What Is Evidence / How Do We Know What Is Real?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You're right.  There was just a report on the news about a lady suing a university for firing her ass.... pun intended, for being morbidly obese.  Following this logic, a 3.7' midget can play quarterback in the NFL under, suing for equality.  Don't worry about our nation going to hell, we are there already. 

I am considered morbidly obese and do my job just fine and am a lot more active than a professor. Firing someone on the grounds of their weight, unless that interferes with their capability to do their job, is discrimination. If she can still teach then she has every right to sue. So Fuck you!

 

Sincerely, 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

+1

Wow I actually got a plus one from ya? Nice  I guess. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

+1

Going with my plus one. If their was a conscious universe, and you admit that a conscious universe is not your God. Because it doesn't reflect the biblical God.

 

But the universe does have objective evidence that it exists, there is therefore more objective evidence for a conscious universe than a biblical God. Because all objective evidences that the Bible indicates should be available to us are not there.

 

on the other hand we do have objective evidence that the universe exists. It would just be hard to prove objectively that it is conscious. 

 

The problem is you can't prove your God exists anymore than Josh can prove the universe is actually conscious. Atleast we know the universe does in fact exist. Thats more than I can say for that FUCK in the bible. 

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

55 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I am considered morbidly obese and do my job just fine and am a lot more active than a professor. Firing someone on the grounds of their weight, unless that interferes with their capability to do their job, is discrimination. If she can still teach then she has every right to sue. So Fuck you!

 

Sincerely, 

DB

They want to make it law.  Everyone has something.  If she can demonstrate that it's discrimination, then glory.  I doubt that's the issue....especially in today's climate.  Have a nice day.

 

I'm short....bring down the chalkboards you discriminating bastards...I'm suing, make it law.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Everyone has something

Your right everyone does have something. And yes the chalk board should be lowered for your short ass lmao. I'm pretty sure it would be fairly easy to put an adjustable chalkboard up. I could probably come up with a design if they haven't already. 

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

47 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Going with my plus one. If their was a conscious universe, and you admit that a conscious universe is not your God. Because it doesn't reflect the biblical God.

 

But the universe does have objective evidence that it exists, there is therefore more objective evidence for a conscious universe than a biblical God. Because all objective evidences that the Bible indicates should be available to us are not there.

 

on the other hand we do have objective evidence that the universe exists. It would just be hard to prove objectively that it is conscious. 

 

The problem is you can't prove your God exists anymore than Josh can prove the universe is actually conscious. Atleast we know the universe does in fact exist. Thats more than I can say for that FUCK in the bible. 

 

DB

 

4 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Your right everyone does have something. And yes the chalk board should be lowered for your short ass lmao. I'm pretty sure it would be fairly easy to put an adjustable chalkboard up. I could probably come up with a design if they haven't already. 

 

DB

I don't share the same mindset.....at all.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Let's keep the politics and social commentary out of The Den, fellas.  There's a separate forum for that.  Thanks.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

28 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

I don't share the same mindset.....at all.

Well what mind set do you share Ed? It isn't the Christian mindset. Your Bible tells you to:

 

1 thessolonians 5

21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

 

Do you share this mind set? Do you believe what this says?

 

No you do not or you wouldn't be fucking cussing people and calling them names would you? 

 

So what the fuck are you Ed. Because you aren't a Christian. You take out any bible that doesn't give you feel good feelings and excuse you for all the sinful shit you do and say. 

 

Ed, if there is a biblical God and if that Biblical God is even 50% like what the Bible says. He has a nice toasty spot in the lake of fire just for "Christians" like you. 

 

I respect @aik. Ya want to know why? Because he reads the bible, he believes the bible, and he practices the bible. That is what I did my best to do when I heralded the cause for Christ.

 

Now while I don't believe in the bible anymore. At the very least I can respect him because he is what he says he is and isn't a fake, like some fuck from Texas. 

 

Edit: a Christian who is a hypocrite is the worst kind of Christian. 

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

59 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Let's keep the politics and social commentary out of The Den, fellas.  There's a separate forum for that.  Thanks.

Which one would that be J.  What happened to Totally Off Topic.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Which one would that be J.  What happened to Totally Off Topic.

Its back, 

It is called the Opine club now.

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

I don't share the same mindset.....at all.

 

Luke 19 : 1 - 10

 

 

1 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 

2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 

3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 

4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.

5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 

6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”

8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.

10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

 

 

It looks like you don't have the mindset of Jesus either, Ed.

 

He didn't disparage anyone for how they looked.

 

Lacking Jesus' mindset would explain a lot about your venom.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Here's a question for you, Edgarcito.

 

In Luke 19 : 9 Jesus gave grace to Zacchaeus and publicly declared him to be saved. 

 

What was it that Zacchaeus did first that enabled Jesus to give grace to him?

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

19 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

If the universe were primary consciousness, wouldn't that effectively be  "god"  anyhow?

 

19 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Thank you.  Now we're getting somewhere.  I believe Mr. Pantera can take it from this point.  @Joshpantera, you have the floor, sir.

To clarify and recap for the TL;DR crowd, while we wait for Josh:

 

What Ed has finally started to slowly come to terms with here is that if the universe itself is primary consciousness, then the universe itself would be indistinguishable from "god."  In other words, if it can be demonstrated that the universe is indeed conscious, then a separate entity existing outside of the universe as a primary source of consciousness and creation is unnecessary and redundant.  Because, as both Josh and I have stated, there is no attribute that can be ascribed to "god" that cannot also be ascribed to a conscious universe. 

 

So, since I know Ed will never admit it himself, the answer we've arrived at is that there is no need for a god, if the universe itself is primary consciousness. 

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

To clarify and recap for the TL;DR crowd, while we wait for Josh:

 

What Ed has finally started to slowly come to terms with here is that if the universe itself is primary consciousness, then the universe itself would be indistinguishable from "god."  In other words, if it can be demonstrated that the universe is indeed conscious, then a separate entity existing outside of the universe as a primary source of consciousness and creation is unnecessary and redundant.  Because, as both Josh and I have stated, there is no attribute that can be ascribed to "god" that cannot also be ascribed to a conscious universe. 

 

So, since I know Ed will never admit it himself, the answer we've arrived at is that there is no need for a god, if the universe itself is primary consciousness. 

and we wait..

 

[walterpthefirst]

...and I wait.

 

 

 

For Edgarcito's reply to my question.

[Joshpantera]

On 2/16/2023 at 7:59 PM, Edgarcito said:

Ok, so the Christian God wouldn't be primary consciousness?

 

How could it not be? 

 

If 1) the Christian God is believed to be conscious, eternal, and omni-everything then 2) it has no choice but to be one of many versions that constitute primary Consciousness addressed symbolically in myth. 

 

If the god is conscious, then it IS consciousness itself. And people are only conscious, because the god's consciousness was extended to the people, making them "living souls."

 

But here's the deeper issue, primary Consciousness is everything. It's the "ALL," to the "Whole." 

 

Matter exists as a manifestation of Consciousness.

 

Or to use a scientific oriented metaphor: The irreducible, ontological primitive, would be like a spatially unbound field of core subjectivity with excitation of the field. 

 

Again, what the metaphor means is that the core Awareness inherent in all of Nature, IS reality. 

 

Watch this now Ed and "Red": 

 

On 2/16/2023 at 8:34 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Speaking strictly for myself, the only way to find any kind of meaningful spirituality is to operate within the parameters of what we know.  Anything outside of those parameters is just guesswork; and your guess is as good as mine.  How can that lead me to find a spirituality with any real, significant meaning?  And how could borrowing someone else's version of spirituality help me achieve my better Self?

 

I've often said that intelligence is being able to understand the world around you; and wisdom is being able to understand your place in it.  Similarly, whether your spirituality is based on a demonstrably real universe, a measurable ecosystem, or just the basic psychology of your own mind, knowing where and how you should fit in to wherever you are, by becoming a better, truer version of your Self, is, I think, the noblest of objectives.

 

Here's the only thing that we can know with any degree of certainty: 

 

We are currently aware and experiencing. That's it. 

 

If we exist within a vast spatially unbounded field of core subjectivity, then we ARE the field itself, the core subjectivity. It's infinite, we're experiencing a finite perspective from within the infinite, spatially unbound field.

 

If Christians are happy to call that core subjectivity "God," then I'm happy to point out in return that that comes with the price of accepting that "God," a spatially unbound field of core subjectivity, is everything that exists on every possible plane of existence. 

 

What are we? 

 

Consciousness itself, engaged in the experiential awareness of self-interaction. The world around is in Consciousness, and our place in Consciousness is to experience it from a finite perspective within. 

 

Is this the Christian message folks? 

 

We are all God experiencing itself = Christianity? 

 

Many Christians right now are trying to plant their flags in primary Consciousness. But it comes with a price, the loss of the Bible as literal and the loss of dualistic warfare between imaginary light and darkness / polarity / duality. You have to choose one or the other. 

 

If you choose Consciousness, then non-duality applies. And dualistic interpretation (mainstream) falls apart immediately. 

 

Christianity will likely never lose big to atheism. But it's well on the way to losing big to newer metaphysical insights. New ways of thinking and newer views on human spirituality that disregard organized religions in favor of acting with a 'spiritually independent' attitude towards life and existence.

 

If some people remain Christian, it will likely be in a philosophical - Gnostic or Neo-Platonic - sense of the term. Looking back to when the orthodoxy stamped out it's mystical competition early on. Returning to the old mystical views - symbolism, metaphor, and allegory - and allowing the literalist and mainstream Christian views to die off generationally...

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

How could it not be? 

 

If 1) the Christian God is believed to be conscious, eternal, and omni-everything then 2) it has no choice but to be one of many versions that constitute primary Consciousness addressed symbolically in myth. 

 

If the god is conscious, then it IS consciousness itself. And people are only conscious, because the god's consciousness was extended to the people, making them "living souls."

 

But here's the deeper issue, primary Consciousness is everything. It's the "ALL," to the "Whole." 

 

Matter exists as a manifestation of Consciousness.

 

Or to use a scientific oriented metaphor: The irreducible, ontological primitive, would be like a spatially unbound field of core subjectivity with excitation of the field. 

 

Again, what the metaphor means is that the core Awareness inherent in all of Nature, IS reality. 

 

Watch this now Ed and "Red": 

 

 

Here's the only thing that we can know with any degree of certainty: 

 

We are currently aware and experiencing. That's it. 

 

If we exist within a vast spatially unbounded field of core subjectivity, then we ARE the field itself, the core subjectivity. It's infinite, we're experiencing a finite perspective from within the infinite, spatially unbound field.

 

If Christians are happy to call that core subjectivity "God," then I'm happy to point out in return that that comes with the price of accepting that "God," a spatially unbound field of core subjectivity, is everything that exists on every possible plane of existence. 

 

What are we? 

 

Consciousness itself, engaged in the experiential awareness of self-interaction. The world around is in Consciousness, and our place in Consciousness is to experience it from a finite perspective within. 

 

Is this the Christian message folks? 

 

We are all God experiencing itself = Christianity? 

 

Many Christians right now are trying to plant their flags in primary Consciousness. But it comes with a price, the loss of the Bible as literal and the loss of dualistic warfare between imaginary light and darkness / polarity / duality. You have to choose one or the other. 

 

If you choose Consciousness, then non-duality applies. And dualistic interpretation (mainstream) falls apart immediately. 

 

Christianity will likely never lose big to atheism. But it's well on the way to losing big to newer metaphysical insights. New ways of thinking and newer views on human spirituality that disregard organized religions in favor of acting with a 'spiritually independent' attitude towards life and existence.

 

If some people remain Christian, it will likely be in a philosophical - Gnostic or Neo-Platonic - sense of the term. Looking back to when the orthodoxy stamped out it's mystical competition early on. Returning to the old mystical views - symbolism, metaphor, and allegory - and allowing the literalist and mainstream Christian views to die off generationally...

 

The kingdom of God is inside you. (The bible)

 

That in whom reside all beings and who resides in all beings, who is the giver of grace to all, the Supreme Soul of the universe, the limitless being -- I am that. Amritbindu Upanishad

 

https://theblisscentre.org/more/ebooks/IAmThat.pdf

[walterpthefirst]

Using Occam's Razor, Josh's worldview, that the universe itself is conscious, is simpler than Edgarcito's worldview, which requires that there be two separate things - a conscious, immaterial god and an unconscious, material universe.  

 

The Razor suggests that the simpler explanation is the one more likely to be true.

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

And there it is: cogito ergo sum.  The only thing I can be sure of is that my consciousness exists.  Everything else is just window dressing.  I can be certain that my consciousness exists; but I cannot prove it to anyone outside of myself.  Because I am the only one experiencing my own consciousness.  But others are also experiencing their own consciousness, just as I am experiencing mine.  Thus, consciousness must be universal. 

 

Alternatively, only my consciousness exists; and everything else that appears to exist, exists entirely within my own consciousness, including the existence of other consciousness experienced by other individuals.  Still this would mean that consciousness is universal.

 

So, if the only meaningful spirituality I can have is based on what I know, and the only thing I know is that my consciousness exists and consciousness is universal,  then my spirituality must be based on universal consciousness. 

 

So, circling back around to Occam's Razor, if universal consciousness alone can explain, then there is no need to introduce a god, or any other compounding complication into the explanation.  As Josh has made clear, and as Edgarcito has already agreed, a conscious universe would be indistinguishable from an omni-everything "god," which renders the untestable, unmeasurable god redundant by contrast to the testable, measurable universe.

 

Thus, I find god unnecessary. 

[walterpthefirst]

 On 2/17/2023 at 9:20 PM, walterpthefirst said:

 

As the Prof has just pointed out Ed, Josh has a universe to provide him with measurable, testable and repeatable evidence.

But one time miracles described in the bible cannot be measured, tested or repeated.

So, on that basis, his worldview trumps yours.

He doesn't have to rely on faith in past events.

His worldview gives him evidence... right here and right now.

But, that's another matter.

Right here and right now, could you please answer the Prof's question?

Thank you,

Walter.

Not until Josh comes up with the goods there cowboy....

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Josh has come up with the goods, Edgarcito.

 

His worldview is simpler than yours and therefore more likely to be true.  His worldview can be measured and tested, while yours cannot.  He doesn't have to rely on faith in untestable past events, but you do.  

 

Furthermore, religious faith doesn't help us understand what evidence is and how we know what is real, the very topic of this thread.  Faith means accepting what we are told is true, without evidence.  So faith is no help to us in this thread.

 

Therefore, it falls to you to answer the Prof's question.

 

Which was...

 

Why does there need to be a god at all, if the universe itself is primary consciousness?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

16 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Matter exists as a manifestation of Consciousness.

Let's just start here please Josh.

 

Do we have any proof of this transaction?

What do we think this Consciousness actually is and is all matter conscious? 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 On 2/17/2023 at 9:20 PM, walterpthefirst said:

 

As the Prof has just pointed out Ed, Josh has a universe to provide him with measurable, testable and repeatable evidence.

But one time miracles described in the bible cannot be measured, tested or repeated.

So, on that basis, his worldview trumps yours.

He doesn't have to rely on faith in past events.

His worldview gives him evidence... right here and right now.

But, that's another matter.

Right here and right now, could you please answer the Prof's question?

Thank you,

Walter.

Not until Josh comes up with the goods there cowboy....

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Josh has come up with the goods, Edgarcito.

 

His worldview is simpler than yours and therefore more likely to be true.  His worldview can be measured and tested, while yours cannot.  He doesn't have to rely on faith in untestable past events, but you do.  

 

Furthermore, religious faith doesn't help us understand what evidence is and how we know what is real, the very topic of this thread.  Faith means accepting what we are told is true, without evidence.  So faith is no help to us in this thread.

 

Therefore, it falls to you to answer the Prof's question.

 

Which was...

 

Why does there need to be a god at all, if the universe itself is primary consciousness?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

It's not any simpler Walter, it's the same problem(s).

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

23 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It's not any simpler Walter, it's the same problem(s).

Well its simpler in that there isn't a whole fictional story of creation all the way up to the end of time you have to believe in to believe in the Christian God. 

 

We know the universe exists. We live in it. There is no evidence that your God exists. 

 

Simpler

 

But your right. It does have the same problems. And I can't say matter exists because of consciousness. I think matter would exist in the universe if we weren't around to see it. But because of consciousness we are able to experience matter. 

 

This whole subject usually flies way over my head anyway. 

 

Db

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

It's not any simpler Walter, it's the same problem(s).

 

Are you denying that Josh's worldview isn't simpler than yours?

 

Now it is has been explained to you how and why this is so.

 

Therefore I need to ask Ed, are you now rejecting the use of Occam's Razor here?

 

To decide who has the simpler worldview, you or Josh?

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

It's not any simpler Walter, it's the same problem(s).

 

So why does that mean you still can't answer the Prof's question?

 

What you're trying to do here Ed is to make it necessary that Josh explain his worldview to your satisfaction before you will answer the Prof's question.  On Friday the Prof wrote this...

 

Now, you're more than welcome to ask Josh to support his assertion of a Conscious Universe, same as we demand of you.  But that's between you and Josh.  What's between you and me is that I asked you a question and you still haven't answered it.  In typical fashion you are ignoring it, dodging it, answering around it, doing anything to keep yourself from admitting to the truth that the answer would reveal.

 

And he's right.  You are trying to make what's strictly between you and Josh into a reason not to give an honest answer to the Prof.  Therefore, please do the honest thing and answer the question honestly.  Here it is again.

 

Why is a god even necessary in the first place, if the universe itself is primary consciousness?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.