God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by creation »

Papus79 wrote: April 4th, 2020, 9:45 am The day anyone here has a truly persuasive and powerful 'theory of everything' that encompasses all of the layers of mathematical physics, resolves the differences between GR and QM, understands exactly what consciousness is within that, understands precisely what space and time are and the primitives those spin up from, and what those primitives spin up from, and can answer from solid testable math whether or not there's anything teleological happening - that's the day when someone here has something to teach us all. My guess is they'll be going to Stockholm for a Nobel prize, maybe several times over, if they ever exist.
Another human being who only lives for "prizes". The very reason these things have not yet been answered is because people do not do for what is Right but instead do to get recognized, to get prizes, and/or to get money.

The answers to your questions here are about the simplest answers in Life to obtain. Explaining them to human beings though who believe that they already know better is the only difficult part. For people who believe that things are complex and hard to understand can not be taught what is essential just way to simple and basic for them.

For example, any perceived "difference" between general relativity and quantum mechanics can be almost instantly resolved AND 'united'. But his can only happen IF and WHEN the alleged "differences" that some people see are explained and shared. Until then those supposed "differences" will remain only with those people. See, I do NOT see any "difference" at all between the two. In fact I see them as just one united One. But as I continually say; I do look at and see things very differently than most people.

By the way, why go through the process of just forming a "theory" of everything, when a far more powerful and naturally "persuasive" way to see thee Truth of things is just share and SHOW thee Truth of how Everything IS 'unified'. Instead of forming and showing 'theories", which only 'separates', why not just show what was naturally already formed united?

What is Consciousness is to basic for most adult human brains to recognize and SEE.

What 'space' and 'time' actually ARE have already been explained. But, because of the way the human brain actually works most adult human beings can not see and understand this. They are just believing that very simple terms are just to hard and complex to understand and know.

How absolutely every thing is created and evolves creating every thing else is also already KNOWN. But because of the way the so called "education" has taught the human brain to think, most adults think that there HAS TO be one or the other, and so they are not able to comprehend nor understand what thee actual Truth IS.

What EVERY thing's purpose IS is extremely simple and easy to find and KNOW. But that is only when one learns or discovers the 'KNOW-HOW' to find the answers to ALL the truly meaningful questions in Life.
Papus79 wrote: April 4th, 2020, 9:45 am If someone is sure they have all the answers - great, start writing extensive research papers, sending them to scholarly journals, and don't bother with a bunch of chattle on a forum when it's getting in the way of your world fame and people properly appraising your talents and abilities!
Are you aware that some people are just way to slow and way to simple to be able to express themselves in a way that that they can be Truly and FULLY understood, by most people?

This means that there may just be some people that do KNOW some things that "others" think are impossible to know, but, unfortunately, they are unable to to express or explain it in a way that "others" can fully understand and comprehend, YET.

Just maybe some one is sure they have all the answers, but, unfortunately, learning how to explain it takes longer than "others" are ready to wait patiently for. Just maybe if some people were not so disparaging, so resistant, and so stuck in their own beliefs, then "others" might be able to explain better and more easily those answers that they are sure they have.

So called "research papers" are not always an end all, and so called "scholarly journals" also are obviously NOT some thing the slow and simple people know how to write.

So called "philosophers" are some times known for being the ones who will find fault and will critique in what is said and written, so maybe just spending some time with these people a slow and simple person might learn some things able explaining and expressing.

Again, if one is only doing for "world fame", "prizes", and/or "money", then that shows that that one is very distorted and twisted human being.

Discovering and understanding comes from the talent and from the ability that absolutely EVERY one has and shares. Once people learn HOW to use this talent and ability properly and correctly, then they will discover, learn, and understand the answers to all of the above, themselves anyway. It really is this SIMPLE.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by creation »

Greta wrote: April 4th, 2020, 5:48 pm Papus, there are plenty of potential Nobel Prize laureates on the forum. We are lucky to have so many geniuses who can be certain of all manner of phenomena without needing to bother with evidence.
Seriously what is it with human beings and "prizes"?

Also, if anyone wants evidence, then just ask for it. If the "other" can not provide evidence, then so be it. But, why BELIEVE that this inability to provide evidence then applies to "other" people, or even for that same person under another circumstance? Evidence is only better given and provided when asked for. And one will not ask for evidence if they believe that there is none or believe that the "other" can not provide any.

Also, there are plenty of people on this forum who NEVER actually provide any actual thing, which answers the actual questions being asked for. For example, and as 'evidence', how many people in this actual thread have provided any actual answer to the actual question that this thread is based on, compared to how many people who actually believe that there is no answer to question or that the question cannot be answered?

How many believe that God does or does not even exist, and yet asked to clarify what 'God' is actually, they are completely and utterly dumbfounded and not at all able to provide any thing at all? Yet they come into a thread like this with this specific question asked, and then actually respond with some thing.

How many people continue to argue that God does or does not exist, but can not even say what 'It' IS that they are so strongly fighting for does or does not exist?

Talk about "not needing to bother with evidence".
User avatar
Ensrick
Posts: 37
Joined: March 30th, 2020, 2:34 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by Ensrick »

creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmThe very reason these things have not yet been answered is because people do not do for what is Right but instead do to get recognized, to get prizes, and/or to get money.
I'm a bit of a hedonist myself; in the epicurean sense. I don't see any problem with enjoying prizes and I'd argue that science could do with some more competition for rewards these days.
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmThe answers to your questions here are about the simplest answers in Life to obtain. Explaining them to human beings though who believe that they already know better is the only difficult part. For people who believe that things are complex and hard to understand can not be taught what is essential just way to simple and basic for them.
I think people who believe that things are complex and hard to understand are usually more open to the complexity inherent in nature which is seemingly indefinitely complex. I'd argue that those who believe nature to be simple are limiting themselves to oversimplified answers to deeper questions which may be bigger than the scope of humanity.
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmFor example, any perceived "difference" between general relativity and quantum mechanics can be almost instantly resolved AND 'united'. But his can only happen IF and WHEN the alleged "differences" that some people see are explained and shared. Until then those supposed "differences" will remain only with those people. See, I do NOT see any "difference" at all between the two. In fact I see them as just one united One. But as I continually say; I do look at and see things very differently than most people
I'm sure you see things extremely differently than most people. Is that good? If so, I'd love to see your solution to a unified model of physics! :D Does it involve one of the many emerging Superstring Theories?
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmBy the way, why go through the process of just forming a "theory" of everything, when a far more powerful and naturally "persuasive" way to see thee Truth of things is just share and SHOW thee Truth of how Everything IS 'unified'. Instead of forming and showing 'theories", which only 'separates', why not just show what was naturally already formed united?
Wowee! Is that possible? How stupid not to have thought of that; assuming it doesn't involve an appeal to dogmatic texts from the bronze age or unfalsifiable claims.
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmAre you aware that some people are just way to slow and way to simple to be able to express themselves in a way that that they can be Truly and FULLY understood, by most people?
Crap, and I thought you were talking about "truth" because it was important to the discussion and not because you're unable to express it to "some people".
This means that there may just be some people that do KNOW some things that "others" think are impossible to know, but, unfortunately, they are unable to to express or explain it in a way that "others" can fully understand and comprehend, YET.
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pm Just maybe if some people were not so disparaging, so resistant, and so stuck in their own beliefs, then "others" might be able to explain better and more easily those answers that they are sure they have.
Or, and I know this sounds crazy--or, maybe people are sometimes skeptical and requie an empirical standard for evidence.
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmDiscovering and understanding comes from the talent and from the ability that absolutely EVERY one has and shares.
Perhaps the talent and ability to gather empirical evidence to support theries while having the humility to understand it's not so easily explainable by a single individual.
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmOnce people learn HOW to use this talent and ability properly and correctly, then they will discover, learn, and understand the answers to all of the above, themselves anyway. It really is this SIMPLE
Crap, are we talking supernatural abilities here because I'd love to be omniscient.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by creation »

Ensrick wrote: April 6th, 2020, 3:15 pm
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmThe very reason these things have not yet been answered is because people do not do for what is Right but instead do to get recognized, to get prizes, and/or to get money.
I'm a bit of a hedonist myself; in the epicurean sense. I don't see any problem with enjoying prizes and I'd argue that science could do with some more competition for rewards these days.
Another PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being seeing that the way 'it' thinks and behaves then that is how all others think and behave, and/or how all others should think and behave. This is a great example of the ego at work.

As I just said; The very reason why these, truly meaningful in Life questions, have not yet been answered, by most, is because those people do not do things for what is Right in Life but instead they do things for them 'self'.

Doing anything for money, prizes, fame, et cetera means they are doing things for very wrong reasons, and so why they do not discover and uncover what is actually True and Right in Life.
Ensrick wrote: April 6th, 2020, 3:15 pm
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmThe answers to your questions here are about the simplest answers in Life to obtain. Explaining them to human beings though who believe that they already know better is the only difficult part. For people who believe that things are complex and hard to understand can not be taught what is essential just way to simple and basic for them.
I think people who believe that things are complex and hard to understand are usually more open to the complexity inherent in nature which is seemingly indefinitely complex.
Life is Truly simple and easy. Nature is pure simplicity. This is extremely easy to see and understand. That is; once one discovers or learns how to see this.

Those who believe that Life is complex and hard or that nature is inherently complex are obviously not open to the simplicity and ease of Life, Itself.
Ensrick wrote: April 6th, 2020, 3:15 pm I'd argue that those who believe nature to be simple are limiting themselves to oversimplified answers to deeper questions which may be bigger than the scope of humanity.
If you would argue this, then go right ahead. I would love to see your argument for this.
Ensrick wrote: April 6th, 2020, 3:15 pm
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmFor example, any perceived "difference" between general relativity and quantum mechanics can be almost instantly resolved AND 'united'. But his can only happen IF and WHEN the alleged "differences" that some people see are explained and shared. Until then those supposed "differences" will remain only with those people. See, I do NOT see any "difference" at all between the two. In fact I see them as just one united One. But as I continually say; I do look at and see things very differently than most people
I'm sure you see things extremely differently than most people. Is that good? If so, I'd love to see your solution to a unified model of physics! :D Does it involve one of the many emerging Superstring Theories?
Do you read the actual words that I use? I just said;
'any perceived "difference" between general relativity and quantum mechanics can be almost instantly resolved AND 'united'. But his can only happen IF and WHEN the alleged "differences" that some people see are explained and shared.'

What this means, in case you missed it or in case you just do not yet understand it, is; If you would really love to see my solution, then I can ONLY show to you the solution to, not just a unified "model" of physics, but to the actual unification, itself, when, and ONLY WHEN, the alleged "differences" that you see are explained and shared to me.

I really thought I made this very simple fact very clear in what I wrote. But obviously I did not.

If what I see is 'good', or not, all depends on what actually arises from what I see. And, if the solution, which shows the very natural and the always very simple unification of physics, involves one of the emerging string or superstring theories, then that will have to wait and see. But, as far as I am aware now, those theories are not needed.
Ensrick wrote: April 6th, 2020, 3:15 pm
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmBy the way, why go through the process of just forming a "theory" of everything, when a far more powerful and naturally "persuasive" way to see thee Truth of things is just share and SHOW thee Truth of how Everything IS 'unified'. Instead of forming and showing 'theories", which only 'separates', why not just show what was naturally already formed united?
Wowee! Is that possible?
Yes. But only to those that maintain True curiosity.
Ensrick wrote: April 6th, 2020, 3:15 pm How stupid not to have thought of that; assuming it doesn't involve an appeal to dogmatic texts from the bronze age or unfalsifiable claims.
Why would you think that not have thought of that previously is "stupid". Absolutely EVERY thing every person 'thinks' is only because of what has come before them. So, obviously if there is nothing experienced previously about how to do some thing, or about how to achieve some thing, then there would be no thought about that.

For example, if all your life you have only been told that 'theories' are how we discover things, then that is all you would know. You obviously would not know that by just looking at the actual Truth of things is how you actually discover, learn, and understand the actual Truth of things. Obviously, once this is known and understood, then it becomes knowledge that one does question them self about how they did not come to this obviously true, right, and correct knowledge all by them self before. But, this goes with absolutely any and all knowledge in Life.

One is not "stupid" because they have not yet learned or discovered some thing yet. One is only stupid when they assume and or believe they know some thing is true, when thee actual Truth is that it may not be true at all. One is only really stupid when they are closing them self off from discovering and learning, and this is done when they are assuming and/or believing some thing.

Ensrick wrote: April 6th, 2020, 3:15 pm
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmAre you aware that some people are just way to slow and way to simple to be able to express themselves in a way that that they can be Truly and FULLY understood, by most people?
Crap, and I thought you were talking about "truth" because it was important to the discussion and not because you're unable to express it to "some people".
What is so called "crap"? Are you saying that there are no human beings that are intellectually different than others are, and that they have trouble expressing themselves properly and fully?

Truth is important to the discussion.

Who said that I am unable to express it to some people?

I just asked you are Truly open clarifying question. Did you make an assumption that I was saying some thing?

If yes, then why?
Ensrick wrote: April 6th, 2020, 3:15 pm
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pm This means that there may just be some people that do KNOW some things that "others" think are impossible to know, but, unfortunately, they are unable to to express or explain it in a way that "others" can fully understand and comprehend, YET.

Just maybe if some people were not so disparaging, so resistant, and so stuck in their own beliefs, then "others" might be able to explain better and more easily those answers that they are sure they have.
Or, and I know this sounds crazy--or, maybe people are sometimes skeptical and requie an empirical standard for evidence.
When you say 'people' do you mean 'ALL people, or just 'some people'?

I suggest for 'those people' who require empirical standard for evidence, then they ask for it.

Also, why do you know what you said here sounds "crazy"?
Ensrick wrote: April 6th, 2020, 3:15 pm
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmDiscovering and understanding comes from the talent and from the ability that absolutely EVERY one has and shares.
Perhaps the talent and ability to gather empirical evidence to support theries while having the humility to understand it's not so easily explainable by a single individual.
Gathering empirical so called "evidence" to support 'theories', again, means one has a biased opinion or view already.

Of course explaining 'theories' is not so easy. This is because a 'theory' is essentially just a made up guess or assumption about what might be or what could be true. But, I was not talking about explaining 'theories'. I was talking about explaining 'Truth' instead. Usually two completely very different things.
Ensrick wrote: April 6th, 2020, 3:15 pm
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmOnce people learn HOW to use this talent and ability properly and correctly, then they will discover, learn, and understand the answers to all of the above, themselves anyway. It really is this SIMPLE
Crap, are we talking supernatural abilities here because I'd love to be omniscient.
I am not talking about supernatural any thing. As obviously there is absolutely nothing super natural.

There is also obviously no single human being who could be omniscient. So, you loving to be omniscient is wishing beyond ridiculousness.

Also, what evidence do you have that what I said here is "crap"? From what you have written here, it appears that you do not even remotely understand what I am saying and meaning, yet.
User avatar
Ensrick
Posts: 37
Joined: March 30th, 2020, 2:34 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by Ensrick »

creation wrote: April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pm
Ensrick wrote: April 6th, 2020, 3:15 pm I'm a bit of a hedonist myself; in the epicurean sense. I don't see any problem with enjoying prizes and I'd argue that science could do with some more competition for rewards these days.
Another PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being seeing that the way 'it' thinks and behaves then that is how all others think and behave, and/or how all others should think and behave. This is a great example of the ego at work.
creation wrote: April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pmAs I just said; The very reason why these, truly meaningful in Life questions, have not yet been answered, by most, is because those people do not do things for what is Right in Life but instead they do things for them 'self'.
Doing anything for money, prizes, fame, et cetera means they are doing things for very wrong reasons, and so why they do not discover and uncover what is actually True and Right in Life.
In general some have more internal motivations than prizes but the motivation is based on a reward system all the same. Satisfying this reward system tends toward hedonism either way. I am confident my comments are a better viewed as an example of basic human behaivoral psychology. Doing things for superficial reasons doesn't necissarily entail wrongdoing.


creation wrote: April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pm Life is Truly simple and easy. Nature is pure simplicity. This is extremely easy to see and understand. That is; once one discovers or learns how to see this.
Those who believe that Life is complex and hard or that nature is inherently complex are obviously not open to the simplicity and ease of Life, Itself.
Not seeing any reasoning here, I'll just refer to my original position.
Ensrick wrote: April 6th, 2020, 3:15 pm I think people who believe that things are complex and hard to understand are usually more open to the complexity inherent in nature which is seemingly indefinitely complex.
creation wrote: April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pm'any perceived "difference" between general relativity and quantum mechanics can be almost instantly resolved AND 'united'. But his can only happen IF and WHEN the alleged "differences" that some people see are explained and shared.'
What this means, in case you missed it or in case you just do not yet understand it, is; If you would really love to see my solution, then I can ONLY show to you the solution to, not just a unified "model" of physics, but to the actual unification, itself, when, and ONLY WHEN, the alleged "differences" that you see are explained and shared to me.
This is a failure to understand the burden of proof. You providing me with an answer to a unified model doesn't depend on the existence of current models. I might be able to point out differences in your theory but I don't have it. However, as for the establish theories, there's a whole slew of them on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_u ... y_subfield
but this articlehttps://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/n ... physicists
it covers them in detail as it pertains to QM and GR. Can you explain space-time singularities in a way that works for both QM and GR models? Currently were not seeing the thermal radiation expected from black holes and GR doesn't explain locality in the way quantum entanglement does.
creation wrote: April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pm[...]if all your life you have only been told that 'theories' are how we discover things, then that is all you would know. You obviously would not know that by just looking at the actual Truth of things is how you actually discover, learn, and understand the actual Truth of things. Obviously, once this is known and understood, then it becomes knowledge that one does question them self about how they did not come to this obviously true, right, and correct knowledge all by them self before. But, this goes with absolutely any and all knowledge in Life.

One is not "stupid" because they have not yet learned or discovered some thing yet. One is only stupid when they assume and or believe they know some thing is true, when thee actual Truth is that it may not be true at all. One is only really stupid when they are closing them self off from discovering and learning, and this is done when they are assuming and/or believing some thing.
I'm a skeptic. I'm establishing more or less credibility based on the scientific method and research methods: observational, experimental, simulation, and derived. You'll have to explain what you mean by "looking at the truth" vs accepting theories. I'm operating on the scientific definition of a theory which relies on the scientific method. The supporting documentation for theories is much more convincing than armchair philosophical discussion.
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmTruth is important to the discussion.

Who said that I am unable to express it to some people?
]I'm only responding to what you've said.
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmAre you aware that some people are just way to slow and way to simple to be able to express themselves in a way that that they can be Truly and FULLY understood, by most people?

creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmI suggest for 'those people' who require empirical standard for evidence, then they ask for it.
That's a good suggestion, I'll ask for some empirical evidience for this "Truth" with a capital 'T' that you keep reffering to which could explain everything in simple terms but first we need to reconcile a misunderstanding about what a theory is in scientific terms.
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmGathering empirical so called "evidence" to support 'theories', again, means one has a biased opinion or view already.

Of course explaining 'theories' is not so easy. This is because a 'theory' is essentially just a made up guess or assumption about what might be or what could be true. But, I was not talking about explaining 'theories'. I was talking about explaining 'Truth' instead. Usually two completely very different things.
A theory within the context of science is an explanation of observed phenomena that is testable and has evidence to support it. You're using the casual usage of the word 'theory' in relation to 'scientific theory'; completely different. When you're talking about 'Truth' thats probably an epistemological disagreement we have about what can be known. I don't think anything can be known for certain.
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmAlso, what evidence do you have that what I said here is "crap"? From what you have written here, it appears that you do not even remotely understand what I am saying and meaning, yet.
I use the word 'crap' as an expression like 'damn' or 'aww shucks', it's not describing what I think of what you're saying. I don't understand what you mean or are saying possibly because I'm using terms differently than you do, for example, how you use the word 'theory'.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by creation »

Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pm Another PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being seeing that the way 'it' thinks and behaves then that is how all others think and behave, and/or how all others should think and behave. This is a great example of the ego at work.
creation wrote: April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pmAs I just said; The very reason why these, truly meaningful in Life questions, have not yet been answered, by most, is because those people do not do things for what is Right in Life but instead they do things for them 'self'.
Doing anything for money, prizes, fame, et cetera means they are doing things for very wrong reasons, and so why they do not discover and uncover what is actually True and Right in Life.
In general some have more internal motivations than prizes but the motivation is based on a reward system all the same. Satisfying this reward system tends toward hedonism either way.
Only if one is a egotistical, selfish person.

By the way, how one is Truly rewarded, and Truly satisfied for that matter, is when they are doing what is Right in Life for EVERY one. When one is doing is only Right for EVERY one, which is helping in achieving what we ALL want and desire, then that is when one is Truly rewarded and fulfilled. Only when one is Truly fulfilling their True purpose in Life do they ever feel Truly rewarded, and thus Truly satisfied.
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm I am confident my comments are a better viewed as an example of basic human behaivoral psychology. Doing things for superficial reasons doesn't necissarily entail wrongdoing.
If one is only doing for one's own self, or for just a select few, so they can obtain some superficial feelings, while others miss out, are neglected, and/or are deprived of something, instead of doing what is at the deepest level for ALL equally, then I would suggest that is wrongdoing.

But, I KNOW every person will 'try to' "justify" their wrongdoings. One very basic human behavior is to imagine and/or say that "others do it also" and so therefore "justify" to one's own self that what they are doing is actually all right, and not wrong at all. This 'trying to' "justify" wrong behaviors is a very basic human behavior, and a very large part of the adult psychology, in the days of when this is written. But this is NOT the natural instinct within us ALL. Although EVERY adult human being does this.
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pm Life is Truly simple and easy. Nature is pure simplicity. This is extremely easy to see and understand. That is; once one discovers or learns how to see this.
Those who believe that Life is complex and hard or that nature is inherently complex are obviously not open to the simplicity and ease of Life, Itself.
Not seeing any reasoning here, I'll just refer to my original position.
Ensrick wrote: April 6th, 2020, 3:15 pm I think people who believe that things are complex and hard to understand are usually more open to the complexity inherent in nature which is seemingly indefinitely complex.
And I will just refer to my view: People who believe things are NOT open to the actual Truth of things.

Also, what you believe here comes across loud and clear.

By the way, you also said you would argue some thing, but when I put it to you to do it, I notice you did not. Also, EVERY generation discovers knowledge, which was perceived and/or believed to be beyond or bigger than the scope of humanity to previous generations. What the generation in this day and age finds or believes is unknowable is already KNOWN, by some.
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pm'any perceived "difference" between general relativity and quantum mechanics can be almost instantly resolved AND 'united'. But his can only happen IF and WHEN the alleged "differences" that some people see are explained and shared.'
What this means, in case you missed it or in case you just do not yet understand it, is; If you would really love to see my solution, then I can ONLY show to you the solution to, not just a unified "model" of physics, but to the actual unification, itself, when, and ONLY WHEN, the alleged "differences" that you see are explained and shared to me.
This is a failure to understand the burden of proof.
This is NOT a failure to understand the burden of proof at all.

What this is IF you Truly want to learn and understand some thing, then it is up to 'you' to explain what 'it' is that you do not yet understand.

I have NO burden of proof at all because I have NO need to prove anything at all.

If you see discrepancies and/or differences in those human made up theories, then so be it. I just SEE and UNDERSTAND where, why, and how human beings have separated the One, and made the apparent discrepancies and differences. I have also informed people that if they are Truly curious in matters, and Truly want to KNOW the Answers, then it is up to them to explain and show what they do not understand, so then I KNOW how to explain things to that person. If people are not that interested, then neither am I.

I only help those that want to help themselves.
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm You providing me with an answer to a unified model doesn't depend on the existence of current models. I might be able to point out differences in your theory but I don't have it.
But I do not have a 'theory'. So, you cannot point out differences there.

Of course me providing you with the answer to thee Unified, Itself, and not to just ANOTHER model does not depend on the existence of current models. I thought I had made it CLEAR how "models" are really worth nothing at all. Especially compared to the fact that one can just look at and SEE what the actual Truth IS, almost immediately.
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm However, as for the establish theories, there's a whole slew of them on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_u ... y_subfield
but this articlehttps://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/n ... physicists
it covers them in detail as it pertains to QM and GR. Can you explain space-time singularities in a way that works for both QM and GR models?
Yes.
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm Currently were not seeing the thermal radiation expected from black holes and GR doesn't explain locality in the way quantum entanglement does.
Obviously. The reason is very basic and simple indeed. But, some believe otherwise, and so are not open to the contrary.
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pm[...]if all your life you have only been told that 'theories' are how we discover things, then that is all you would know. You obviously would not know that by just looking at the actual Truth of things is how you actually discover, learn, and understand the actual Truth of things. Obviously, once this is known and understood, then it becomes knowledge that one does question them self about how they did not come to this obviously true, right, and correct knowledge all by them self before. But, this goes with absolutely any and all knowledge in Life.

One is not "stupid" because they have not yet learned or discovered some thing yet. One is only stupid when they assume and or believe they know some thing is true, when thee actual Truth is that it may not be true at all. One is only really stupid when they are closing them self off from discovering and learning, and this is done when they are assuming and/or believing some thing.
I'm a skeptic. I'm establishing more or less credibility based on the scientific method and research methods: observational, experimental, simulation, and derived. You'll have to explain what you mean by "looking at the truth" vs accepting theories.
What are 'theories' if they are not just more or less a guess or assumption about what 'could be' true?

Why bother spending so much time and effort into looking at some thing that may not even be true in the first place.

If one just wants to SEE what thee actual Truth IS, then just look at what IS instead.

For example people could go on for thousands of more years looking at whether the Universe began from God or from some bang, but when just what IS is looked at, then what thee actual Truth IS is discovered and seen.
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm I'm operating on the scientific definition of a theory which relies on the scientific method.
And, what is this so called "scientific definition" of the word 'theory', which you supposedly operate on?
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm The supporting documentation for theories is much more convincing than armchair philosophical discussion.
Is it? So why are you here in this forum?

How about we discuss the so called "supporting documentation" in relation to 'relativity' for example? If you would like to, then bring that forward, and then we can look at it and see just how "supporting" it really IS.

Also, is so called "supporting documentation" for theories more convincing than round table philosophical discussions or any other discussions, or only for the armchair ones?
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmTruth is important to the discussion.

Who said that I am unable to express it to some people?
I'm only responding to what you've said.
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmAre you aware that some people are just way to slow and way to simple to be able to express themselves in a way that that they can be Truly and FULLY understood, by most people?


And my question remains the same. Who said that 'I' am unable to express it to some people?

As can be clearly seen here, you are not responding to what I have actually said and written. What you are responding to is what you thought and assumed I have said and written.
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmI suggest for 'those people' who require empirical standard for evidence, then they ask for it.
That's a good suggestion, I'll ask for some empirical evidience for this "Truth" with a capital 'T' that you keep reffering to which could explain everything in simple terms but first we need to reconcile a misunderstanding about what a theory is in scientific terms.
What is the so called " "misunderstanding" about what a theory is in scientific terms" are you assuming here now?

What do you assume in regards to me now this time?

To reconcile any alleged "misunderstanding" all you would need to do is provide your 'scientific definition' of the 'theory' word. Since you have not done this yet, and since I have never done this, then some might be wondering how you have jumped to a conclusion that there is a "misunderstanding" somewhere here?
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmGathering empirical so called "evidence" to support 'theories', again, means one has a biased opinion or view already.

Of course explaining 'theories' is not so easy. This is because a 'theory' is essentially just a made up guess or assumption about what might be or what could be true. But, I was not talking about explaining 'theories'. I was talking about explaining 'Truth' instead. Usually two completely very different things.
A theory within the context of science is an explanation of observed phenomena that is testable and has evidence to support it.
So, in essence, a guess or an assumption about what could be the case, correct?

Also, if some thing has evidence to support it, then how exactly is that falsifiable? Or, does a 'theory' in the "context of science" not have to be falsifiable?

Do you have an example of an "explanation of observed phenomena that is testable and has evidence to support it"?
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm You're using the casual usage of the word 'theory' in relation to 'scientific theory'; completely different.
Am I?

So, if an "explanation of observed phenomena that is testable, (and falsifiable?), and has evidence to support it" is not, in essence, just a guess or an assumption about what could be the case, then what is it exactly?

If it is not a guess nor an assumption, then that would infer that it is true and right already.

If red shift, for example, is not a guessed nor an assumed explanation that the Universe is expanding, and is the evidence that the Universe is expanding, which by the way is untestable, then does that mean that explanation is right and true, or is that explanation wrong and false. Either the explanation is right and true, wrong or false, or a guess or an assumption, or some thing else. So, which one is it?
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm When you're talking about 'Truth' thats probably an epistemological disagreement we have about what can be known.
You can turn it into a disagreement if you like. But, making an assumption, based on previous experiences, and/or jumping to a conclusion as you have here already, is not really helpful to a conducive discussion, which has not even yet began.
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm I don't think anything can be known for certain.
Is what you think here known for certain, or is it just some thing that you think, which could be completely wrong anyway?

See, every time any one tries to put forward that an absolute, a certain, or a objective Truth cannot be known, then they have to admit that what they are saying could in fact be completely and utterly WRONG itself. If there are no known truths, then what they propose is not a known truth at all, and so not even worth really considering actually.

Also, if there is absolutely nothing you can know for certain, then now I know of one absolute certainty. That is; you do not think anything can be known for certain. I am certain I know this.
Ensrick wrote: April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmAlso, what evidence do you have that what I said here is "crap"? From what you have written here, it appears that you do not even remotely understand what I am saying and meaning, yet.
I use the word 'crap' as an expression like 'damn' or 'aww shucks', it's not describing what I think of what you're saying. I don't understand what you mean or are saying possibly because I'm using terms differently than you do, for example, how you use the word 'theory'.
But we are yet to see if we actually do use that word very differently at all actually.

I am still yet to fully understand the way you use that word, and this might take a few times of back and forth clarifying questioning and clarifying answering before I do.

See, to me, a 'theory' cannot at one moment be testable and/or falsifiable but at another moment be already supported with evidence.

To me, essentially, a 'theory' is about 'what could be', whereas, 'truth' is about 'what is', which is in agreement and acceptance with one or more up to but not including all, while 'Truth' is about 'what IS' in agreement and acceptance with All.

Obviously, from this perspective, 'theory' and 'truth' could be false, wrong, and/or incorrect. While, 'Truth' can only be True, Right, and/or Correct.

For example, if some people theorize (assume and/or guess) that the Universe began, and/or if some people think or believe that it is true that the Universe began, then we could discuss this, look at this, and 'try' and test to see if this is false or true, for thousands more years. Or, we can just look at what IS and so just SEE what thee actual Truth IS instead. If every action causes a reaction is true, right, and correct, and there is no one nor no thing that can say nor show otherwise, then for this time being, thee Universe did not just "begin". If thee Universe did not just begin, then It is eternal, in nature.

Therefore, as far as we are aware thee Universe IS eternal. Now, if any one has any evidence for the contrary, either the Universe began or the Universe could not be eternal, or any evidence of how every action does not cause a reaction, then bring it forward now. Until then I cannot see what would change this view.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by Steve3007 »

Greta wrote:Papus, there are plenty of potential Nobel Prize laureates on the forum. We are lucky to have so many geniuses who can be certain of all manner of phenomena without needing to bother with evidence.
Quite. We've both been contributing to this forum, on and off, for several years now, and there have been all sorts of people, with all sorts of views, who have come and gone. But one of the most common themes is the poster who has some particular obsession and who is utterly convinced that they alone know the truth about the subject of that obsession.

They often have a particular phrase which they repeat many times. They generally tend to see themselves as Galileo-esque figures fighting against the sinister forces of the establishment who have a vested interesting in suppressing them. More often than not, it's some particular aspect of science that obsesses them. Usually one of the more "glamorous" fields that tend to be written about in the popular press. Often it focuses on a particular well known person in that field (either revering that person or telling other people that they revere that person so that they can be struck down). And, as you say, they rarely see the need to actually learn anything, in any depth, or present any argument or evidence, about the subject on which they are a self-appointed expert. Their own internal powers of thought are deemed to be enough. Rather than study the subject on which they've chosen to appoint themselves authorities, they seem to think it best to talk to other people in places like this, get mocked, and thereby see the mockery as proof that their great insights are being suppressed.

Gater is obviously the most extreme extant example, but there have been many others in the past, now gone and only visible in fossil records. I sometimes think it would have been interesting to keep notes to try to spot patterns in their obsessions. But, anecdotally, one of the more recent departed ones was, I think, called "Rr6". As I recall his particular obsession was a guy called Richard Buckminster Fuller and his "Bucky balls". But there have been numerous others.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by Sy Borg »

What they need to do is look at some of the technical work done in the background that leads scientists to their hypotheses. It can be mind-bendingly complex. Researchers have obviously previously thought of every "great new idea" that any keyboard warrior can imagine long, long ago.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by creation »

Greta wrote: April 12th, 2020, 8:05 am What they need to do is look at some of the technical work done in the background that leads scientists to their hypotheses. It can be mind-bendingly complex. Researchers have obviously previously thought of every "great new idea" that any keyboard warrior can imagine long, long ago.
Looked at that. Found the flaws. Cannot find someone on here to discuss them with.

Obviously, while people believe things are already true, then they are not open to anything contrary.
User avatar
Passingthrough
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: April 15th, 2020, 10:42 am

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by Passingthrough »

Who is who? must be answered first before you start answering this😀one
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by Papus79 »

Something about fermions, bosons, spinors, and the hand that draws itself (a la MC Escher).
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
gad-fly
Posts: 1133
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by gad-fly »

creation wrote: April 3rd, 2020, 11:27 pm
What created humans? The Universe, obviously. God, is just another word, for describing the Universe.

The question: God and human: Who has created whom?

The answer: Both.
God = universe? Isn't the universe the physical being that includes everything, including us, dust, and power? How can it create human if human are already a belonging part in the first place? More appropriate to say: the universe embraces us.

God creates us and we create God in turn, or vice versa? This is a very expedient answer to allow a break for everyone, but hardly enough to satisfy an inquisitive mind.

I would forward the following premises for consideration:
1. Creation means making something out of nothing.
2. We can be identified as existing being
3. We can create according to our imagination: God, devil, angel, hell, or whatever.
4. We cannot identify God as an existing being. We imagine or believe in his existence.
5. We have no idea about his creative power. As far as such is concerned, the sky is the limit.

No doubt we have created God.Whether he has created us is a moot point. Good night.
gad-fly
Posts: 1133
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by gad-fly »

gad-fly wrote: July 1st, 2020, 1:31 am
I would forward the following premises for consideration:
1. Creation means making something out of nothing.
2. We can be identified as existing being
3. We can create according to our imagination: God, devil, angel, hell, or whatever.
4. We cannot identify God as an existing being. We imagine or believe in his existence.
5. We have no idea about his creative power. As far as such is concerned, the sky is the limit.

No doubt we have created God.Whether he has created us is a moot point. Good night.
Conclusion:
1. We have created God.
2. God may or may not have created us.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by Belindi »

gad-fly wrote: July 29th, 2020, 11:27 am
gad-fly wrote: July 1st, 2020, 1:31 am
I would forward the following premises for consideration:
1. Creation means making something out of nothing.
2. We can be identified as existing being
3. We can create according to our imagination: God, devil, angel, hell, or whatever.
4. We cannot identify God as an existing being. We imagine or believe in his existence.
5. We have no idea about his creative power. As far as such is concerned, the sky is the limit.

No doubt we have created God.Whether he has created us is a moot point. Good night.
Conclusion:
1. We have created God.
2. God may or may not have created us.
I agree, but what is it that continuously creates and destroys and creates again, and evolves?Believers call it God in his Immanence role. When this applies to human beings I am what is usually called atheist, so I call it variously "urge to live" or "fear" or "love" according to the propensities of individual human beings .
gad-fly
Posts: 1133
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by gad-fly »

Belindi wrote: August 1st, 2020, 10:57 am
gad-fly wrote: July 29th, 2020, 11:27 am

Conclusion:
1. We have created God.
2. God may or may not have created us.
I agree, but what is it that continuously creates and destroys and creates again, and evolves?Believers call it God in his Immanence role. When this applies to human beings I am what is usually called atheist, so I call it variously "urge to live" or "fear" or "love" according to the propensities of individual human beings .
"what is it that continuously creates and destroys and creates again" is Evolution, a natural phenomenon which occurs with or without God's influence, depending on your belief. It has little to do with the propensity of human urge, unless you mean quantitatively like having more or fewer offspring.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021