Mystic's thread about the existence of God, atheism and the after-life. (hell, atheist)

[MysticPhD]

Moderator cut: delete

God exists as defined by the known attributes science has discovered for our reality. Atheists have faith that those KNOWN attributes discerned by science do NOT define a God sufficiently . . . but as with ALL faith issues they have provided no scientific rationale for their BELIEFS ABOUT it NOT being God. Theists have faith that those KNOWN attributes discerned by science DO define God sufficiently . . . but as with ALL faith issues they have no scientific rationale for the attributes they ADD . . . in line with their preferred BELIEFS ABOUT it being God.

Everything else is smoke and mirrors between two opposing BELIEFS ABOUT the existing God as defined by the KNOWN attributes scientifically discerned. Therefore as faith and belief disputes they have NO bearing on the existential question . . . which can only be addressed scientifically by what we actually KNOW about our reality. Based on known attributes, God exists, period.

Energy can not be destroyed . . . only changed in form. All real entities in our reality are comprised of some form of energy/mass according to the mass/energy equivalence. Our consciousness is a real entity that exists, is identifiable and has effects on our reality that can be discerned. That means it is a composite form of energy . . . AS CONSCIOUSNESS . . . and cannot be destroyed only transformed. There is nothing we currently know about that can transform existing consciousness energy into something else.

All our reality is embedded within a universal field whose characteristics we have partially modeled as the Higgs field. All energy forms are vibratory manifestations of that field including those that are not directly measurable . . . like dark energy/matter and our consciousness. All "non-mass" forms of energy . . . like our consciousness . . . reside within the umbrella universal field. The measurable forms can be tracked and their transformations noted. The unmeasurable ones can not currently be traced nor can we see if or how they are transformed.

These are scientifically-based REASONS (not made up) to believe there is a conscious after-life comprised of our cumulative consciousness energy within the universal field. I ALSO believe the universal field is the consciousness of God . . . but as my belief it is NOT scientific . . . it is just plausible.

[hljc]

The very fabric of the living loving God there is NO divisions ...So science believes that the boson that holds the atoms together is from the living God which created living things , as this higgs field theory would decipher as nature is not smart enough to create something so intelligent

[Cosmicstargoat]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

God exists as defined by the known attributes science has discovered for our reality.

A declaration made without evidence.

Atheists have faith that those KNOWN attributes discerned by science do NOT define a God sufficiently

A blatantly false attempt to equate your faith, that is totally without evidence, to my CONCLUSION, based on lack of evidence. Lame.

. . . but as with ALL faith issues they have provided no scientific rationale for their BELIEFS ABOUT it NOT being God.

You make your false claim, then you declare it to be valid because you make it. There is absolutely no burden for me to produce scientific rationale or anything else to support my non-belief in a concept.

Theists have faith that those KNOWN attributes discerned by science DO define God sufficiently

Your basis for this is? Another declaration.

. . . but as with ALL faith issues they have no scientific rationale for the attributes they ADD . . . in line with their preferred BELIEFS ABOUT it being God.

Again, science does not deal with faith. AT ALL. Why do you keep presenting this straw man?

Everything else is smoke and mirrors between two opposing BELIEFS ABOUT the existing God as defined by the KNOWN attributes scientifically discerned. Therefore as faith and belief disputes they have NO bearing on the existential question . . . which can only be addressed scientifically by what we actually KNOW about our reality. Based on known attributes, God exists, period.

Translated: You don't like the rules, so you decide to change them where they will favor your unfounded claims. Then you make another declaration.

Energy can not be destroyed . . . only changed in form. All real entities in our reality are comprised of some form of energy/mass according to the mass/energy equivalence. Our consciousness is a real entity that exists, is identifiable and has effects on our reality that can be discerned. That means it is a composite form of energy . . . AS CONSCIOUSNESS . . . and cannot be destroyed only transformed. There is nothing we currently know about that can transform existing consciousness energy into something else.

There is no evidence of a ghost in the machine. There is no evidence of dualism. There is, however, lots of evidence of how the brain responds to injury and it does not respond very well. There is also tons of evidence as to what happens after the ULTIMATE brain injury, death. Our consciousness is limited by death. What happens to the flame when the candle is blown out?

All our reality is embedded within a universal field whose characteristics we have partially modeled as the Higgs field. All energy forms are vibratory manifestations of that field including those that are not directly measurable . . . like dark energy/matter and our consciousness. All "non-mass" forms of energy . . . like our consciousness . . . reside within the umbrella universal field. The measurable forms can be tracked and their transformations noted. The unmeasurable ones can not currently be traced nor can we see if or how they are transformed.

These are scientifically-based REASONS (not made up) to believe there is a conscious after-life comprised of our cumulative consciousness energy within the universal field. I ALSO believe the universal field is the consciousness of God . . . but as my belief it is NOT scientific . . . it is just plausible.

You believe. So what? Lots of people believe a lot of stuff. I know this has all been presented to you before and I know that you have dismissed it. Your dismissal does not relieve your burden. Just because you may be able to make more elaborate claims than other theists does not move them one millimeter closer to being valid.

[Asheville Native]

Since your premise is based solely on a fairy tale that is irrational and completely without the support of evidence. fail.


You can howl at the moon all you want, it's all a delusion, and you really make a mockery of your supposed degree by continuing to howl in ignorance, without the first iota of evidence to support your hypothesis. Were you to ever find a ladder high enough to see over your arrogance of ignorance, even you would recognize that. But you gotta find the ladder first.

[MysticPhD]

God exists as defined by the known attributes science has discovered for our reality.

Originally Posted by Cosmicstargoat

A declaration made without evidence.

The evidence is clear. What else IS that which:

establishes everything that exists in our reality;
establishes "laws" and processes that control all manifestations in our reality; and
creates life and the processes and systems that maintain it, nourish it, and evolve it?

The ball is in your court. You are willing to state what it is NOT without stating what it IS.

Originally Posted by Cosmicstargoat

A blatantly false attempt to equate your faith, that is totally without evidence, to my CONCLUSION, based on lack of evidence. Lame.

You can have a CONCLUSION based on evidence . . . but only a BELIEF about a lack of evidence. That is called faith.

Originally Posted by Cosmicstargoat

You make your false claim, then you declare it to be valid because you make it. There is absolutely no burden for me to produce scientific rationale or anything else to support my non-belief in a concept.

You have not shown it false . . . just denied without explanation. The evidence is uncontested and it certainly seems to qualify as the attributes of what we humans call God . . . your refusal to address what it IS (if NOT God) is telling. You can NOT base any CONCLUSIONS on a lack of knowledge (aka ignorance) . . . only beliefs . . . and that is faith.

Originally Posted by Cosmicstargoat

Your basis for this is? Another declaration.

Theists belief in the existence of God implies that they believe the KNOWN attributes are of God. Do you dispute this inference?

Originally Posted by Cosmicstargoat

Again, science does not deal with faith. AT ALL. Why do you keep presenting this straw man?

This is no straw man. Theists DO add beliefs about God to the KNOWN attributes defined by science.

Originally Posted by Cosmicstargoat

Translated: You don't like the rules, so you decide to change them where they will favor your unfounded claims. Then you make another declaration.

The existential question about the existence of God is answerable by science . . . and it is answerable in the affirmative. ALL that can be disputed are the attributes that have NOT as yet been discovered by science. But the discovered attributes are more than sufficient to establish existence without any change of rules.

Originally Posted by Cosmicstargoat

There is no evidence of a ghost in the machine. There is no evidence of dualism.

I have not addressed any ghost in the machine or dualism. I have referred only to the existing composition of our reality as vibratory energy forms . . . one form of which happens to be our consciousness. It is produced by the brain but it does not remain in it any more than fire remains in the combustibles that produce it. It resides within the universal field . . . as all "non-mass" energy forms do.

Originally Posted by Cosmicstargoat

There is, however, lots of evidence of how the brain responds to injury and it does not respond very well. There is also tons of evidence as to what happens after the ULTIMATE brain injury, death. Our consciousness is limited by death. What happens to the flame when the candle is blown out?

The "flames of consciousness" have a similar fate to the flames of a candle . . . they reside in the universal field. Unfortunately, we cannot see or track their fate as we can with candle flames. We can see some flames as they reside in the universal field despite leaving their source whenever we see the stars . . . (which are big "candles") light years away. They are proof that some kinds of flames can last a very long time away from their source. Our brains are the only vehicle for contact with our consciousness flames once they have been produced and reside in the universal field. When our brain is damaged or dies . . . all earthly contact with them is either corrupted or severed.

Originally Posted by Cosmicstargoat

You believe. So what? Lots of people believe a lot of stuff. I know this has all been presented to you before and I know that you have dismissed it. Your dismissal does not relieve your burden. Just because you may be able to make more elaborate claims than other theists does not move them one millimeter closer to being valid.

I said a whole lot more that was NOT belief . . . it was science. Why did you focus on my belief and ignore the science?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Asheville Native

Since your premise is based solely on a fairy tale that is irrational and completely without the support of evidence. fail.

I don't see any reference to fairy tales in this thread . . . except for your comment. What fairy tale are you talking about.?

You can howl at the moon all you want, it's all a delusion, and you really make a mockery of your supposed degree by continuing to howl in ignorance, without the first iota of evidence to support your hypothesis. Were you to ever find a ladder high enough to see over your arrogance of ignorance, even you would recognize that. But you gotta find the ladder first.

I see repeated claims that I have no evidence without any attempt to explain why what I DO present is NOT evidence.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I don't see any reference to fairy tales in this thread . . . except for your comment. What fairy tale are you talking about.?
I see repeated claims that I have no evidence without any attempt to explain why what I DO present is NOT evidence.

Declarations are NOT evidence. Fail again.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

God exists as defined by the known attributes science has discovered for our reality. The evidence is clear. What else IS that which:

establishes everything that exists in our reality;
establishes "laws" and processes that control all manifestations in our reality; and
creates life and the processes and systems that maintain it, nourish it, and evolve it?

The ball is in your court. You are willing to state what it is NOT without stating what it IS.
You can have a CONCLUSION based on evidence . . . but only a BELIEF about a lack of evidence. That is called faith.
You have not shown it false . . . just denied without explanation. The evidence is uncontested and it certainly seems to qualify as the attributes of what we humans call God . . . your refusal to address what it IS (if NOT God) is telling. You can NOT base any CONCLUSIONS on a lack of knowledge (aka ignorance) . . . only beliefs . . . and that is faith.
Theists belief in the existence of God implies that they believe the KNOWN attributes are of God. Do you dispute this inference?
This is no straw man. Theists DO add beliefs about God to the KNOWN attributes defined by science.
The existential question about the existence of God is answerable by science . . . and it is answerable in the affirmative. ALL that can be disputed are the attributes that have NOT as yet been discovered by science. But the discovered attributes are more than sufficient to establish existence without any change of rules.
I have not addressed any ghost in the machine or dualism. I have referred only to the existing composition of our reality as vibratory energy forms . . . one form of which happens to be our consciousness. It is produced by the brain but it does not remain in it any more than fire remains in the combustibles that produce it. It resides within the universal field . . . as all "non-mass" energy forms do.
The "flames of consciousness" have a similar fate to the flames of a candle . . . they reside in the universal field. Unfortunately, we cannot see or track their fate as we can with candle flames. We can see some flames as they reside in the universal field despite leaving their source whenever we see the stars . . . (which are big "candles") light years away. They are proof that some kinds of flames can last a very long time away from their source. Our brains are the only vehicle for contact with our consciousness flames once they have been produced and reside in the universal field. When our brain is damaged or dies . . . all earthly contact with them is either corrupted or severed.
I said a whole lot more that was NOT belief . . . it was science. Why did you focus on my belief and ignore the science?

There is no evidence of consciousness absent from the brain. Thoughts are only developed through the electrical impulses inside the brain. Once this energy source is extinguished, thoughts cease, unless of course you have some concrete evidence to the contrary.

The laws of physics we recognized are only what we con determine in THIS universe. We do not know the laws that may or may not exist in the time and/or space prior to the creation of this universe. Therefore, your claims are not definitive and are only assumptions and speculations, but definitely not evidence of any god.

[Ceist]

If there was some kind of intelligent conciousness behind the creation of humans, why did it do such an inefficient, poorly designed job of it?

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

God exists as defined by the known attributes science has discovered for our reality.

^^^^^ here's the fairy tale that seems to elude such a learnened old goat as yourself.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

establishes everything that exists in our reality;

"OUR" ????Moderator cut: delete perhaps "your" but sure as hell not "our". Your fantasy is far far removed from the reality of people that have the capability of recognizing fairy tales.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I don't see any reference to fairy tales in this thread . . . except for your comment. What fairy tale are you talking about.?

Moderator cut: delete