fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Oct 7, 2019 18:20:44 GMT
I was referring to his acknowledgement of a vast intelligence undetected by the limited human senses that exists throughout the cosmos. To believe that the perfection of everything in the cosmos is 'by accident' is sheer idiocy, IMO. But how do I begin to acknowledge this intelligence if I can't sense it? Shall I ask Geordi and Data to setup one of those energy fields?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 7, 2019 19:34:24 GMT
yes you have made a claim, I am looking for something other than your assertion to back it up, like for example an article about these experiments and perhaps an explanation of why you think a residual energy field after the fact is evidence that the energy was the creating force. No, it actually proves just the opposite.
The fact is, no amount of evidence or proof would satisfy you.
Rigth so what you really meant to say was: 'I am talking out of my ass, and there is absolutely zero evidence I can provide that substantiates my claim' I mean the fact that you dont understand the leaf thing alone proves you dont have a clue about this. what is hilarious is that I think that metaphysically speaking you are correct, you happen to be though a shining example of not understanding a single thing, but still getting the end result right.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 19:48:09 GMT
I was referring to his acknowledgement of a vast intelligence undetected by the limited human senses that exists throughout the cosmos. To believe that the perfection of everything in the cosmos is 'by accident' is sheer idiocy, IMO. But how do I begin to acknowledge this intelligence if I can't sense it? Shall I ask Geordi and Data to setup one of those energy fields? In other words, if you can't sense it, it doesn't exist? Okay, got it.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 19:49:01 GMT
No, it actually proves just the opposite.
The fact is, no amount of evidence or proof would satisfy you.
Rigth so what you really meant to say was: 'I am talking out of my ass, and there is absolutely zero evidence I can provide that substantiates my claim' I mean the fact that you dont understand the leaf thing alone proves you dont have a clue about this. what is hilarious is that I think that metaphysically speaking you are correct, you happen to be though a shining example of not understanding a single thing, but still getting the end result right. No, you're the one who doesn't get it, and I find it hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 7, 2019 19:52:33 GMT
But how do I begin to acknowledge this intelligence if I can't sense it? Shall I ask Geordi and Data to setup one of those energy fields? In other words, if you can't sense it, it doesn't exist? Okay, got it. If you can't sense it, then there's no particularly reason to believe it exists would be more accurate then you're terrible strawman.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 19:54:57 GMT
In other words, if you can't sense it, it doesn't exist? Okay, got it. If you can't sense it, then there's no particularly reason to believe it exists would be more accurate then you're terrible strawman. Which is an absurd position to take.
Dogs can 'sense' things humans can't. Does that mean what they sense doesn't exist. Lol
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 7, 2019 20:00:04 GMT
Rigth so what you really meant to say was: 'I am talking out of my ass, and there is absolutely zero evidence I can provide that substantiates my claim' I mean the fact that you dont understand the leaf thing alone proves you dont have a clue about this. what is hilarious is that I think that metaphysically speaking you are correct, you happen to be though a shining example of not understanding a single thing, but still getting the end result right. No, you're the one who doesn't get it, and I find it hilarious. Wow, ok so tell me what I got wrong. Your premise seems to be (with the leaf) that a leaf has some kind of energy field and that the field remains after you take away some of the leaf, this proves that energy (which is apparently analogous to consciousness) created the leaf. is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 7, 2019 20:00:42 GMT
If you can't sense it, then there's no particularly reason to believe it exists would be more accurate then you're terrible strawman. Which is an absurd position to take.
Dogs can 'sense' things humans can't. Does that mean what they sense doesn't exist. Lol
Did you actually bother reading what I posted? You literally just used the same Strawman I already refuted in that post.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 7, 2019 20:36:32 GMT
not vice versa.
Therefore, it doesn't need materiality to exist.
This implies that there was a time when only consciousness existed. From what did it create anything material?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 8, 2019 1:01:15 GMT
Let us suppose what you say is true. What use is the information? Will it help anyone decide whether to buy the Chevrolet Equinox or Pontiac Solstice?
Noticing that not all people can detect the fields, what hope is there for those who can't?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 8, 2019 1:13:16 GMT
In other words, if you can't sense it, it doesn't exist? Okay, got it. If you can't sense it, then there's no particularly reason to believe it exists would be more accurate then you're terrible strawman. Even lies can contain factual information if you dig. There is a purpose. Why did the liar lie? Did the liar expect money? Is there some other problem in the liar's life that might require a solution? There are even things we can learn about your reaction to a claim. Do you think your adequacy is threatened? Have you doubted your own adequacy? Is there some other problem in your life that might require a solution?
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Oct 8, 2019 6:47:26 GMT
In other words, if you can't sense it, it doesn't exist? Okay, got it. C'mon now, you're smarter than this. I didn't imply non-existence. I didn't acknowledge you before I came upon this board and observed (via senses) a thread made by you. Did you know of me before I posted in any of your threads? I still don't fully know you, only what you type which is just miniscule fraction of the person you are but I know you exist due to my interaction with you. Now you talk of a vast intelligence that, I presume, you acknowledge without recourse to your senses. If not an empirical matter then either knowledge via reason or revelation. I don't have revelations and I find no reason to believe in a vast intelligence, and when I do attempt to reason about any matter I draw upon things I've sensed and experienced beforehand. Nor do I experience interaction with such a vast intelligence. How do you acknowledge such a vast intelligence without recourse to your senses? Has your acknowledgement come via revelation? Or is it that you don't fully know yourself and you just believe in such?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 8, 2019 10:30:14 GMT
Lately, though, I think it is more likely that someday science will discover that when breaking down atomic particles into smaller and smaller units, what these units will finally break down to is a form of pure energy, which has no particles. There is literally no such thing as energy not carried by a particle.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Oct 8, 2019 10:36:36 GMT
If you can't sense it, then there's no particularly reason to believe it exists would be more accurate then you're terrible strawman. Which is an absurd position to take.
Dogs can 'sense' things humans can't. Does that mean what they sense doesn't exist. Lol
How is that absurd? It's one thing to say: "there are probably things that exist that we can't sense." That's actually true as we've developed devices that can measure things (sights, sounds, etc.) outside of our perceptual range; for example, there are frequencies higher than 20kHz that we can't hear, but dogs can. But it's another thing entirely to say: "THIS thing that we can't sense exists." When you say that, what evidence are you relying on? In the case with higher frequencies, we can measure them, and thus see them on measurement devices.
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Oct 8, 2019 11:24:49 GMT
Lately, though, I think it is more likely that someday science will discover that when breaking down atomic particles into smaller and smaller units, what these units will finally break down to is a form of pure energy, which has no particles. There is literally no such thing as energy not carried by a particle. Precisely what I am saying. The energy carries the particles.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 8, 2019 11:26:35 GMT
Which is an absurd position to take.
Dogs can 'sense' things humans can't. Does that mean what they sense doesn't exist. Lol
How is that absurd? It's one thing to say: "there are probably things that exist that we can't sense." That's actually true as we've developed devices that can measure things (sights, sounds, etc.) outside of our perceptual range; for example, there are frequencies higher than 20kHz that we can't hear, but dogs can. But it's another thing entirely to say: "THIS thing that we can't sense exists." When you say that, what evidence are you relying on? In the case with higher frequencies, we can measure them, and thus see them on measurement devices. People rely on the testimony of others much of the time. It can be efficient. Do you deny you have?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 8, 2019 11:46:33 GMT
There is literally no such thing as energy not carried by a particle. Precisely what I am saying. The energy carries the particles. Not quite. Energy is defined in science by the activities of particles.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 8, 2019 11:48:00 GMT
People rely on the testimony of others much of the time. It can be efficient. Do you deny you have? Yes, but whether it is "efficient" or wise to depend on the testimony of others depends on various factors--the nature of the person and very importantly, the nature of what they are claiming to have witnessed.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Oct 8, 2019 12:06:16 GMT
How is that absurd? It's one thing to say: "there are probably things that exist that we can't sense." That's actually true as we've developed devices that can measure things (sights, sounds, etc.) outside of our perceptual range; for example, there are frequencies higher than 20kHz that we can't hear, but dogs can. But it's another thing entirely to say: "THIS thing that we can't sense exists." When you say that, what evidence are you relying on? In the case with higher frequencies, we can measure them, and thus see them on measurement devices. People rely on the testimony of others much of the time. It can be efficient. Do you deny you have? No, but as faustus said it depends on who is claiming what.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 8, 2019 12:53:59 GMT
How is that absurd? It's one thing to say: "there are probably things that exist that we can't sense." That's actually true as we've developed devices that can measure things (sights, sounds, etc.) outside of our perceptual range; for example, there are frequencies higher than 20kHz that we can't hear, but dogs can. But it's another thing entirely to say: "THIS thing that we can't sense exists." When you say that, what evidence are you relying on? In the case with higher frequencies, we can measure them, and thus see them on measurement devices. People rely on the testimony of others much of the time. It can be efficient. Do you deny you have? First hand accounts (anecdotal evidence) are ok for criminal investigations (if that's what you're referring to) but things like DNA and fingerprints evidence (scientific/objective data) are far preferable as witnesses are often prone to making mistakes (or even flat out lying). But even then that isn't really comparable to first accounts of the supernatural, we know people get murdered/robbed/etc (there's plenty of video footage of that ), it's been known to happen so there's actual plausibility on murder and robbery claims, there's no solid concrete evidence for the supernatural/metaphysical/etc so the plausibility of such claims is no where no near comparable. It's why "I saw that person get murdered" is far more believable than "I saw that person vanish into thin air". One is far more plausible than the other.
|
|