Science have already discovered the biblical God.

[uwot]

Indeed we can. But is the "speculation" in the video unreasonable just because you don't like the conclusions?

It wouldn't take much effort to find a video of someone saying the opposite...

It wouldn't kill you to look a few posts up where I pointed out that the entire argument is based on unsound premises.

...I can't see any reason to take any notice of any of them.

That's on account of how there isn't one.

[Reflex]

It wouldn't kill you to look a few posts up where I pointed out that the entire argument is based on unsound premises.

Talking to me or Harbal? If you're talking to me, I asked if it was unreasonable, not whether you agreed. If you think the premises are not reasonable, take it up with the scientists who make the argument.

[uwot]

It wouldn't kill you to look a few posts up where I pointed out that the entire argument is based on unsound premises.

Talking to me or Harbal?

Harbal.

If you're talking to me, I asked if it was unreasonable, not whether you agreed. If you think the premises are not reasonable, take it up with the scientists who make the argument.

What is unreasonable is to present an argument based on unsound premises as 'proof'. I describe and make the argument myself (http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk dontcha know), but it is an hypothesis, not a fact.

[Arising_uk]

...
Life doesn't have any preferences, life is doing what comes naturally without any filter. ...

Er!? There is no 'Life', you are reifying a concept.

Babies and young children are natural, notice they NEVER put on an act in the company of adults...how can they ? ...

Young children try out their acting skills all the time?

[Dontaskme]

Ah, so "A dimension is a state of consciousness". That's not what people generally mean.

Well ideas about ideas will vary from time to time, but the knower of every idea is only and ever consciousness which is unknowable even to itself. Although it is known as in being self evident...aka through the experience of it. But this immediate knowing is one with itself, there is no other knower than that one knower which cannot be known by anything outside of that immediate knowing...there is no other consciousness to know consciousness... consciousness is known by no one. Knower and known are ONE. And that is overwhelming proof that there is only and ever one consciousness experiencing itself on multi-dimensional levels. And that it is the sourceless source of every idea known.

There was a feller called Descartes who pointed out that the only thing we can be certain of is that there is at least one consciousness, our own. Empiricists took that idea and ran with it: since phenomena are the only things of which we are certain, any explanation of a phenomenon is necessarily hypothetical. That, in essence, has been the guiding principle of science since the renaissance. It does not follow that consciousness is all there is, but if that's what you want to believe, I wouldn't bother arguing with you.

Descartes was a mystic as well as a great scientist of his time. He was absolutely right of course in saying that there is one thing certain and that is we are conscious.
This is irrefutable, but what he didn't say and what he should have said is...( it is not I that is conscious, rather consciousness is I)

To start with the premise "I think, therefore I am" indicates there are individual consciousnesses each with their own (I-dentity) ... but it's the other way around. The I AM is without identity, the I Am just means that which is prior to thought, or the ground-state before anything is known...so by saying one has to 'think first' in order to be is misleading. But I can understand how this can be seen as pure semantics, as Descartes was indeed really on to something when he made that quote.

But for the die hard Advaita Vendantists...they're saying the I doesn't think.. rather, the thought only believes it is the I thinking...there is no I thinking. Thoughts appear from nothing, are nothing and return to nothing. But there is an energy that claims every thought, and that energy is sourceless consciousness, which labels each thought as I as belonging to some thing called I....but no thing belong to any other thing, things are only ever empty no things...so the I is born but it is a phantom...because it's just an appearance of nothing appearing to be something.

And that this is possible at all is proof that energy aka consciousness must be everywhere all at once infinitely for eternity...in other words, the consciousness that is 'me' is the same consciousness that is 'you' and is the same consciousness as 'them'...and so on, and so on...consciousness identified is only and ever an appearance of it's unidentified nature, it's a mirage.

The contents of consciousness vary, but the consciousness is ever the same one fundamental source of all variations of expression.
Yes, it is certain that consciousness is....but it is not certain that anything outside of an experience of consciousness exists... since we'd have to be outside of our own experience to witness that of another consciousness which is impossible... this is overwhelming proof that cannot be refuted that there is only one consciousness and that is it most definitely all there is. Other people are just projections of the same one consciousness, it doesn't mean that other people don't exist, it means they exist as an idea only, known only by consciousness itself. And that too is just an idea. This is all the work of one energy at play with itself..vibrating at different frequencies creating multitudes of patterns like a kaleidoscope, or in other words all different rays of the one light.

How can it not be all there is? ... if there was something else....what would be the 'other thing' that is other than consciousness? can you answer that?

[Dontaskme]

...
Life doesn't have any preferences, life is doing what comes naturally without any filter. ...

Er!? There is no 'Life', you are reifying a concept.

Babies and young children are natural, notice they NEVER put on an act in the company of adults...how can they ? ...

Young children try out their acting skills all the time?

Yes children are play acting games of make-believe ..they role play certain characters, they imagine fairies and goblins live under their beds..but this is only and ever the first sign a child is becoming aware of itself, aware of the duality of itself and other...but this is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the kind of acting when one is covering over their nothingness with the mask of otherness aka pretending to be something other than what it is at the fundamental level...Adults do this when they have become fully conscious that they exist and the world out there also exists separate from them....but this belief that they exist as a separate entity is nothing more than just an imagined fantasy ..it's the same game that the child is playing, it's all imagination at play, but the difference between the young child and the adult is that the child is not yet living through the filter of the imagined self aka the knowledge of opposites... it is living from a state of pure natural innocence of beingness, aka oneness. Young children are already at one with God, it is their parents that drag them away from that innocence planting seeds of good and bad, right and wrong in them. By all means guard them from any danger, but they should always be allowed to express their natural innocence...any way that's another long story....we see so many kids screwed up by parents not allowing their naturally intelligent children the space in which way they want to go ..a space that feels natural to them.. as a unique expression of oneness...


I can't talk to you about this because you come at it using an intellectual understanding..but what I'm pointing to is not an intellectual understanding. It's a tacit understanding although I have only got words and concepts as my way of pointing to that ultimate tacit understanding ...and is why it can be a bit difficult to do...and so I'd just be going round and round in circles with you as we'd each be playing with opposite ideas forever conflicting each other, but I don't want to play that game anymore with you or anybody else.

Ask questions only, then I will be happy to answer them, then and only then will we begin to meet at the heart level...and remember, you are only ever asking yourself, not me, because there is only you. You are everywhere at once...everything is you.

Also, remember that life never questions reality ..it's just being what it it is..only the mind questions reality...the mind is that which is identified with a self that it believes exists separate from it's external environment, therefore wants to know the why's and how's of that possibility...

[Reflex]

It wouldn't kill you to look a few posts up where I pointed out that the entire argument is based on unsound premises.

Talking to me or Harbal?

Harbal.

If you're talking to me, I asked if it was unreasonable, not whether you agreed. If you think the premises are not reasonable, take it up with the scientists who make the argument.

What is unreasonable is to present an argument based on unsound premises as 'proof'. I describe and make the argument myself (http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk dontcha know), but it is an hypothesis, not a fact.

Maybe, but is the argument itself unreasonable?

[uwot]

How can it not be all there is? ... if there was something else....what would be the 'other thing' that is other than consciousness? can you answer that?

Well, I have this slightly crazy idea that the most plausible explanation for all the conscious experience that gives the impression that there is a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of.

[uwot]

What is unreasonable is to present an argument based on unsound premises as 'proof'. I describe and make the argument myself (http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk dontcha know), but it is an hypothesis, not a fact.

Maybe, but is the argument itself unreasonable?

Depends what you are referring to and what you consider reasonable. I think Georges Lemaire's inference from the observable expansion of the universe, that it used to be much smaller, is entirely reasonable. Gerald Schroeder, as I say, is presenting an argument, which is logically not too shabby, but it is based on unsound premises. It's like this:
All froonts are flugent.
Frotz is a froont,
Therefore Frotz is flugent.
That is a perfectly reasonable argument, and if you accept the premises, you are bound to accept the conclusion.

[Reflex]

What is unreasonable is to present an argument based on unsound premises as 'proof'. I describe and make the argument myself (http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk dontcha know), but it is an hypothesis, not a fact.

Maybe, but is the argument itself unreasonable?

Depends what you are referring to and what you consider reasonable. I think Georges Lemaire's inference from the observable expansion of the universe, that it used to be much smaller, is entirely reasonable. Gerald Schroeder, as I say, is presenting an argument, which is logically not too shabby, but it is based on unsound premises. It's like this:
All froonts are flugent.
Frotz is a froont,
Therefore Frotz is flugent.
That is a perfectly reasonable argument, and if you accept the premises, you are bound to accept the conclusion.

What is the false premise (apart from the claim it is "proof") and why is it false?

[uwot]

What is the false premise (apart from the claim it is "proof") and why is it false?

Who said anything about a false premise? I happen to think the argument for a big bang is compelling, I even use it in my blog http://willijbouwman.co.uk Where he really puts his foot in his philosophical mouth, is by claiming that the laws of physics must have existed before there was any physics. You can believe that if you will, but it is an absurd leap to insist it is true.

[Greta]

... claiming that the laws of physics must have existed before there was any physics ...

I think Krauss is right that what we refer to as "nothing" is actually something, characterised in lieu of direct experiment by mathematical models that predict "quantum foam" with "virtual particles" constantly popping in an out of existence. In Krauss's hypothesis, one of those particles did not disappear but rather inflated.

This suggests that energy/matter and the boundaries in which it exists arise simultaneously and spontaneously, depending on prior existing thresholds. Certainly feedback loops are an intrinsic aspect of natural systems. Theoretically, just two interacting fluctuations in an otherwise homogeneous setting (early universe) can start a chain reaction in the surrounding areas, and the nature of those fluctuations will describe the boundaries of what follows just as does DNA, except much more chaotically, of course.

My personal favourite conception of God is the Omega Point idea, where matter, life and perhaps post-life become ever more intelligent, aware and integrated in the far future to the point where godlike empowerment and mental qualities emerge in large, intimately interconnected, entities. If this is true, then God is currently immature, almost 14 billion years old in a potential star-bearing life of a trillion years. Hence the deity's current sloppy work thus far :)

[uwot]

I think Krauss is right that what we refer to as "nothing" is actually something, characterised in lieu of direct experiment by mathematical models that predict "quantum foam" with "virtual particles" constantly popping in an out of existence.

He may well be right, quantum foam was John Wheeler's idea and that could be what conditions were like before the big bang, or beyond 'our universe'. The problem is there is no way of testing it and while it neatly answers the question of where did the big bang come from, you're then left with where did quantum foam come from?

My personal favourite conception of God is the Omega Point idea, where matter, life and perhaps post-life become ever more intelligent, aware and integrated in the far future to the point where godlike empowerment and mental qualities emerge in large, intimately interconnected, entities. If this is true, then God is currently immature, almost 14 billion years old in a potential star-bearing life of a trillion years. Hence the deity's current sloppy work thus far

I'm sure I've said this before: I used to tell my children that once upon a time, there was a teeny, tiny dot that was everywhere, knew everything and could do anything. But there was nowhere to go, nothing to know and nothing to do. So the teeny, tiny dot blew itself up into a universe to have some fun.
Who knows? Whatever the truth, it's a hell of a trip.

[Greta]

I think Krauss is right that what we refer to as "nothing" is actually something, characterised in lieu of direct experiment by mathematical models that predict "quantum foam" with "virtual particles" constantly popping in an out of existence.

He may well be right, quantum foam was John Wheeler's idea and that could be what conditions were like before the big bang, or beyond 'our universe'. The problem is there is no way of testing it and while it neatly answers the question of where did the big bang come from, you're then left with where did quantum foam come from?

I expect that comes from the Planck scale, which my guess is just accumulating information, given that the granularity at that scale is considered to be dimensionless and timeless. Where did that comes from and why? Interdimensional turtles?

Whatever, the basis of the thread's speculations relates to three possibilities.

1) Reality springs from an ultra-intelligent source

2) The universe is becoming ultra-intelligent

3) Intelligence is just a survival mechanism and probably has no long term future in the universe.

[osgart]

why would God spend human history in total defeaning silence?
At least introduce yourself.
Is God into bloodsports? Or does He enjoy seeing creatures live in an endless state of questioning?