View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Indigo Child » 14 Jun 2010, 17:18

When you say it is based on rational evidence, are you speaking of observable empirical evidence?


Although observable empirical evidence is always ideal. As I say the proof of anything is in the pudding. In absence of empirical evidence, we have to rely on rational evidence. That is evidence based on reasoning. For example, the notion that the earth went around the sun rather than vis versa was clear based on evidence seen in reasoning, but we could only get empirical evidence of this with telescopes and finally going out in space and seeing the sun.

Empirical evidence is evidence that is limited to the senses and equipment. We already know our senses are unreliable and give us wrong views of reality. It is very easy to trick these senses. We also know there are many things our senses do not pick up such as infrared and ultraviolet, infraosonic and ultrasonic; atoms, and vibrational states. They also cannot pick up dimensions such as time. The scientific image of reality and the empirical sensory image is radically different, and we know the scientific image is truer than the empirical image. However, the scientific image has limitation of how advanced our scientific instruments are. So far at most we can only go as far as subatomic particles, but we know now that the rest of reality is made up of more than 90% dark matter, matter which is non-physical.

In order to know any reality more subtle than we are allowed to either through senses or scientific instruments, we have to rely on reasoning. This kind of evidence is rational. Much of general relativity theory was based on rational arguments, only to be later empirically verified. Now, as our point of discussion here is god which is definition metaphysical, we must rely on rational arguments alone.

I think the assertion that "There can be no creation without a creator" is sound, but then where is the proof that the universe was created? Is it possible to know such a thing objectively? How can we say with sureuty that there was an "original nothingness?" It is true that there may have been a first cause, but how can we know that it was a creator?

I am not saying that what you have said is neccesarily wrong but I question whether there is no objective, empirical evidence for it.


There is indeed empirical evidence that the universe was at one point a singulaity which expanded outwards after the event known as the big bang, and then it expanded and gradually the rate of expansion slowed down. It is now believed that the universe will eventually contract back to the singulariy. Something must have started this process of creation to bring it into manifestation as the first cause which is external to the original material stuff. The building does not build itself, it is only built when the builder works the material stuff
into the building.

Emotions & moods are mysterious things, we do not understand them well, and there are a couple competing theories on how they work. There is evidence that they are at least partly physical. Seeing as how they are not understood very well, I do not see how we could be positive that they are not physical, natural processes.


The argument is more complex than just having emotions and moods. The argument is there is another dimension of reality that is not physical at all, it is experential. It is not something which can be examined or quanitifed. At most all we can do is find physical correlates for experiential states, but the states are not physicial themselves. Now in order to seriously maintain that it be maybe physical, you have to first show how could it at all be possible that this non physical state would arise from a physical state. It is not my job to prove that this is not possible, because that would be like trying to prove the non-existence of Santa claus. The burden lies with you to prove it is physical.

The physical dimension has weight, size, mass, charge etc The non physical dimension has experience, desire, feeling, knowledge and ignoance, aeshetic. Logically they are completely irreducible.


Hmmm.... This is too philisophical for me. :) I agree with your intitial statement that everything is temporal, but I also know the law of conservation says that matter & energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed. For example, when I cease to be, my energy will be disapated in the form of escaping heat and nutrients as I cool and then decompose.

Speaking of observation, I do not know of any objective data that shows the self can exist independent of the physical body. It may very well be able to, but I think it is valid to question it.

Will I outlast my physical body. I don't know. I have not seen objective evidence for it.


Your body will indeed be disipated and transformed to another form. However, as you are clearly not your body, but your mind you will continue to exist. If I took your hand and used your hand to kill somebody, is it "you" which has killed that person? No, clearly not, because you are not your hand. You are the one that is conscious of your hand, but you are not the hand itself. Similarly, you are the one that is conscious of your entire body, but you are not the body itself. You in an association with a body, much like you are in association with clothes, but are not the clothes.
Your mind works nothing like how the body works. The body works according to strict physical laws in space and time. It is fixed in space and time, it is physical, measurable and machine-like. The mind on the other hand is not physical, not measurable, is not limited by space or time, for it can reach something before the body has even reached it, go backwards and forwards in time and works by intentions and desires.
Again the body and mind are not reducible to one another. The part that you call "you" is not a physical thing.

Now my argument was that what you call "you" is in fact an aggregate of changing sensations and thoughts and therefore there really is no "self" that is you. If you are just a stream of changing sensations and thoughts, how can there be anything such as a self? However, if there is no self, how can there be any perception of reality at all? It logically follows that there is a self which is what makes perception possible, but it is not your empirical self. On the contrary, your empirical self together with the world that is perceives relies on this true self for its being. In other words you are not the one that possesses a self, but are actually possessed by the self. Your being relies completely on its being. If you are the watched, the self is the watcher. You can never actually watch the watcher.
Recall the scientific image that reality is not in fact what we perceive, it is a flux of vibrational states or energy if you may. This only every gains any form when it is observed by the self. Thus all of reality depends on the self and gets it beingness from the self. Do you understand now the point that everything has borrowed being but not its own being?
Being is pure awareness and is within this pure awareness that everything taking place. You are participating in this pure awareness, but you do not actually posssess anything. Nothing belongs to you. It all belongs to the self. Whether that be the physical world or the the world of mind. You are simply accessing it.

Also a bit too philisophical for my tastes. I am not exactly sure of what you mean by some of this. maybe you would be willing to explain a little further?

So, why am I commenting on all this? Well I am not trying to argue with you, that is for sure. I guess I am defending atheism as a valid view.


By default these arguments are going to be philosophical because we are talking of the greatest of issues in metaphysics: god. I will clarify some points I outlined.
I showed that life and intelligence precede us. In other words even before we humans came into existence and even before the universe came into manifest existence, the universe had life and intelligence. Humans are under a mistaken notion that life and intelligence is a special quality that exists only in them, but it is fact existing in the very being of the universe itself. We only borrow from it. We are a part of an unfolding process where the universe is coming to know itself though manifesting life that can look back at itself, via which it gains self-consciousness. Then when we are self-conscious we become aware of our potential and aware of the higher states of being that are potential within us and strive to attain them, and we become aware of this potential by the dissatisfaction we have with what is given. We don't just want a bit more, we want the infinite, the eternal and the perfect.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01






Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby really? » 15 Jun 2010, 09:08

PWagWhen you say it is based on rational evidence, are you speaking of observable empirical evidence?




Indigo Child wrote:Empirical evidence is evidence that is limited to the senses and equipment. We already know our senses are unreliable and give us wrong views of reality. It is very easy to trick these senses. We also know there are many things our senses do not pick up such as infrared and ultraviolet, infraosonic and ultrasonic; atoms, and vibrational states. They also cannot pick up dimensions such as time. The scientific image of reality and the empirical sensory image is radically different, and we know the scientific image is truer than the empirical image. However, the scientific image has limitation of how advanced our scientific instruments are. So far at most we can only go as far as subatomic particles, but we know now that the rest of reality is made up of more than 90% dark matter, matter which is non-physical.

Dark Matter is unproven and still hotly debated if it exists. It is a bit premature to proclaim dark matter is real let alone non physical, besides no one says it non physical except you.

Indigo Child wrote:Although observable empirical evidence is always ideal. As I say the proof of anything is in the pudding. In absence of empirical evidence, we have to rely on rational evidence. That is evidence based on reasoning. For example, the notion that the earth went around the sun rather than vis versa was clear based on evidence seen in reasoning, but we could only get empirical evidence of this with telescopes and finally going out in space and seeing the sun. In order to know any reality more subtle than we are allowed to either through senses or scientific instruments, we have to rely on reasoning. This kind of evidence is rational. Much of general relativity theory was based on rational arguments, only to be later empirically verified. Now, as our point of discussion here is god which is definition metaphysical, we must rely on rational arguments alone.

Here's my opinion stated as fact. To argue the existence of God without one tiny morsel of empirical evidence results in elaborate arguments that prove nothing in the end.

Pwag: I think the assertion that "There can be no creation without a creator" is sound, but then where is the proof that the universe was created? Is it possible to know such a thing objectively? How can we say with sureuty that there was an "original nothingness?" It is true that there may have been a first cause, but how can we know that it was a creator?

I am not saying that what you have said is neccesarily wrong but I question whether there is no objective, empirical evidence for it.


Indigo Child wrote:There is indeed empirical evidence that the universe was at one point a singulaity which expanded outwards after the event known as the big bang, and then it expanded and gradually the rate of expansion slowed down. It is now believed that the universe will eventually contract back to the singulariy. Something must have started this process of creation to bring it into manifestation as the first cause which is external to the original material stuff. The building does not build itself, it is only built when the builder works the material stuff
into the building.

Again you stated something as fact when it is not. There is no empirical evidence that this universe started from a singularity. None. One theory predicts that this universe may have. Another says this universe is a result of a blackhole from another universe

Indigo Child wrote:Emotions & moods are mysterious things, we do not understand them well, and there are a couple competing theories on how they work. There is evidence that they are at least partly physical. Seeing as how they are not understood very well, I do not see how we could be positive that they are not physical, natural processes.

Judging from the line of thinking in your others posts I believe you meant to say
I do not see how we could be positive that they are physical


Indigo Child wrote:The argument is more complex than just having emotions and moods. The argument is there is another dimension of reality that is not physical at all, it is experential. It is not something which can be examined or quanitifed. At most all we can do is find physical correlates for experiential states, but the states are not physicial themselves. Now in order to seriously maintain that it be maybe physical, you have to first show how could it at all be possible that this non physical state would arise from a physical state. It is not my job to prove that this is not possible, because that would be like trying to prove the non-existence of Santa claus. The burden lies with you to prove it is physical.

You're the one stating reality is non physical. It is your job. Isn't that what you've been doing all along ?

Indigo Child wrote:The physical dimension has weight, size, mass, charge etc The non physical dimension has experience, desire, feeling, knowledge and ignoance, aeshetic. Logically they are completely irreducible.



Pwag : Hmmm.... This is too philisophical for me. :) I agree with your intitial statement that everything is temporal, but I also know the law of conservation says that matter & energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed. For example, when I cease to be, my energy will be disapated in the form of escaping heat and nutrients as I cool and then decompose.
Speaking of observation, I do not know of any objective data that shows the self can exist independent of the physical body. It may very well be able to, but I think it is valid to question it.

Will I outlast my physical body. I don't know. I have not seen objective evidence for it.


Indigo Child wrote:Your body will indeed be disipated and transformed to another form. However, as you are clearly not your body, but your mind you will continue to exist. If I took your hand and used your hand to kill somebody, is it "you" which has killed that person? No, clearly not, because you are not your hand. You are the one that is conscious of your hand, but you are not the hand itself. Similarly, you are the one that is conscious of your entire body, but you are not the body itself. You in an association with a body, much like you are in association with clothes, but are not the clothes.
Your mind works nothing like how the body works. The body works according to strict physical laws in space and time. It is fixed in space and time, it is physical, measurable and machine-like. The mind on the other hand is not physical, not measurable, is not limited by space or time, for it can reach something before the body has even reached it, go backwards and forwards in time and works by intentions and desires.
Again the body and mind are not reducible to one another. The part that you call "you" is not a physical thing.

Now my argument was that what you call "you" is in fact an aggregate of changing sensations and thoughts and therefore there really is no "self" that is you. If you are just a stream of changing sensations and thoughts, how can there be anything such as a self? However, if there is no self, how can there be any perception of reality at all? It logically follows that there is a self which is what makes perception possible, but it is not your empirical self. On the contrary, your empirical self together with the world that is perceives relies on this true self for its being. In other words you are not the one that possesses a self, but are actually possessed by the self. Your being relies completely on its being. If you are the watched, the self is the watcher. You can never actually watch the watcher.
Recall the scientific image that reality is not in fact what we perceive, it is a flux of vibrational states or energy if you may. This only every gains any form when it is observed by the self. Thus all of reality depends on the self and gets it beingness from the self. Do you understand now the point that everything has borrowed being but not its own being?
Being is pure awareness and is within this pure awareness that everything taking place. You are participating in this pure awareness, but you do not actually posssess anything. Nothing belongs to you. It all belongs to the self. Whether that be the physical world or the the world of mind. You are simply accessing it.

It would be nice if you let everyone know this is your particular philosophical point of view and leave it at that. Instead of saying this version of your reality is the only legit one.


PWag:Also a bit too philisophical for my tastes. I am not exactly sure of what you mean by some of this. maybe you would be willing to explain a little further?
So, why am I commenting on all this? Well I am not trying to argue with you, that is for sure. I guess I am defending atheism as a valid view.


Indigo Child wrote:By default these arguments are going to be philosophical because we are talking of the greatest of issues in metaphysics: god. I will clarify some points I outlined.
I showed that life and intelligence precede us. In other words even before we humans came into existence and even before the universe came into manifest existence, the universe had life and intelligence. Humans are under a mistaken notion that life and intelligence is a special quality that exists only in them, but it is fact existing in the very being of the universe itself. We only borrow from it. We are a part of an unfolding process where the universe is coming to know itself though manifesting life that can look back at itself, via which it gains self-consciousness. Then when we are self-conscious we become aware of our potential and aware of the higher states of being that are potential within us and strive to attain them, and we become aware of this potential by the dissatisfaction we have with what is given. We don't just want a bit more, we want the infinite, the eternal and the perfect.

You've done nothing of the sort. To reiterate. What you have done is try to make a case that your philosophical take on reality is the only valid one.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Indigo Child » 15 Jun 2010, 11:06

Dark Matter is unproven and still hotly debated if it exists. It is a bit premature to proclaim dark matter is real let alone non physical, besides no one says it non physical except you.


Dark matter is a necessary theoretical prediction to explain matter in the universe. As the the observable matter does not account for it, it is inferred that most of the universe is made of matter that is invisible to our senses and instruments and outside of our universe. Sounds pretty non physical to me.

You're playing the zero-sumgame fallacy again. Nothing is proven in science. It is based on our growing knowledge of the universe.

Here's my opinion stated as fact. To argue the existence of God without one tiny morsel of empirical evidence results in elaborate arguments that prove nothing in the end.


It is your opinion. What more can I say?

Again you stated something as fact when it is not. There is no empirical evidence that this universe started from a singularity. None. One theory predicts that this universe may have. Another says this universe is a result of a blackhole from another universe


Nope, I said "According to empirical evidence" You are saying that there is no empirical evidence for the big bang theory. Actually there is, by measuring the red shift we know that the universe is expanding and at one point it was smaller. As for the theory it resulted from a blackhole from another universe. You just pulled me up on dark matter being unproven, and then go onto tell me about blackholes and parallel universes. Priceless.

It is logical that everything which is manifest must have a beginning by the law of cause and effect. A tree has a beginning in a seed. An embroyo has a beginning in the ovum. A star has a beginning in interstellar gasses. So likewise the manifest universe has a beginning to.

You're statements are inconsistent. You seem to accept scientific empirical evidence sometimes, and reject it at others. Too much cherry picking.

You're the one stating reality is non physical. It is your job. Isn't that what you've been doing all along ?


Well, in this particular quote I was saying that mind is non-physical, as it is clear that it has no physical properties. If you dispute that, you need to prove it to be physical. It is your burden of proof, sorry.

You've done nothing of the sort. To reiterate. What you have done is try to make a case that your philosophical take on reality is the only valid one.


No, what I have done using logic is show why materialism and atheism is bunk, why it is clear there IS a metaphysical reality, a universal intelligence and a vital spirit. If it is not valid, you will be able to demonstrate why it isn't. If on the other hand it is valid, you will not be able to.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby really? » 15 Jun 2010, 12:44

Indigo Child wrote:
Dark Matter is unproven and still hotly debated if it exists. It is a bit premature to proclaim dark matter is real let alone non physical, besides no one says it non physical except you.


Dark matter is a necessary theoretical prediction to explain matter in the universe. As the the observable matter does not account for it, it is inferred that most of the universe is made of matter that is invisible to our senses and instruments and outside of our universe. Sounds pretty non physical to me.
You can really be stupid at times. This is what you said and I quote: [ but we know now that the rest of reality is made up of more than 90% dark matter, matter which is non-physical.] Now what in the hell does that mean it means you think dark matter is non physical unlike normal matter which is physical. Another thing, I have no idea where you got the idea that dark matter resides outside of our universe. Citation needed.

Indigo Child wrote:You're playing the zero-sumgame fallacy again. Nothing is proven in science. It is based on our growing knowledge of the universe.


Me :Here's my opinion stated as fact. To argue the existence of God without one tiny morsel of empirical evidence results in elaborate arguments that prove nothing in the end.


Indigo Child wrote:It is your opinion. What more can I say?

You know something of opining yourself

Me: Again you stated something as fact when it is not. There is no empirical evidence that this universe started from a singularity. None. One theory predicts that this universe may have. Another says this universe is a result of a blackhole from another universe

I did make a mistake in not being clear in my wording. I did not literally mean our universe arose from a blackhole from another universe. I meant that our universe came into being through a wormhole from energy and matter falling into a blackhole in some other universe. It dose not violate the Standard model, but it does get rid of the singularity.

Indigo Child wrote:Nope, I said "According to empirical evidence" You are saying that there is no empirical evidence for the big bang theory. Actually there is, by measuring the red shift we know that the universe is expanding and at one point it was smaller. As for the theory it resulted from a blackhole from another universe. You just pulled me up on dark matter being unproven, and then go onto tell me about blackholes and parallel universes. Priceless.

That's not what I said. There's plenty of evidence for the Big Bang. There's no empirical evidence for a singularity. It is a theoretical prediction. As for our universe arising from a blackhole in another is theoretical idea to explain where this universe came from.

Indigo Child wrote:It is logical that everything which is manifest must have a beginning by the law of cause and effect. A tree has a beginning in a seed. An embroyo has a beginning in the ovum. A star has a beginning in interstellar gasses. So likewise the manifest universe has a beginning to.
You're statements are inconsistent. You seem to accept scientific empirical evidence sometimes, and reject it at others. Too much cherry picking.

I accept learned opinions.

You're the one stating reality is non physical. It is your job. Isn't that what you've been doing all along ?


Indigo Child wrote:Well, in this particular quote I was saying that mind is non-physical, as it is clear that it has no physical properties. If you dispute that, you need to prove it to be physical. It is your burden of proof, sorry.

The mind is what the brain creates.there's only anecdote and a desire to believe the mind continues after death. There is no empirical [ quantified] evidence the mind continues after death. Here I'll paint you a graphic example of what I mean. If you should have a club beat against your head until your brains looks like pudding take a look at the brain when you do what will you see ? You'll see a nonfunctioning brain that has no mind.



Indigo Child wrote:No, what I have done using logic is show why materialism and atheism is bunk, why it is clear there IS a metaphysical reality, a universal intelligence and a vital spirit. If it is not valid, you will be able to demonstrate why it isn't. If on the other hand it is valid, you will not be able to.

I have no idea what country you live in or come from or what cultural influences have formed you. But I can say this you come with so much cultural baggage that you can't see past your nose that your take on reality is no better or truer than anyone's else's. To reiterate. What you have done is try to make a case that your philosophical take on reality is the only valid one. To put it in somewhat cruder terms you vomit out I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Arguing with you is like arguing with a creationist. Anyway give yourself a pat on the back for you are much smarter than I.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Indigo Child » 15 Jun 2010, 15:42

Dark matter is a necessary theoretical prediction to explain matter in the universe. As the the observable matter does not account for it, it is inferred that most of the universe is made of matter that is invisible to our senses and instruments and outside of our universe. Sounds pretty non physical to me.
You can really be stupid at times. This is what you said and I quote: [ but we know now that the rest of reality is made up of more than 90% dark matter, matter which is non-physical.] Now what in the hell does that mean it means you think dark matter is non physical unlike normal matter which is physical. Another thing, I have no idea where you got the idea that dark matter resides outside of our universe. Citation needed.[/quote]

Where is this invisible dark matter then? Enlighten me. Is it under your bed or in your cupboard? :lol:

I will come at you from another angle. It is known for a fact today that reality is not fundamentally physical, it is waves or vibrations
of some fundamental stuff which is not physical and exists beyond the vacuum of space.. The casimir effect we discussed earlier in
in the human flying thread is a subtle quantum force that manifests from this vacuum.

Do you know when it does become physical according to QM? Only when it is observed. Simply put, there would be no reality
without the existence of an observer. So what is it before there is an observer? Just potential.

I did make a mistake in not being clear in my wording. I did not literally mean our universe arose from a blackhole from another universe. I meant that our universe came into being through a wormhole from energy and matter falling into a blackhole in some other universe. It dose not violate the Standard model, but it does get rid of the singularity.[/color]

That's not what I said. There's plenty of evidence for the Big Bang. There's no empirical evidence for a singularity. It is a theoretical prediction. As for our universe arising from a blackhole in another is theoretical idea to explain where this universe came from.


Hold on, you are telling us to not to positively talk about dark matter and singularity, but you are freely speculating
about blackholes and energy and matter falling through a wormhole from a parallel universe and starting the big bang!!! :lol:

As far as our current empirical evidence shows there is only one universe(hence the uni in universe) and it started from the
big bang where the universe existed as a point initially and expanded outwards.

[color=#000080]I accept learned opinions.


Well, this much clear is that these are your opinions. Then stop claiming they are based on evidence,
well clearly you don't care about evidence, and pick and choose according to your opinion.


The mind is what the brain creates.there's only anecdote and a desire to believe the mind continues after death. There is no empirical [ quantified] evidence the mind continues after death. Here I'll paint you a graphic example of what I mean. If you should have a club beat against your head until your brains looks like pudding take a look at the brain when you do what will you see ? You'll see a nonfunctioning brain that has no mind.[/color]


There is no empirical evidence the mind exists at all. Period ;) Do you have empirical(quantified) evidence that you have a mind? ;)

Your analogy is invalid. If you take a club and smash my radio set, I will have a non functioning radio set which has no music. Does this
mean the music has ceased to exist? Try again.



Indigo Child wrote:No, what I have done using logic is show why materialism and atheism is bunk, why it is clear there IS a metaphysical reality, a universal intelligence and a vital spirit. If it is not valid, you will be able to demonstrate why it isn't. If on the other hand it is valid, you will not be able to.

[color=#000080]I have no idea what country you live in or come from or what cultural influences have formed you. But I can say this you come with so much cultural baggage that you can't see past your nose that your take on reality is no better or truer than anyone's else's. To reiterate. What you have done is try to make a case that your philosophical take on reality is the only valid one. To put it in somewhat cruder terms you vomit out I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Arguing with you is like arguing with a creationist.
[/quote]

I told you before if my view of reality is invalid, you will be able to demonstrate it. I have been able to demonstrate your
materialistic view of reality is completely illogical, unscientific and contrary to experience and nothing more than a belief system.
I have already exposed all of the key doctrines of your materialistic religion in another thread(materialism, realism, ephiphenoamlism
and positivism) You're no skeptic, you're a believer.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby ProfWag » 15 Jun 2010, 18:13

Indigo Child wrote:. There can be no creation without a creator, something is required
to bring creation into manifestation from the original nothingness, otherwise we would have
an infinite regress that creation would never be possible, because there would be no first
cause.

The faulty logic in this statement is that you appear to be assuming that there was creation rather than evolution. If there was a creation, then the statement "There can be no creation without a creator" could be true. However, I don't believe the universe was "created," using that term as it is usually associated. If you are using the term "creator" to mean God, then your statement is based on opinion rather than processing the evidence of Big Bang and evolution.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3845
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby really? » 15 Jun 2010, 20:13

Indigo Child wrote:
Dark matter is a necessary theoretical prediction to explain matter in the universe. As the the observable matter does not account for it, it is inferred that most of the universe is made of matter that is invisible to our senses and instruments and outside of our universe. Sounds pretty non physical to me.
You can really be stupid at times. This is what you said and I quote: [ but we know now that the rest of reality is made up of more than 90% dark matter, matter which is non-physical.] Now what in the hell does that mean it means you think dark matter is non physical unlike normal matter which is physical. Another thing, I have no idea where you got the idea that dark matter resides outside of our universe. Citation needed.


Where is this invisible dark matter then? Enlighten me. Is it under your bed or in your cupboard? :lol:

I will come at you from another angle. It is known for a fact today that reality is not fundamentally physical, it is waves or vibrations
of some fundamental stuff which is not physical and exists beyond the vacuum of space.. The casimir effect we discussed earlier in
in the human flying thread is a subtle quantum force that manifests from this vacuum.

Do you know when it does become physical according to QM? Only when it is observed. Simply put, there would be no reality
without the existence of an observer. So what is it before there is an observer? Just potential.

I did make a mistake in not being clear in my wording. I did not literally mean our universe arose from a blackhole from another universe. I meant that our universe came into being through a wormhole from energy and matter falling into a blackhole in some other universe. It dose not violate the Standard model, but it does get rid of the singularity.[/color]

That's not what I said. There's plenty of evidence for the Big Bang. There's no empirical evidence for a singularity. It is a theoretical prediction. As for our universe arising from a blackhole in another is theoretical idea to explain where this universe came from.


Hold on, you are telling us to not to positively talk about dark matter and singularity, but you are freely speculating
about blackholes and energy and matter falling through a wormhole from a parallel universe and starting the big bang!!! :lol:

As far as our current empirical evidence shows there is only one universe(hence the uni in universe) and it started from the
big bang where the universe existed as a point initially and expanded outwards.

[color=#000080]I accept learned opinions.


Well, this much clear is that these are your opinions. Then stop claiming they are based on evidence,
well clearly you don't care about evidence, and pick and choose according to your opinion.


The mind is what the brain creates.there's only anecdote and a desire to believe the mind continues after death. There is no empirical [ quantified] evidence the mind continues after death. Here I'll paint you a graphic example of what I mean. If you should have a club beat against your head until your brains looks like pudding take a look at the brain when you do what will you see ? You'll see a nonfunctioning brain that has no mind.[/color]


There is no empirical evidence the mind exists at all. Period ;) Do you have empirical(quantified) evidence that you have a mind? ;)

Your analogy is invalid. If you take a club and smash my radio set, I will have a non functioning radio set which has no music. Does this
mean the music has ceased to exist? Try again.



Indigo Child wrote:No, what I have done using logic is show why materialism and atheism is bunk, why it is clear there IS a metaphysical reality, a universal intelligence and a vital spirit. If it is not valid, you will be able to demonstrate why it isn't. If on the other hand it is valid, you will not be able to.

I have no idea what country you live in or come from or what cultural influences have formed you. But I can say this you come with so much cultural baggage that you can't see past your nose that your take on reality is no better or truer than anyone's else's. To reiterate. What you have done is try to make a case that your philosophical take on reality is the only valid one. To put it in somewhat cruder terms you vomit out I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Arguing with you is like arguing with a creationist.
[/quote]

I told you before if my view of reality is invalid, you will be able to demonstrate it. I have been able to demonstrate your
materialistic view of reality is completely illogical, unscientific and contrary to experience and nothing more than a belief system.
I have already exposed all of the key doctrines of your materialistic religion in another thread(materialism, realism, ephiphenoamlism
and positivism) You're no skeptic, you're a believer.[/quote]


[color=#000080]I can't answer any of your questions because I'm not as smart as you
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Previous

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests