wut?
no my question is what is the implication of the assumed as fact claim that the universe is conscious or consciousness?
Last edited:
Question for agnostic brehs
- Thread starter Farrinto
- Start date
no my question is what is the implication of the assumed as fact claim that the universe is conscious or consciousness?
is there any part of your epistemology that values the ability to make predictions?
meaning do you believe that something becomes more known, more believable if it allows you to make valid predictions?
The reason we are discussing the Universe being conscious and the Universe being consciousness is:
The consciousness is G-d's consciousness.
This is supposed to convince you that G-d exists.. which you know cause you live here (inside of G-d).
And the fact that humans can manipulate reality with thought - in a mundane way through building and in more esoteric ways like the quantum physics experiments - is supposed to be the physical proof.
I think we are at the end of the thread you've been pulling on. All that's left is for you to accept it.
so let's go through this
1.
ergo
2.
ergo
3.
ergo
4. you believe that god exists
does that cover the line of logic?
Inasmuch as it can be summed up succinctly. Yeah.
which came first, the earth or man?
Of course the Earth.
(Assuming I know where you're headed: People didn't create the Universe with our consciousness. The empty Universe realized it existed at some point. This idea? thought process? is the substance of the Cosmos. We are made of this substance, but also have some control over it - cause we possess a quantum of G-d's consciousness)
Lol, why do you keep assuming tings? I even mentioned and posted a video of the double slit experiment and even followed that up with the universe is conscious. so how in the fukk can the Creator not be? my breh, just admit you're looking to argue. I won't argue with you though, feel which ever way you want on my stances.
troll somewhere else
I'm not understanding that question. do I believe predictions can be made? Yes. but when someone accurately predicts an event or occurrence, the final outcome is just the one with the highest probability. similar to flipping a coin, it's 50/50 chances of it hitting heads or tails. but what increases or decreases the probability of one outcome over the other is dependent upon various factors.
LMAO!
Ok, so if atoms respond one way when being observed (forms random pattern) and then they react differently when not being observed (producing a pattern with more definition) it proves that atom's function differently when observed correct? so is it not a conscious act on the part of the atom if it begins to do things differently when being viewed?
Stop playing semantics breh, if you seriously think my usage of words differs greatly from it's common use then you doing nothing but trying to provoke an argument.
Ironic
But true nonetheless.
irrelevant
To those with little understanding
antithetic to objectivity
It is not the opposite of objectivity.....it is the first and primary quality of all realized or known truths.
You're very defensive, I can see why. We dont know why this phenomenon occurs, to jump to them being conscious is premature to say the least considering that the atoms are responding in a very basic and binary fashion, ie particle or wave. The thing is, your theoretical explanation of consciousness is pretty useless without predictive implications.
What are the objective predictive implications of your god theory?