that they are animals and not humans (who were created in their Creators image), I will eventually have to adhere to that, or I'm breaking Forum rules, .. right?
Is that a threat?
Get real Hamsaka, I have tested the ground here, and so far it feels pretty solid. I have concluded that this here Forum is like none other, it allows a far more open minded, free thinker style debate then it's name would suggest 'Religious forum'. Otherwise I would be long gone from here. And I thank my Lord and Otseng for that.

and again for the hundredth time, (I just love how you guys twist what I say) IT IS NOT because of infinite regress that "There has to be a Creator", or that just because there is a universe so there has to be a creator, or because I see this body, and we dissect humans and see we have brains, so; "There Must Be A Mind", that would be evolutionary reasoning which I don't do.

Here, let's see you evolve this: "cogito ergo sum", .. is this basic knowledge that arrived through evolution? Am I allowed to use such reasoning, or do I HAVE TO agree on some "basic animal instinct knowledge" that YOU understand would adhere to the rules of this Forum?

Stop setting up stages to build your excuses, and debate what's on hand. Now where were we? Oh yea, so since you cannot allow yourself to accept (not on this Forum you say) my version of 'Creator' .. please define a Creator that does NOT include 'infinite regress'. I am NOT asking you to 'take a creator out of infinite regress', but define 'The Creator'?

You expect the impossible of yourself. A subjective revelation cannot be disguised as 'scientific', as approaching an objective truth. Without reading your 'manifesto' at all, the job you gave yourself was doomed to fail to meet basic criteria for 'scientific' anything.

In quantum mechanics where we start looking at things closer and closer as through microscopes, 'things', .. you know like in the created things, start to fall apart, and what was once objective is now beginning to be viewed with the, .. yes, the 'Mind' alone.

When we (of the Infinite Eternal Creative Mind) dream, 'we' are infinite, subjective, unobservable, but we know we exists because we are aware "I Am Who I Am", but the things we dream is objective, finite, created.

That's the nature of subjective experience. It belongs to the individual. This is YOUR personal construct, to organize and make sense of your world using your personal, and unique, subjective impressions, and influenced by deep impressions that are unique to you.

There is no 'nature' of experience, there is nothing 'personal' about reality, it either IS or it ISN'T, and this goes for all of us. Either "I am", .. or I am not", and I know for a fact that "I am", and 'what' I am is not the physical part. It is something I just use for the time being, my Creator wanted to have children, so He created my body, and put a bit of Himself into it, so I can grow as He did, .. I mean I see no other explanation for my existence in this physical body? Neither is my experience limited to this body, because I know for a fact that I don't reason or debate by evolutionary instinct.

To say that my physical existence created my consciousness, where after 4 billion years suddenly I say: "Woe duuuuude! I am, I exist!" is seriously handicapped (I was gona say something else, .. but, .. well.)

That it isn't recognized as a supported claim to others is a function of it's nature. I also have deep and abiding subjective notions, many of which operate beneath my awareness and inform my choices and actions. My inborn temperament, the environment(s) I've lived in, the experiences I've had -- all these helplessly impact my subjective assessments of 'what's going on' out in the world, outside my individual self as it were.

The 'outside world' can 'influence' who we are, and help form our opinions. It is this exact thing that our Creator/Father wanted, otherwise we would all be Him, perfect no matter what we do.

Ah, I get Goosebumps when you talk to me like that, as if for a second we made contact!? Now what you said above, and if we applied that to only a physical existence, we could never communicate. Maybe two out of trillions could share anything meaningful. Like I said, we would have to wait till we 'evolved' the words to answer anything, and it could take us millions of years to evolve any questions. So to get an answer to any question, we'd be long, long gone, so what would it matter anyways?

I told you that we MUST come to an agreement on who we are, if just a body/brain, then you will just have to accept that my environmentally and genetically, globally influenced questions would have to evolve and even the smallest difference in our DNA could cause you not to understand me.

YES, I agree 100% that our environment has a great deal of influence on our mind, but that's just 'influence', which can change with one conversation (or a Good Book) if we just allowed it to. Get it, .. "allowed it to", since when does evolution allow us to make choices?
And if we have choices, and free will, where all of a sudden is the billions of years of evolution that made me who I am, .. that helplessly impacted my choices? What, vanished just like that because I had a conversation with someone? Or because I read a book?

Because I am so deeply influenced, often unawares, by fifty years of life experiences, my perceptions may lead to conclusions that do not have an objective existence outside my own head. You and I watch the same movie and come away from it remembering different parts and impressed by things the other doesn't remember happening. Our subjective inner life is by definition personal, it's more about US as individuals than it is about an objective order that everyone can agree with (like the definition of a word, or a measurement).

That's the beauty of God our Creator creating miniature selves, it is exactly why He put us in a physical body, to be different. But honestly Hamsaka, do you actually believe that if we really did evolve over 4 billion years that we'd come out of a movie and only have a few parts missing between the two of us?

Look, let's say we came out of the movie and you mention something I was not aware of, now I don't know about other people, but I'm sure I could recollect the parts I missed. But evolution would never allow for that, because it would simply not be there.
Besides, none of this would make sense if our mind was the product of our brain which was formed by a purposeless, unplanned, but simply genetic and outside influences on our bodies!

In our culture, we aren't well taught to differentiate between subjective impressions and objective truth. As a species, we struggle with this, perhaps it is developmental.

Ah, don't you see my friend that there is no 'perhaps' in evolution, it is what it is.
Like I mentioned before, you can take a monkey away from its mother, and out of the forest, teach it, its offspring for 10 generations or however long as your very own daughter, and I bet after you put her back into the forest, it will not be looking for her I-phone.

BUT, .. let's take baby Tarzan away from his ape mom, and bring him to civilization and watch what happens, and it would NOT take no billion years either.

Anyway, what I see is that we are actually encouraged to believe things that serve egoic needs as objective 'truth', rather than set aside these deep personal preferences to perceive what is actually happening REGARDLESS of what we'd prefer.

Again, there is no 'preference' in evolution, remember? Extinct animals didn't 'prefer' to go extinct, you can't mix creation by I.D. with evolution.

We aren't particularly aware of what those egoic needs even are; in a nutshell, they are belonging/acceptance, recognition, and power. Unaware of these things motivating us from the depths of our experience, we mistake for objective 'truth' that which assures our belonging in a group, that which assures us special recognition (however imagined or real), and that which gives us a sense of control over our immediate environment.

Again, .. there is nothing to be aware of in evolution, when the animal gets hungry, it doesn't go pick the right clothes, make-up, comb the hair for belonging/acceptance or any special recognition, it goes a hunting for food.

For what it's worth, this is my response to your 'scientific' evidence as proof of a Creator. It isn't that much different, aside from a detail here and there, of my own explorations in the past. Fairly recently (less than ten years) I realized that there is an objective reality that exists quite apart from my subjective, personal perceptions. I realized what I believe can be a thing apart from what IS.

What you came to realize is that you have free will, and you have the power to ignore what IS, until it runs you over.

My scientific evidence is observing reality. I don't limit science, or believe that through science I could actually one day know everything, and any good and honest scientist should know that by now.
A scientist may be looking at a rock, but I see a thought. When man gets the ability to magnify things to that extent, they will actually see creation by I.D. at work.

Now imagine one day when we too will be able to create things in Gods Mind as He created everything, .. by defining laws that make up the atoms, or whatever dimension we come up with fit in with that particular dimension. In this universe we have atoms, and so on that makes our universe what it is, but imagine creating laws that define something completely different then atoms to make up things with, and the possibilities are endless.

Where do we get the materials? We create it.
Where do we get the time? Oh yea, .. we have Eternity.
Well just how many universes could we create before we run out of space? That's right, .. we have Infinity.

But what if I refuse to believe in our Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind God, and prefer to wait for Evolution and time to create a universes I could evolve into?

Yep, I read somewhere that God prepared a place where Big-bang Evolutionist could actually do that too, where they can wait, and wait while they see us Creationists create things and not sit around in darkness waiting for things to happen!?

Well see how 'chance' will create the odds of things popping out of nothing, and just watch it inflate in it?

This dissonance challenges those deep egoic needs; I am not particularly unique or special; I want to exercise a lot more power and control than I legitimately have, and I crave the security and assurance of mutual agreement and acceptance. These are universal human needs. They color our every perception; but they must take their rightful place in submission to 'what is really going on', whatever that is.

I mean something IS going on, whatever it is, and you just don't know because it is so gradual, right?

You say: I'm not unique or special, BUT I want to exercise a lot more power and control than I legitimately have, and I crave the security and assurance of mutual agreement and acceptance? I don't get it? That sure is a lot of ego for someone 'knowing' they are nothing special, and came about by accident from nothing with absolutely no plan, design or will of anyone or thing!

What drives Richard Dawkins to promote the idea of a purposeless, no specific goal oriented, aimless, just-so-happened by chaotic mutation here-I-am ideology if he actually believes it? Why is he so angry at Creationists, doesn't he believe they are evolving animals too? Where is his 'submission' to the power of Evolution that evolved an entire universe out of a quantum speck of nothing? I see a terrible contradiction with that man, veins popping out of is neck and head to get across a "kick back and enjoy the ride because there is nothing anyone could do to change it anyways" doctrine?

No one, especially not scientists, claim to know precisely 'what is going on' -- and thus we have scientific inquiry that leads us through the maze of helpless subjectivity and into more clear perception and hopefully, knowledge.

Knowledge of WHAT exactly, .. of how purposeless, unplanned, chaotic accident of a maze of helpless subjectivity we have evolved into over the past 4 billion years? Why would a 'result' of some mutated accident want to know that? If you are what you are, and neither you, or anyone nor anything has ever in billions and billions of years had anything to do with you, what is this 'hope' you speak of?
Hope, .. was it 'hope' that evolved the lion to be a lion and a butterfly to be a butterfly at the same time in the same place?
Here is a single celled bacteria in the primordial soup hoping: "Oh I hope to be a butterfly one day, with two beautiful wings to flutter around with!?"

Speak either Evolution, or Creation, I cannot understand you when you mix these opposite languages. Also, how does 'Transhumanist' come into play in a purposeless unplanned, undersigned evolution theory? What's with all this quest for knowledge to grasp for eternal life when that would totally screw up the evolution process? Is that even possible? Is this quest requested by Evolution herself? Is she in need of I.D. because she just don't know what to do next?

Then we have valid information and can make important decisions that we can count on a lot more than the vagaries of subjective whim.

Your explanation is yours, you earned it and have every right and permission to live your life according to it. But that is where it ends. For all of us. It must end there, if we are to avoid oppressing others with demands that can only belong to an individual.

Why would an Evolutionist want to collect information on Evolution? Why would Evolutionist worry about oppressing others by the knowledge of The Creator?
Why are you suggesting I keep this to myself, yet you claim Evolution as science? What is "valid information to make important decisions" even mean in Evolutionary terms, .. it sounds so I.D.-ish.

This doesn't decrease the MEANING or purpose you draw from your revelation, because it never was anything but yours. It doesn't need to be believed, understood, or accepted by anyone else to make it a valid revelation for you.

Tell Richard Dawkins what you just told me; "Mr. Dawkins, Evolution is yours and never was anything but yours. It doesn't need to be believed or understood or accepted by anyone else to make it a valid revelation for you, so why are you expressing so much animosity towards fellow evolving animals like yourself if they believe in some Intelligent Creator who actually plans out and designs things? I mean come on Mr. Dawkins, intelligent design? Who on this Big-banged earth would even give a second thought of an Intelligent being designing things, .. I mean we are evolving, and came by evolution a purposeless accident, ... sheesh, .. intelligent design, .. Adam and Eve, talking donkeys, come on, calm down ape-man, no one can take the animal out of you, right?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0ORcs8FKk8

Please tell me what evolutionary process drives Mr. Dawkins to even show up to debates like that? Does he think that children's stories of Adam and Eve will effect or stop the evolutionary process? I mean what's next, show up and protest front of the Disney Land gates and scream at the guests: "How can you believe in Mickey Mouse? How? Look, it's a firkin costume. Have you people gone mad, bringing your kids to damage their influential delicate evolving brains? Go home and teach your kids Evolution so they will know they are animals, apes evolved by no will or purpose of anyone!"

I mean come on, I'm sure you could just see him doing that? I can..

It's a lot less exciting, and there's a lot of self-importance to be lost, but that self-importance is just another personal 'ghost' that when insisted upon, brings strife. Nothing is lost because it was never owned in the first place. You are back where you started from, just like the next person, and that's good enough.

You know, there were a few glimpses of hope there, but I do understand the power of religious indoctrination. And yes, unless you wake up from your evolving delusions, it is right back to where I started from. And yes, I do believe Evolution needs all the help it can get, and let's hope that with this Transhumanism thing we can get some I.D. to get evolution rolling. I mean what would of happen if Georges Lemaitre wasn't there to witness the Big-bang? Because Darwin never claimed he witnessed a single celled bacteria evolving legs. lungs, get up on two feet and climb a tree, so he is the only scientist to have witnessed anything actually in these stories. My God, can you imagine people be stuck having to believe something as crazy as some Intelligent Mind Designing the universe and everything in it?

Frightening though, isn't it?

Take care Hamsaka.

[Clownboat]

My God, can you imagine people be stuck having to believe something as crazy as some Intelligent Mind Designing the universe and everything in it?

Frightening though, isn't it?

Arian, this would not be frightening. What it IS though is un-evidenced.

I have a pink turtle in my basement. Are you frightened by that? You're not, and either are most of us I would assume about an Intelligent Mind Designing the universe.
But such a thing needs to be shown to be real first.

[FarWanderer]

Theism and atheism as I said is also religious opposing beliefs, so don't think that will help you in this case. This is the reason one god is like all gods, it's all the same to you guys, and when I point out why that is, because of your religious POV, that you are interpreting the Bible and everything in there through a religious POV, and that you will never see or understand what I tell you unless you leave religion out of it. I mean read the comments, .. you guys/ladies cannot even imagine God being outside of religion. I mean you even admit it, yet I keep asking you not to use religious interpretations to what I tell you!?

I've read your stuff here for a while now, Arian, and as far as I know you have never even made the slightest attempt to explain how it is that the bible has anything to do with our (alleged) Creator.

I am quite a fan of people like Thomas Paine or Baruch Spinoza who sought "God" on his (its) own terms rather than through some "holy book".

What little I know of Tillich also gives me a positive impression.

In any case, "religious" is taking the bible as true without having an independent reason for why you should. Do you not do that?