Eternity

[Diogenes]

Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?

[brunumb]

The space of made-up possibilities is infinite. If your argument is merely that something's possible, then it's competing with all of the other things that aren't impossible. Moreover, that entire infinite space of possible things with no evidence can dance together on the head of a pin. A claim of "not impossible" no matter how it's worded ("possible," "very possible," "entirely possible," "prove me wrong") is completely meaningless. If you have evidence, we have something to compare in a meaningful way. If not, then your speculation, whatever it is, is in direct and even-money competition with Santa Claus.

That deserved its own space.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #100]

IF we are not looking for that in the things we can observe, then we will not find it in the things we observe.

Therefore, in order to find it in the things we observe, it matters that we are looking for it in the things we observe.

That's a true statement. The implied corollary, though, that we will find it if we start looking or look differently or look in another place is again merely possible. The analogy is becoming tired, but it's the exact same likelihood that we'll find Santa Claus.

Santa Claus is an idea based upon a person. Like Robin Hood.
The Cosmic Mind is different in that regard so I am confident that your analogy is off.

Straw in a sense - because it is used in a way which doesn't actual address the argument.

Perhaps you can find an analogy that involves actual mind in relation to your claim that there is no evidence.

I found this video had interesting premise relative to this subject.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #100]

I get where you're coming from, but at this point I can only say that you and I use the word "probably" to mean different things.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

However, we have yet to get to the point where scientists intent on this future event they are invested in, will be allowed - as nature might have other plans...the race is on...will the planet heat up sufficiently to cause an extinction event? How will that impact on the plans of the scientists supporting Scientific Cosmology? DO they have a backup plan to offset an extinction event?

What does the 'math' tell them as a way of finding answers to those kinds of questions?

What does the 'math' tell them as a way of finding answers to those kinds of questions?

That you have composed one of a great many equally probable futures of which most don't include immortality, a Cosmic Mind, or a Large Simulation Machine.

Not sure why you thought that question was directed to you, or to the ideas of immortality, a Cosmic Mind, or a Large Simulation Machine.
The question I asked had to do with climate change and how will that impact on the plans of the scientists supporting Scientific Cosmology. Do they have a backup plan to offset an extinction event so that they can carry on with their plans of getting a foothold into space...?
Thus "What does the 'math' tell them as a way of finding answers to those kinds of questions?" which they must sure have to ask, if they have any hope in seeing their plan bear the kind of future that they are working on creating for themselves.

What I composed was a "most like scenario" of their space-faring agenda - based on best possible outcomes.

Sort of like - how 10.000 individuate minds combined their mind-power together in order to construct The JWST and get it to the position it currently is.
How this involved going through the variables of probable scenario's to which they could counter which could interfere with the overall desired result. [best possible scenario]

Such as "In the likelihood of 'this' happening, what can we do now to neutralize/minimize that in order to continue with seeing the project succeed?"

Of course, there are things to which the 10.000 cannot counter, should they happen - like a piece of space debris coincidently obliterating the telescope shortly after it unfurled and started to do the job it was sent out to do.

So my composed scenario was based upon everything working out perfectly for the future space-faring scientists, and the most likely things which would occur after they gained, not only a foot-hold in space, but also a controlling influence on the matter.

In that, there are no 'equally probable futures'.

My composed scenario was also based on Transhumanism, which we know is a science connected with the dream of space-faring all these scientists are working toward, which is why I included the idea of all the minds becoming One Mind, which was housed in machinery which it created for that purpose.

The idea of being able to know everything there is to know about the universe long before the universe itself fizzles out/becomes inert is realistic.

The idea of the "Space-Machine Scientist" creating a highly complex simulation in order to alleviate the boredom of being omniscient is also realistic.

So yes - I was offering what I think of as the most likely mid-to-end-game that will occur
should our current scientists get their way re their collective agenda, if everything panned out nicely and no pesky "space debris" upsetting their plans.

As too, the idea that they eventually also figuring out that there is an actual Cosmic Mind - I popped that in there on the premise that;

IF
There is an actual Cosmic Mind
THEN eventually such scientist will discover it.

[Tcg]

IF
There is an actual Cosmic Mind
THEN eventually such scientist will discover it.

IF
There is a hamburger orbiting the earth
THEN eventually such cooks will discover it...

Unless Whimpy has already eaten it. Of course, if that is the case, he will most certainly pay for it Tuesday.


Tcg

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #103]

IF
There is an actual Cosmic Mind
THEN eventually such scientist will discover it.

A lot of 'ifs'. But that what hope lives on, it seems. Which is, of course, fine for some.
To the actual post:
Given enough time, humanity will discover everything. But humanity likely won't survive forever in this state. So, scientist aren't likely to discover everything. Rather or not this intangible 'cosmic mind' is part of 'everything' and will be discovered is possible, but highly, highly unlikely it seems.
Still, hope spring eternal and all that...

[1213]

...
For example, if you are referring to your body as 'you' then yes - you have changed in your walk from one position to the other. ...

Please explain how I have changed in that case?

[William]

...
For example, if you are referring to your body as 'you' then yes - you have changed in your walk from one position to the other. ...

Please explain how I have changed in that case?

Your body [if that is what you are referring to as 'I' ] has changed - In the video I linked in post #102 at time 13:29 a scientist asks "what am I" and explains this changing that occurs.

[William]

Re: The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe and brooded over what was now Chaos. Step by step, it must be done. And AC said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" And there was light ~ Isaac Asimov ~ [The Last Question]

[Plus recent conversation I had here]

What the fact presents to us as a biological specie [Human Beings] is that whatever we do in relation to the science is pointless - or more to the point - can only go so far as entropy allows, and if it is the case that the singularity is an infinitesimal consciousness which contains the absolute sum total of all possible data - whether human beings even survive to be a substantial aspect of that data or not - all that results is another singularity and another manifestation of another universe which possibly might be slightly different from the previous manifestation.

Rinse and repeat [with possible variation]

Whereas, if we exist within a simulation, then it is possible that the simulation is designed the way it is and does not in itself signify that all simulations are designed in the same manner. [ending in entropy.]

[We_Are_VENOM]

Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?

As if this kind of question hasn't already been addressed numerous times throughout this forum.

Yet you ask it as if it is some new, ground-breaking of question.

[Tcg]

Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?

As if this kind of question hasn't already been addressed numerous times throughout this forum.

Yet you ask it as if it is some new, ground-breaking of question.

Moderator Comment

You've been advised previously concerning complaints about the questions being asked:

Flooding the forum with meaningless questions.

Moderator Comment

The whole point of the forum is to debate questions. If you believe a question is meaningless, just go on to the next thread.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

This is yet another. If you aren't interested in the question being debated, move on to another thread.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.