Straight to the business at hand

[FM]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

^^^although you missed the thread posted that scientists are now trying to do "mini bangs" to help *maybe* prove the theory of multiple dimensions or *maybe* how the big bang evolved...really, first of its kind.

Screw the thread...here's an article link:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=325&objectid=10400645

[FM]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I am not talking about the physical firing of nuerons and the such, of course that is recordable it is a physical/chemical reaction. I am talking about the thought that sets the firing into motion. That is in no wise recordable.

Check into some of the research done by some neurologist and you will see that a persons "thoughts" are considered in the realm of the unknown for lack of scientific evidence and the ability to test the thoughts.

Because at this point you're more than likely delving into the subconscious mind which IS the unknown...until enough of our brains are actually studied and understood, the fact remains that we use less than 10% of it *actively*....the rest just can't be understood r studied "as we know it."

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

Because at this point you're more than likely delving into the subconscious mind which IS the unknown...until enough of our brains are actually studied and understood, the fact remains that we use less than 10% of it *actively*....the rest just can't be understood r studied "as we know it."

isn?t that one of the most interesting things about being human though

That we are sefl-aware?

In all the articles I have read about consciousness it seems to always be defined by all scientists as "being self-aware. I on the other hand have formulated my own theory about consciousness.

Being self aware does not constitute a consciousness as far as it being the only attribute to define it. I am sure that animals are aware they exist to a certain degree.(though I can not prove that it is just my thought)

They eat when hungry, sleep when tired, they know things that is usually attributed to instinct. Instinct to me is just another name for aware that you have needs.

So when I think of consciousness I see it as multi-staged.
1. You are aware that you exist.
2. You are aware that others are aware that you exist.
3. You are aware that others are aware that they are aware that they exist.

Now that may sound funny on paper but give that some thought. We are aware that other people know we exist. Animals do not spend time worrying about their looks in hopes to affect what other people think about hem. We groom ourselves, go on diets, work-out etc. Why? We know other people are aware of us, and want that awareness to be of a nature that will give them a positive awareness of us.

Think about that for a while and then tell me what you think.

BTW this is the first time I have ever told this to anyone. Never discussed this with another person so I am interested in some feedback on it.

[KinKyJ]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

Now that may sound funny on paper but give that some thought. We are aware that other people know we exist. Animals do not spend time worrying about their looks in hopes to affect what other people think about hem. We groom ourselves, go on diets, work-out etc. Why? We know other people are aware of us, and want that awareness to be of a nature that will give them a positive awareness of us.

Animals don't work out, diet 'n' shit because they don't have to when they're in the wild. We do those things because we eat crap and sit on our asses all day long.

Animals do "worry" about their looks though, mainly the males (weird, opposite of with humans ), because only the strongest/most beautiful male will get a female to mate with)

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

Animals don't work out, diet We do those things because we eat crap and sit on our asses all day long.

so true, so very true, and sad at the same time

Animals do "worry" about their looks though, mainly the males (weird, opposite of with humans ), because only the strongest/most beautiful male will get a female to mate with)

While I was posting this the image was in my head about a bird, not sure which one, that puffs up its chest to attract a mate.

That is still instinct IMO. It is simply to attract a mate to propigate the species. Not because he wants companionship and the likes.

There is no worry over "how do I look", I guess it would be more or less summed up as "is this working" for that bird

[KinKyJ]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

^^^ Yup, that's why I've put worry between parantheses. I guess we're agreeing on something at last CDJ

However, I think you need to take another thing into account. Yes, the fact that we're preoccupied with how we look is basicly because of awareness like you said, but it's mainly boosted and fueled by the industry. Cosmetics, fashion, gyms, ... They all want a bill from your wallet. Just look at the rise of cosmetics for men.

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[quote=KinKyJ;385629 Just look at the rise of cosmetics for men.[/quote]

This is new to me because I do not watch TV (surprise surprise huh)

anyway wouldnt it be said that the industry was fueled by the fact that deep inside we all are preoccupied with self.

People were worrying about their appearance long before there was even the thought of an industry

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

going to start a new thread about consciousness so perhaps some who do not frequent this thread will participate

post your thoughts on human consciousness there

[rubyraks]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I am not saying that the double standard is people not taking the leap. The double standard I speak of is the fact that many have said that there is no ?proof? without physical evidence i.e as science could prove.

I am saying that evidence does come non-physical, non-chemicla forms and others here say that the only evidence is that which can be proven through science

If that is the case then the big bang has the exact same amount of discredit that God does as far as science goes because the big bang can not be proven with any tests.

I would say that this statement goes to the very root of what many here have been trying to get across to you. You can't prove the big bang (though attempts are being made) and you can't prove god. Hence the term, belief.

[thesightless]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

actually we can prove the big bang. through chemical analysis of our planet, and other planets as well as comets and tests done in space. not to mention that last year the hubble captured another big bang.

please just end this stupid debate you cant prove god exists, that is why it is called faith not history.

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

i hate to be contrary but that was the whole point of starting the thread because you can prove that God exists through evidences left just as science can prove other things by evidences left.

I will say it again. There are clues left in the Bible that are simply undeniable even if science wanted to disprove them it never could. There are scientific evidences left by the writers that are thousands of years ahead of their time and that IS evidence of, at the bare minimum, of some intervention.

Again I will state that even in the face of such undeniable evidence people will still not accept it. That does not mean that it is not true it just menas that it is not true to that person. That is where people start throwing the word faith around. When they do not want to believe something, people will say it is a matter of faith.

[rubyraks]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

i hate to be contrary but that was the whole point of starting the thread because you can prove that God exists through evidences left just as science can prove other things by evidences left.

I will say it again. There are clues left in the Bible that are simply undeniable even if science wanted to disprove them it never could. There are scientific evidences left by the writers that are thousands of years ahead of their time and that IS evidence of, at the bare minimum, of some intervention.

Again I will state that even in the face of such undeniable evidence people will still not accept it. That does not mean that it is not true it just menas that it is not true to that person. That is where people start throwing the word faith around. When they do not want to believe something, people will say it is a matter of faith.

Seriously cdj, I've been trying to participate in this discussion with you intelligently, but you continue to make the same logical errors time and time again and each time that people, myself included, have called you out on it, you've had yet another way of avoiding that fallacy.

Stop calling it undeniable evidence just because you have accepted it as such. If you want to have an intelligent discussion about this subject, you need to actually substantiate your premises somehow and just because the bible says so doesn't make it a fact. You really need to step off your high horse, if you'd actually like to discuss and debate the issue.

Now on to your claims this time around. You're now claiming that because the bible has scientific evidences that were years ahead at the time it was written is evidence of intervention. Is the knowledge that the Egyptians had at the time of building the pyramids another sign of godly intervention? Is the knowledge that the Mayans had that was so ahead of their time also proof of godly intervention? If so, why is "god" intervening on their behalf? The Egyptians for the most part now follow Islam and the Mayans had their own religion. Maybe we should follow their religious beliefs instead of your own.

And to take that one step further, just because there are scientific facts in the bible that are way ahead of their time doesn't lead to the conclusion that it had to be god who intervened. You're still not proving god...you're merely deciding that to you that is the best explanation, ie. faith/belief, call it what you like. I could just as easily decide for myself that there was a man that was so smart, but afraid to make his scientific knowledge public (as most scientists ahead of their biblical time are subject to threats and very often death) so he buried it in a book for generations to figure out later. Why isn't that just as plausible? It fits all the facts and just like you can't prove that god exists, I can't prove that this brilliant man exists, but they're both possibilities nonetheless. You've just chosen one over the other. That is not "undeniable" proof, merely a belief of your own.

[thesightless]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

substantiate, now there is a good word.

and CDJ, you still have yet to give one credible peice of evidence. your closest thing is a quote from bible mentioning water during creation. which logically can be traced to the red sea and its behaviour....

please, if you really think you can 100% undeniably prove it, do it, stop quoting a analagous (spelling) book used to control the jews from a thousand years ago. come out and say, hey, if you look at this rock, here is the proof, because right now as it stands, when i look at a rock, i can pick it up, look at it from all angles, take it to a lab, carbon date to discover its orgin, do a chemical analysis on it to determine its properties an dconduct other valid tests on it.

nothing in the bible can be tested. it is FAITH.

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

rubyraks I understand your point. I really do but the things I talk about being scientific evidence does not compare to the technological advancements you listed. They are different.

I am also aware that religon is the most volatile topic that people can discuss. Why is it so? Because you can not look up in the sky and see God in a white robe looking down at you waving and saying "Here I am son all will be well" If that is the only way that people will come to the belief that God is who He says He is then that would negate the God given choice of deciding if you want to follow God.

What I mean by that is the Bible makes it very clear that a person is not forced to follow God. God wants people who follow because they want to love Him on their own will. If you could look up and see God then what choice would you have other than to follow what He says. If you can see Him then obviously one would be seriously deterred from doing anything wrong as to avoid the judgement and hell that is spoken of therefore limiting if not completely taking away the choice to follow.

Think about that for a minute. If you could see God and then in turn that would prove the existence of hell how many people would follow God from their hearts? It would be out of fear of the coming judgement that people would follow God.

I also know that proving God is a long process and takes some serious reading. If it seems that I am arrogant and condescending because I say I know that facts of the Bible then I am sorry but what kind of person would I be if I said something was a fact and then when the pressure was laid on by others who say it is not, I crumble under so as to not offend them. That would make me a fence straddler as we say here in Texas. And as we all can know a fence straddler does not really believe what he says he believes if he can not make up his mind as to which side of the fence he will fall on.

I am going to go ahead and post the things that I refer to as fact and then as always let others decide. That is the beauty of being agents of free will.

[thesightless]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

ok, but dont post something similar to this.

the bible says noah,moses,whoever sacrificed an lamb under gods wish, and we know lambs exist, therefore god is real.

no it doesnt. it means an author working for the religion at the time used a lamb as an example of how to sarifice yourself and others if neccessary for god wishes.