paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Sorry, I don't agree.
The Universe does not talk to anybody, but God conversed with many human being. Right, please?
Regards
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists, where did the universe come from?
- Thread starter Remté
- Start date
The Universe does not talk to anybody, but God conversed with many human being. Right, please?
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
What do the non-scientists do, please?
Regards
If nothing comes out of nothing, then "god," if it is anything at all, can likewise not have come from nothing, and therefore ought not to exist.
And since you brought up physics, it is very clear that "god" must have a somethingness to it, or it could not have created physics.
Since all this just leads to more and more circular thinking, with (so far) next to no hope of resolution, then the only reasonable response seems to be, as many members of the forum have already said, to just settle for "I don't know." If it gives you any comfort, you can always follow that with "yet."
You have no way to know that. You have only those human beings' claim that God conversed with them. And since it is trivially easy to show that those conversations are so regularly in disagreement with one another, you can only conclude that there are multiple gods communicating, or that if there's only one, it must be schizophrenic, or -- as seems infinitely more likely to me -- that those claimants are all making it up for reasons of their own. (Just for example, Joseph Smith wanting sanctioned access to more women than just the wife he had...)
But is this not merely invention? You are making a particular claim about the "nature of God" for which you can nothing whatever except that it is your opinion.
Then you have not properly understood one or the other, or both. Because as was pointed out, metaphorically the musing of those ancient goatherds can mean anything or nothing at all, but cannot, in any sense, be confused with the results of scientific inquiry.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"You have no way to know that. You have only those human beings' claim that God conversed with them."
Like Universe the Work of G-d points to Him so is Quran the Word of G-d points to Him.
Regards
Not the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Granth Guru Sahib, the Analects of Confucius, the writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, or any other religious text -- only the Quran? You ave just made it perfectly clear that you have a belief, but a belief that is not based on knowledge.
The laundry.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"knowledge"
What are the sources of knowledge, please?
Isn't experience also a source of knowledge, please?
Regards
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
But if that's the case, how can you accuse anyone of mischaracterizing God, and how can you denigrate "most" atheists for their approaches to the subject if all they're doing is acting on a conception that they feel works for them and there's no reason to believe that their conception is necessarily inaccurate?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Derived from processes observed or found in nature - i.e: not processes which are directly influenced or the result of artificial manipulation.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It's more honest to accept that we don't know (yet) than to make **** up just to fill in the blanks.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Our universe may be a simulated universe created either by post human futuristic distant descendants running an ancestral simulation of us simulated human beings or maybe our universe is simulated by a technological advanced extraterrestrial civilization.
There are some indications which have convinced me that we are living in a simulated reality.
A "machine" is any causal physical system, hence we are machines; thus, machines can be conscious. The question is: What type of machines could be conscious? Odds are robots passing the Turing Test Turing test - Wikipedia would be indistinguishable from us in their behavioral capacities --and could be conscious (i.e. feel), but we can never be certain. There's no way for any "conscious" being to know whether or not he is actually experiencing a virtual reality produced by an interface between his brain and a computer .
However, there are some possible indications we are living in a computer simulation....
1. A particle passing through a double-slit behaves as a wave causing an interference pattern when unobserved, but this same particle doesn't create an interference pattern when its path of travel can be determined by an observer. This collapse of the wave-function could be happening in order to save computational resources necessary for our simulated reality.
2. There is indeed a mark of intelligence left in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s) with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.
Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Icarus, May 2013,Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code
This mark of intelligence left in our genetic coding is indicative of an intelligent designer, who may be responsible for the simulation of our reality.
3. Theoretical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. has revealved that a certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations describing the nature and reality of our universe, contains embedded computer codes; these codes have digital data in the form of 0's and 1's identical to what makes web browsers function, and they're error-correct codes.
At least one of the following statements is very likely to be true:
1. The human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a post-human stage.
2. Any post-human civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history.
3. We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
"Bostrom's argument rests on the premise that given sufficiently advanced technology, it is possible to represent the populated surface of the Earth without recourse to digital physics; that the qualia experienced by a simulated consciousness are comparable or equivalent to those of a naturally occurring human consciousness, and that one or more levels of simulation within simulations would be feasible given only a modest expenditure of computational resources in the real world."
ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? BY NICK BOSTROM
Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University
Published in Philosophical Quarterly (2003) Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255.
Are You Living in a Simulation
I took the red pill knowing there is no turning back. I didn't take the blue pill, because I didn't want the story to end, then waking up in bed and simply believing whatever I want to believe. I took the red pill for staying in Wonderland and getting shown how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
After taking the red pill, I watched the below video about possible evidence of us living in a simulated reality.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Here we are again, ¨ scientists are working on where the universe came from ¨.
Scientists will never know where the universe came from. They will never ever get outside the universe to where the source of the universe is.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
LOL, ignorance becomes a virtue. What do you think cosmologists do ? They just propose stuff to fill in the blanks.
The most likely hypothesis, the BB, is based upon a singularity, ( cosmologist speak for we don´t know what it is) that existed before the universe, speculation, unprovable, unverifiable, speculation.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Wow, do you do standup ?Our universe may be a simulated universe created either by post human futuristic distant descendants running an ancestral simulation of us simulated human beings or maybe our universe is simulated by a technological advanced extraterrestrial civilization.
There are some indications which have convinced me that we are living in a simulated reality.
A "machine" is any causal physical system, hence we are machines; thus, machines can be conscious. The question is: What type of machines could be conscious? Odds are robots passing the Turing Test Turing test - Wikipedia would be indistinguishable from us in their behavioral capacities --and could be conscious (i.e. feel), but we can never be certain. There's no way for any "conscious" being to know whether or not he is actually experiencing a virtual reality produced by an interface between his brain and a computer .
However, there are some possible indications we are living in a computer simulation....
1. A particle passing through a double-slit behaves as a wave causing an interference pattern when unobserved, but this same particle doesn't create an interference pattern when its path of travel can be determined by an observer. This collapse of the wave-function could be happening in order to save computational resources necessary for our simulated reality.
2. There is indeed a mark of intelligence left in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s) with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.
Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Icarus, May 2013,Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code
This mark of intelligence left in our genetic coding is indicative of an intelligent designer, who may be responsible for the simulation of our reality.
3. Theoretical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. has revealved that a certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations describing the nature and reality of our universe, contains embedded computer codes; these codes have digital data in the form of 0's and 1's identical to what makes web browsers function, and they're error-correct codes.
At least one of the following statements is very likely to be true:
1. The human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a post-human stage.
2. Any post-human civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history.
3. We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
"Bostrom's argument rests on the premise that given sufficiently advanced technology, it is possible to represent the populated surface of the Earth without recourse to digital physics; that the qualia experienced by a simulated consciousness are comparable or equivalent to those of a naturally occurring human consciousness, and that one or more levels of simulation within simulations would be feasible given only a modest expenditure of computational resources in the real world."
ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? BY NICK BOSTROM
Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University
Published in Philosophical Quarterly (2003) Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255.
Are You Living in a Simulation
I took the red pill knowing there is no turning back. I didn't take the blue pill, because I didn't want the story to end, then waking up in bed and simply believing whatever I want to believe. I took the red pill for staying in Wonderland and getting shown how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
After taking the red pill, I watched the below video about possible evidence of us living in a simulated reality.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Ignorance isn't a virtue, but honesty is. Searching for answers is better than pulling them out of your *** only to reject the real answers when they finally are discovered.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
speculating isn´t searching, you clown. Are theories fact ( real answers), or just theories ?
A scientific theory is usually rejected by other scientists with other pet theories
I have no problem rejecting them as well
