Why is this bizzare conjecture.

[Mr Q]

The only question is whether or not the dea of space naturally occurring is bizarre. Nowhere to move onto from there.

I don't think that was particularly bizzare. What you said was that because space naturally exists, God is Folklore, without any chain of logic joining the two propositions. That was what was bizzare.

Not sure that I am aetheist. Divide in the status quo? The status quo is the one that otto revels in, that of the only certainty being that there will always be an unknown.

If you're not an atheist, why would you have posted a thread entitled "God is Folklore" and in the first post of said thread made (a pitiful) attempt to prove it? God is Folklore = God does not really exist = atheism. QED.

Groves, do we get another 1000 posts to try to prove to net that net is a tw@t? I'm up for it, and skip needs to raise the money to cover the bets he's holding...

 

[teams]

If you're adamant that "God is Folklore" then you're an atheist.

"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."


I'm with Otto, but I'm assuming the divide in the status quo would refer more to egotistical self-appointed geniuses with a preference for science, further degrading religious people because of their beliefs.

Why don't you send a letter to Stephen Hawking and tell him he's an idiot for believing in God and that he "needs a crutch"* and that you've solved the mystery of the known Universe?

*Actually, that mightn't be such a wise term to use!

It is not a disbelief in god that is paramount to me. It is a belief that the three dimensions naturally exist that carry my days. Not believing in something is meaningless. That's why I shun from being described as an aetheist. Not sure that Hawking believes in creation, either. He had a wife who did and they split as far as I know. He could have had a subsequent conversion but originally fairly sure he didn't.

The idea of space is naturally occurring, but to have the idea, you first need consciousness.

That's the deal. The three dimensions have evolved to produce a consciousness that recognizes the three dimensions. Bingo. That consciousness is at least in part us. You are raising the question of whether or not we have three dimensional soul I presume. More for the afterlife thread.

I don't think that was particularly bizzare. What you said was that because space naturally exists, God is Folklore, without any chain of logic joining the two propositions. That was what was bizzare.

Is that where your problem is. Directly follows at least conjecturally if naturally existing space is finite.

It's conjecture. O'K. You got that.

What I would say is happening is the three dimensions are evolving. They have never been zero as otto implies and will never be infinite as the basis of modern mathematics suggests. Just always evolving to an infinite size.

Question. Can space or the three dimensions be static whilst a finite three dimensions evolve towards an infinite size?

Answer no. What is an evolving finite three dimensions? The answer is a particle. (Or a curved bubble if that helps you get the picture.) Huge one but a particle. Bound on all sides.

Within a particle the right angle between each of the three dimensions is broken because of the curved outer limit and the convergence of a curved shape towards a centre. You can follow that can't you.

So what should naturally exist is not the nothing of religious paradigms but a giant three dimensional particle with an interior which is the three dimensions in a fractured state.

Question. What is the three dimensions in a fractured state? My answer is a universe. What is the only thing we really know about. Answer = three dimensional particles in states of motion. Or a universe. Naturally existing space should be a universe of the three dimensional particles in motion.

If fellow posters can't differentiate between an idea being put forward and absolute claims being made, the failure of differentiation is tangled up with a defence of things they believe are beyond doubt, not an objective assessment of ideas being put forward.

The connection is not bizarre Mr Q.

If you're not an atheist, why would you have posted a thread entitled "God is Folklore" and in the first post of said thread made (a pitiful) attempt to prove it? God is Folklore = God does not really exist = atheism. QED.

Groves, do we get another 1000 posts to try to prove to net that net is a tw@t? I'm up for it, and skip needs to raise the money to cover the bets he's holding...

As explained to Figjam, the aetheist side of things is small beer. It is what you believe in that counts. Not what you don't believe in.

Space naturally existing is not a bizarre idea is the point of thread. Couldn't really care how far it goes. This can be the last post.

 

[bunsen burner]

Apparently people like you do have an interest. You won't stop trolling religious folk!

I have an interest in exposing the flaws in logic of people such as yourself. This only requires the most basic level of religious knowledge. therefore i don't need to look any deeper.

Before shooting your mouth off about something you know next to nothing about, do some reasearch.

What are you talking about? I know that there are numerous contradictions. Never shot my mouth off about anything else. I've openly admitted to knowing little past the basics and hence haven't debated these issues. Seems like you are the one jumping to conclusions and shooting your load off.

If you don't owe it to yourself, you at least owe it to the people you're offending!

I don't owe anyone anything. I have proven time and time again that there are gaping holes in the Christian religion at the most basic level. Maybe you owe it to yourself to acknowledge these discrepencies? How you can rant and rave about all this deep level stuff when the surface material just doesn't add up.

All religions are formed on experiences with what are known today as "near-death" experiences. The term "near death" is irrelevant, as they can be induced by various other methods, such as meditation, which is what the likes of the Ancient Egyptians, the Hindus and Buddhists, the Kabbalists (Jews), the Christians (Jesus, Gnostics) and Islam.

There are relatively people around today who can preform the same connection as Buddah, Jesus, Mohammad, Kabbalistic Jews etc..

The similarities between religions are really quite astounding, which to you I know is ironic, becuase you see them as being very very different.

If you're looking for an atheist cop out, you can refer to Carl Jung's analysis of the collective unconscious. There are three levels of consciousness, the ego (conscious), the personal subconsciousness and the collective unconsciousness. The collective unconsciousness provides all of our archetypes, which could explain why all religions have practically identical themes and why many different cultures all have pretty similar "monsters" such as witches and ghosts. Of course if you do choose to use that argument, it's best remembered that Jung had the same belief structure that I do!

You know what makes me laugh about people like you? You assume that you know more than the person who has read less. Not necessarily so. If you read an opinion and interpret as fact (as you have) then you are one down on the person who doesn't read it because they are aware that it is one opinion of many.

I'd give you respect if you had read a heap of different opinions and offered them as different opinions, but you have tried to pass off the one you believe in as fact.

 

[FIGJAM]

I have an interest in exposing the flaws in logic of people such as yourself. This only requires the most basic level of religious knowledge. therefore i don't need to look any deeper.

What logical flaws have I presented to you?

All I am saying is that religion and spirituality are different.

I What are you talking about? I know that there are numerous contradictions. Never shot my mouth off about anything else. I've openly admitted to knowing little past the basics and hence haven't debated these issues. Seems like you are the one jumping to conclusions and shooting your load off.

I recognise these contradictions, especially in Christianity.

Again, I don't understand you motives for trolling people who are Christians (and we're talking about a select group of Christians who interpret the Old Testament literally).

You're effectively riddiculing these people for discrimination and being hypocritical, whilst at the same time discriminating yourself and therefore being a hypocrite!!

I don't owe anyone anything. I have proven time and time again that there are gaping holes in the Christian religion at the most basic level. Maybe you owe it to yourself to acknowledge these discrepencies?

The surface material, as I have said a billion times, doesn't add up, because it was written in an archaic language up to 5,000 years ago and been fiddled with by countless grubby hands from the day Jesus died up until the foundation of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

How you can rant and rave about all this deep level stuff when the surface material just doesn't add up.

I can rant and rave about spirituality, remembering that I am quintessentially a Buddhist, because I believe in it. I know the Middle Eastern orign religions have been manipulated (in content and in interpretation). But I know even more strongly, that it's not my place to belittle people because of their literal beliefs in religious scripts.

You're welcome to point out all the discrepencies you like in Buddhism. You wont have much luck!

You know what makes me laugh about people like you? You assume that you know more than the person who has read less.

That's funny, because people who have religious beliefs have to suffer this very conundrum, from egotistical scientific folk every day!

If you read an opinion and interpret as fact (as you have) then you are one down on the person who doesn't read it because they are aware that it is one opinion of many.

I'd give you respect if you had read a heap of different opinions and offered them as different opinions, but you have tried to pass off the one you believe in as fact

FWIW, that's most certainly not my intention. I offer my opinions as opinions only. Having done research into how each of the religions were created, I've concluded, as an opinion, that all of them were effectively derived from communication with the higher levels of counciousness that is available through meditation (near death experiences and even dissociative drugs such as Ketamine and DMT).

It is, again in my opinion, the same connection to an alternative consciousness exclusive of the body which enables remote viewing, out of body experiences, psychic abilities and even an ability to forsee the future. In these cases, you might tell me that you are able to "expose the flaws in my logic" or that I'm talking about some ancient supersticious garbage, but unfortunately for you, things such as remote viewing and out of body experiences happen every day and they are provable. The US govenment use remote viewers everyday!

This alternative non-body consciousness, defies everything that science, at least at this stage, knows about consciousness. I anticipate that a new stream of science will eventually start to investigate metaphysical forces.

 

[FIGJAM]

It is not a disbelief in god that is paramount to me. It is a belief that the three dimensions naturally exist that carry my days. Not believing in something is meaningless. That's why I shun from being described as an aetheist. Not sure that Hawking believes in creation, either. He had a wife who did and they split as far as I know. He could have had a subsequent conversion but originally fairly sure he didn't.

Geniuses like Hawking and Einstein, have never been foolish enough to exclude the possibility of God. I doubt any truly intelligent scientist would!

Creationism is a loaded word which conjurs images of a dude with a white beard waving a staff and creating the Universe. It's these sort of stereotypes which detract significantly from the opportunity to marry spirituallity and science.

That's the deal. The three dimensions have evolved to produce a consciousness that recognizes the three dimensions. Bingo. That consciousness is at least in part us. You are raising the question of whether or not we have three dimensional soul I presume. More for the afterlife thread.

My view on this has always been that the three dimensions is literally a plane of consciousness. That's why the age old question, "What is outside of the Universe" (in reference to this material Universe) can be answered IMO, by stating that it is a never ending plane of consciousness. Consciousness exists outside of the material Universe and that is what it's expanding into!

 

[bunsen burner]

What logical flaws have I presented to you?

I recognise these contradictions, especially in Christianity.

My mistake. Made the assumption you were pro Christian.

Again, I don't understand you motives for trolling people who are Christians (and we're talking about a select group of Christians who interpret the Old Testament literally).

My motive is very clear: to ridicule people who contradict themselves, and try to pass their beliefs off as fact, and don't accept that Christian religion is full of flaws.

You're effectively riddiculing these people for discrimination and being hypocritical, whilst at the same time discriminating yourself and therefore being a hypocrite!!

I'm not ridiculing them for be discriminatory. That's just an assumption you took upon yourself.

The surface material, as I have said a billion times, doesn't add up,

So why do you feel the need to have a snipe at my posts? Don't like my sniping? If you don't like it, then you shouldn't do it yourself.

You're welcome to point out all the discrepencies you like in Buddhism. You wont have much luck!

Buddhism from what I understand is a way of life rather than a religion. I generally don't have a problem with it. Except when people claim to live the Buddhist lifestyle yet have material possessions.

Do you own a car? A TV?

As I don't want to jumpt to conclusions, maybe you should clarify precisely what being a buddhist constitutes and how closely you follow it?

That's funny, because people who have religious beliefs have to suffer this very conundrum, from egotistical scientific folk every day!

And so they should.

It is, again in my opinion, the same connection to an alternative consciousness exclusive of the body which enables remote viewing, out of body experiences, psychic abilities and even an ability to forsee the future. In these cases, you might tell me that you are able to "expose the flaws in my logic" or that I'm talking about some ancient supersticious garbage, but unfortunately for you, things such as remote viewing and out of body experiences happen every day and they are provable. The US govenment use remote viewers everyday!

This alternative non-body consciousness, defies everything that science, at least at this stage, knows about consciousness. I anticipate that a new stream of science will eventually start to investigate metaphysical forces.

I don't have a problem with such beliefs.

 

[skipper kelly]

Bunsen.

Why do you feel the need to ridicule anyone?

 

[FIGJAM]

So why do you feel the need to have a snipe at my posts? Don't like my sniping? If you don't like it, then you shouldn't do it yourself.

I feel the need to but in and ease the propogation of negativity towards religions and people in general.

I'm full of contradictions. I don't mind peddaling negativity when discussing footy, but going at someone's personal beliefs is a low blow.

You can discuss contradictions without being derogatory. A thread asking for discussion on how Christians deal with contradictions within the Bible might have been a good start.

My hardcore Seventh Day Adventist Uncles appreciate that there are contradictions between Moses' teachings and Jesus' teachings. Both of them accept Jesus' teachings of pure love as the way to salvation.

Buddhism from what I understand is a way of life rather than a religion. I generally don't have a problem with it. Except when people claim to live the Buddhist lifestyle yet have material possessions.

Do you own a car? A TV?

As I don't want to jumpt to conclusions, maybe you should clarify precisely what being a buddhist constitutes and how closely you follow it?

I own a car and a TV. I even own clothes and work and make money. I spend a riddiculous amount of time posting on BigFooty.

It is possible for people to be Buddhist and still live. In fact, it's obviously impossible for everyone to become monks, otherwise there'd be no food to eat!

That said, my ultimate goal in life is to attain Enlightenment. That will involve a sharp change in lifestyle, but one which is not feasible at this point in time.

In the mean time, my beliefs centre around the understanding that cause and effect (Karma) is absolute. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.". This scientific/Universal principle is so precice (again in my opinion) that it literally extends to thought!

So I practice mindfulness in such a manner as to not wish anyone any harm and try to benefit others as best as I can. At the minute, most of myself centres around myself and I find myself on occassions propogating negativity mentally and verbally. I am aware of it and am keen to change this fact.

I meditate once a day for 20-30 minutes.

Buddhism can be viewed as a way of life as you described it, but the underlying aim of Buddhism is to eliminate desire at the soul level and thus stop the process of reincarnation.

And so they should.

I disagree.

 

[bunsen burner]

Bunsen.

Why do you feel the need to ridicule anyone?

It's not a need. Some people are just tossers and I enjoy laughing at them.

Note: I don't ridicule people who make statements such as "I don't know, but I believe God is true". I do however ridicule people who make statements such as "Such and such is true because the Bible said so", or "I have experienced God", or "Consciousness is proof that God exists" etc. And rightly so.

If people want to make such ridiculous claims on an Internet forum where they are fully aware that their opinions are up for scrutiny then they have no right to complain.

I'd assume you're thinking the 'I do it because it makes me feel better about myself' angle? Simply, no.

 

[bunsen burner]

I'm full of contradictions. I don't mind peddaling negativity when discussing footy, but going at someone's personal beliefs is a low blow.

Can you not see your contradiction. You are doing exactly what you don't like about what I do.

Why do you do that? Why do you do something that you don't like in others?

You can discuss contradictions without being derogatory.

Sure you can. But I like to add in a few sledges. Makes for better reading. If you don't like it, tough t***ies.

A thread asking for discussion on how Christians deal with contradictions within the Bible might have been a good start.

You obviously missed the 'hypocrisy of Christianity' thread. Oh, I get it! You want a discussion where everyone can put in their views and and all act like ned Flanders? Quite simply, ggf.

I own a car and a TV. I even own clothes and work and make money. I spend a riddiculous amount of time posting on BigFooty.

It is possible for people to be Buddhist and still live. In fact, it's obviously impossible for everyone to become monks, otherwise there'd be no food to eat!

So you're like a wanna-be Buddha - a Wuddha. I wuddha gone without material possessions but just telling myself that I believe in these ideals rather that carrying them out is enough.

That said, my ultimate goal in life is to attain Enlightenment. That will involve a sharp change in lifestyle, but one which is not feasible at this point in time.

Why? Because you don't have enough money? Sort of defeats the whole purpose doesn't it?

Does your life of contradiction bother you at all?

In the mean time, my beliefs centre around the understanding that cause and effect (Karma) is absolute. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.". This scientific/Universal principle is so precice (again in my opinion) that it literally extends to thought!

Ahh, so if you just think it rather than do it, it's good enough?

Buddhism can be viewed as a way of life as you described it, but the underlying aim of Buddhism is to eliminate desire at the soul level and thus stop the process of reincarnation.

You're not very bloody good at it, are you?

I disagree.

Good-o.

 

[evo]

My view on this has always been that the three dimensions is literally a plane of consciousness. That's why the age old question, "What is outside of the Universe" (in reference to this material Universe) can be answered IMO, by stating that it is a never ending plane of consciousness. Consciousness exists outside of the material Universe and that is what it's expanding into!

Figjam.Thanks for having a stab at my question.

So what is this "consciousness" you say is outside the boundaries of the universe.Could you briefly explain your understanding of what it is.Keep in mind I'm not a Buddhist although out of the major religions I think it would be the one most likely to attract me.

Are you perhaps saying that what is outside the universe is whatever "is in the eye of the beholder"?

 

[teams]

Geniuses like Hawking and Einstein, have never been foolish enough to exclude the possibility of God. I doubt any truly intelligent scientist would!!

There is either going to a god or there isn't. Black and white issue. Fence sitters are worth what? Not much. Just full of their own nonsense. What the world needs is one of these so called geniuses to stand up and say there is no god.

Creationism is a loaded word which conjurs images of a dude with a white beard waving a staff and creating the Universe. It's these sort of stereotypes which detract significantly from the opportunity to marry spirituallity and science.

Spirituallity is just an awareness. Nothing to get all that excited about. You may note that I believe 100% in existence beyond the body.

My view on this has always been that the three dimensions is literally a plane of consciousness. That's why the age old question, "What is outside of the Universe" (in reference to this material Universe) can be answered IMO, by stating that it is a never ending plane of consciousness. Consciousness exists outside of the material Universe and that is what it's expanding into!

The universe part of a dream? Each to their own. Glad to have space naturally existing 'unbizarre' by now.

SKelly, is the post following this one at all relevant to this thread?

 

[skipper kelly]

Do I hear a change in tune???

 

[FIGJAM]

Does your life of contradiction bother you at all?

I'm not going to answer all of your questions, because I think it can be best said by answering this one;

Of course it bothers me. I catch myself contradicting myself all the time.

At the same time, contradiction is part of learning spiritually. Being mindful of what you are practicing, in relation to what you idealise, is the only way you really notice how much your subconscious controls you. Correcting that subconscious takes time and effort.

The way I see it, it's cool to be true to your beliefs and be at one with yourself as yourself today. It's not an issue if that's the path you choose, but I'm looking to improve myself and as an immediate "side affect" you'll end up with some degree of hypocracy on some occassions.

As for my Wuddahood (nice gag BTW) it's not always feasible to quit your job when you're paying stuff off, as people hunt you down and cut your thumbs off (at least that's what I've learnt from The Simpsons). I'm working towards being debt free within the next half a decade. Then I hope to get out of this current cycle and move into a better one. I hope, because again, it's harder to get out of life cycles than people give it credit for. I was giving up cigarettes for seven years before I did it!!

 

[otaku]

so, NEWT, when are you going to prove space is naturally occuring?

 

[FIGJAM]

There is either going to a god or there isn't. Black and white issue. Fence sitters are worth what? Not much. Just full of their own nonsense. What the world needs is one of these so called geniuses to stand up and say there is no god.

Spirituallity is just an awareness. Nothing to get all that excited about. You may note that I believe 100% in existence beyond the body.

Why would a scientist stand up and say something that they couldn't prove.

You believe in existence out of the body? Blimey!!

The universe part of a dream? Each to their own. Glad to have space naturally existing 'unbizarre' by now.

The Universe is very much a part of reality. It is not, IMO, the only part of reality, nor is it the defining part.

Again, your contention that space was the instigator to this ten dimensional Universe is not especially bizzarre. That you considered it enough proof to disprove God was odd, but what made it bizarre, was that you weren't elaborating with any sense. Right now you're making some degree of sense, and I wish you did in the first place! That said, I still disagree with you.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

If people want to make such ridiculous claims on an Internet forum where they are fully aware that their opinions are up for scrutiny then they have no right to complain.

Especially total tossers who make ridiculous statements like "The Bible claims that homosexuality is wrong and also claims that people who wear glasses are wrong".

 

[MonkeyButterer]

Especially total tossers who make ridiculous statements like "The Bible claims that homosexuality is wrong and also claims that people who wear glasses are wrong".

Dude, seriously, get the ******** over it. I'm not even vaguely involved and i'm sick of hearing you dribble on about that. STFU already.

 

[bunsen burner]

Especially total tossers who make ridiculous statements like "The Bible claims that homosexuality is wrong and also claims that people who wear glasses are wrong".

Dude, see a shrink. You don't seem to be able to let this go. COuld it be because you have nothing else? How do you feel after this is all you have come up with after witch hunting me for months. You sad pathetic small di cked loser.

 

[Mr Q]

There is either going to a god or there isn't. Black and white issue. Fence sitters are worth what? Not much. Just full of their own nonsense. What the world needs is one of these so called geniuses to stand up and say there is no god.

What a load of complete load of fetid dingos kidneys. A true scientific analysis of the existance of God would come up "inconclusive" (at least at the moment). There's no evidence God exists or otherwise. The only true scientific belief is agnosticism. Atheism is just another type of religious belief, and any atheist who says otherwise is talking a load of bollocks.

Any genius can stand up and say "there is no god" (and believe me, you're no genius, so don't get any ideas), however unless you can produce some sort of evidence one way or the other, its still has the same value as a statement of belief of the biggest idiot in the world, or for that matter you. What happens if two geniuses stand up and one says "there is no God" while the other says "there is a God". Have either made even the slightest difference to the argument? No; and quite frankly, neither have you.

I believe in God. However I don't have evidence one way or the other, and I'm certainly not going to make up some kooky link and then try to back it up with shocking science (if that's what you call what you peddle).

Evidence and proof. Go out and work out what they are, then come back.

The universe part of a dream? Each to their own. Glad to have space naturally existing 'unbizarre' by now.

While the concept that space naturally exists may not be bizarre in and of itself, the conjecture that you make bizarre threads is well held up by the fact you link that to the existance or otherwise of God, when I could easily disprove it by saying "If God created the Universe, its natural state would be to exist". Saying space "naturally exists" doesn't actually say word one about the existence of God.

Incidentally, you didn't actually provide any proof that space naturally exists.

SKelly, is the post following this one at all relevant to this thread?

When has that had anything to do with anything on BigFooty?

 

[skipper kelly]

SKelly, is the post following this one at all relevant to this thread?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by notenoughteams : Today at 10:34.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

Dude, seriously, get the ******** over it. I'm not even vaguely involved and i'm sick of hearing you dribble on about that. STFU already.

Really????? I was told it was common knowledge that you and Buns Burner were either the same person or siamese twins. Wherever BB goes MonkeyButt is right there...... never leaves his mates behind.

 

[FIGJAM]

Figjam.Thanks for having a stab at my question.

So what is this "consciousness" you say is outside the boundaries of the universe.Could you briefly explain your understanding of what it is.Keep in mind I'm not a Buddhist although out of the major religions I think it would be the one most likely to attract me.

Are you perhaps saying that what is outside the universe is whatever "is in the eye of the beholder"?

I will expand on my classification as a Buddhist, as I think it's selling my beliefs well short. I choose to call myself a Buddhist, as it cuts down on any ambiguity or stigma associated with the other religions. Buddhism is very simple and very much to the core of all religions. At the very worst, Siddartha Gautama is the most influential psychologist of all time, so even blinkered science folk have to give him some respect!

But Buddhism is just one of the "mystical" steams which are all effectively the same and all form the foundation of religions. Judaism is derived from ancient meditational practices known as the Kabbalah. Moses and Jesus practiced these teachings. Islam is derived from Sufism. Christian Gnostisism is based on meditational practises handed down from Jesus, but which were stamped out by the church who killed people who practised it in the early centuries AD. Hinduism also obviously derives itself from information derived from meditation.

Note that Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnostism, Islam, Judaism all talk about the seven levels of the "otherworlds". As do other mediums and near death experiencers. I'm not sure on the statistical probability of every person by chance claiming to have seen the seven levels of consciousness, but it's slim to none!

So what were / are these people doing to think that they have spoken to God and have some key to existence. It's my opinion that they were accessing the Universal Consciousness. Hopefully the link I provide will go someway to answering what this means, but it's effectively the uniting consciousness. We are separate from the one, only because we chose to be through greed and ignorance.

This guy Edgar Cayce was a fairly simple bloke with a seventh grade education. He was a Christian, so he always talks with Christian bias, but funnily he actually dispells a lot of irregularities found in Christianity (including reincarnation). He could put himself into a deep meditative trance and (at least) claimed to access the Universal Consciousness and the varying levels therein.

It's the best explanation of consciousness I've found on the web and it's worth reading through carefully:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/cayce04.html

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

So to answer your question, what is "outside" the Universe (the Universe of matter) is very much consciousness. What exists is unlimited potential, but it is a place without physicallity. The capacity for physicallity has already been provided for by thought.

 

[teams]

otto, Mr Q, evidently post 77 didn't mean much to you if you still wish to argue against natural logic. Here it is again for you in case you missed it.

Is that where your problem is. Directly follows at least conjecturally if naturally existing space is finite.

It's conjecture. O'K. You got that.

What I would say is happening is the three dimensions are evolving. They have never been zero as otto implies and will never be infinite as the basis of modern mathematics suggests. Just always evolving to an infinite size.

Question. Can space or the three dimensions be static whilst a finite three dimensions evolve towards an infinite size?

Answer no. What is an evolving finite three dimensions? The answer is a particle. (Or a curved bubble if that helps you get the picture.) Huge one but a particle. Bound on all sides.

Within a particle the right angle between each of the three dimensions is broken because of the curved outer limit and the convergence of a curved shape towards a centre. You can follow that can't you.

So what should naturally exist is not the nothing of religious paradigms but a giant three dimensional particle with an interior which is the three dimensions in a fractured state.

Question. What is the three dimensions in a fractured state? My answer is a universe. What is the only thing we really know about. Answer = three dimensional particles in states of motion. Or a universe. Naturally existing space should be a universe of the three dimensional particles in motion.

If fellow posters can't differentiate between an idea being put forward and absolute claims being made, the failure of differentiation is tangled up with a defence of things they believe are beyond doubt, not an objective assessment of ideas being put forward.

The connection is not bizarre Mr Q.

so, NEWT, when are you going to prove space is naturally occuring?

This was answered on post 73 in context of this thread

The only question is whether or not the dea of space naturally occurring is bizarre. Nowhere to move onto from there.

However if you want my overall position stated in theoretical terms it would begin like this.

1/ Space is naturally occurring.

The logic behind this theory is self evident. Space is known to exist. Space is not known not to exist. (hope I haven't tangled that up evo)

An absence of physical or mathematical evidence of an absence of length, width and breadth in this modern academic era allows this theory to so far stand uncontested. Quite simple otto. It is a living theory.

If you don't like the theory and wish to say as much, it is up to you to show the substance of your dislike. Best give your inane circular questioning a rest, anyway. That doesn't show much at all.

You believe in existence out of the body? Blimey!!

Care to elaborate on your surprise.

What a load of complete load of fetid dingos kidneys. A true scientific analysis of the existance of God would come up "inconclusive" (at least at the moment). There's no evidence God exists or otherwise. The only true scientific belief is agnosticism. Atheism is just another type of religious belief, and any atheist who says otherwise is talking a load of bollocks.

Mrq, you are giving god status above santa claus. It's like me saying I saw aliens yesterday and asking you to disproof it. If you want to contend the existence of a creator, the onus of proof is on you.

 

[FIGJAM]

Care to elaborate on your surprise.

You've spend hundreds of posts on stating that its stoopid for people to believe in anything other than space naturally occuring and that people who believe in God (which is one "unprovable/unproven" consciousnesses), yet now state that you don't inherently disagree with the possibility of there being a form of unproven consciousness outside of an animal's body!

That's quite a turnaround.