I don’t like seriousness and in support of my statement I’ll say - it sucks.

Now imagine that I’m the serious Bertrand Russel and I say: “human beings may have an explicit “belief ” that the shade is pleasanter”, which will make you BELIEVE that this is the truth about belief.
Now, that sucks.
Because your belief will be put on Russell’s authority in philosophy and that will prove Russell wrong in his understanding about “belief”.

Do you understand what I’m saying?

Well, let me explain myself.

Belief has very little to do with behavior and your belief that Russell is right is not behavior.
Then what is it?
It is a strong positive position in your uncertainty.
You believe that Russell is an authority to trust and that position is the most likely to be true in your uncertainty.
Unfortunately the belief does not always reflects the truth.

But let us start with the Knowledge before explaining the Belief.

What “knowledge” is?

There are few types of knowledge.

BASIC KNOWLEDGE
(more…)

Share This

Not being offensive to Russell’s logic I’d like to mark his question as illogical.
Such question should not be uttered if it puts in doubt the ability to know, assuming that we don’t know and we will never know (any answer).
It is also illogical to utter it if we assume that we have knowledge to the extent of having this question.

“I Know” is wrong statement in absolute sense.
“I create knowledge” is the right statement.

As long as we observe we will create knowledge.
All things are already known to us.
We can not observe something out of our five senses; therefore we can not create knowledge out of “the five”. In this Universe there is nothing unknown to us. The details are unimportant because they come from our knowledge.
(How can we know what knowledge are we missing if we don’t already have the knowledge about the subject?)

The above said may sound “non sense” if one does not know the meaning of “knowledge”.
What “knowledge” is?

The self-awareness does not use words and meanings.
Meanings and concepts are created and put in words after the self-awareness observes something different than its own self.
“Motion… object. Something different than myself.”
We have just created knowledge by creating the concept of something which is not “me”. The same way we create all possible knowledge.
(more…)

Share This

An existence is claimed only after observation.
Existence is state of presence in observation.
The mind changes the concept by applying “existence” to the object, forgetting that the “existence” derived from (and actually is) awareness about presence.
Awareness is needed in order to make the existence valid.

—

Explanation

We work with “existence” more like a meaning (concept), but after it was created by the awareness the mind deceivingly is applying it to the object.
Actually the existence is applicable to the awareness.

We wouldn’t talk about existence if we never observed it.
If we only have self-awareness without any other knowledge, existence is impossible as a concept (meaning, knowledge).

Because any existence is observed through our five senses we can say that all things are already known to us through the concepts created in the observation.

Details in 50/50 (Part One) throughout Part Two, Part Three, Point of Exit and Clarification for dummies as well as the first comment in this topic

Share This

Once an existence is registered in observation the “existence” concept is created and from then on the mind applies the existence to an object.
That is wrong. The mind forgets that the existence applies to its own awareness for a presence in an observation.

In other words existence is a mind awareness for a presence.
After the concept is created we apply it to objects and that makes it mind deceiving.
Mind starts to think of existence as something out of its awareness.

To see “existence” in its true nature we must go back and see it as a concept created by the awareness.
Existence applies to the awareness not to the object.

Now after repeating it few times I hope most dummies will get closer to the concept “Awareness beforehand” :D

- - -

Part One
Part Two
Part Tree
Point of Exit

Share This

- - -

POINT OF EXIT

We are at the point of exit which comes with the end of the arguments.
I can expect more discussions on my statement, but there is no way to refute it.
Until you prove me wrong atheists don’t have the right to claim more than 49% possibility for God’s non-existence.
Why 49%?
Wasn’t it 50/50?
It was, but not anymore.
There is no way for science to prove that brain produces awareness.
How is that?
Because any evidence must be approved by awareness.
Matter can not approve itself without awareness, while awareness is self-evident.
- - -
Humans intellectuality grows, concepts changes as the intellectuality grows, but the truth is always present and unchanged.
Many thousand years ago Enoch talk about the observers with different words and conceptions.
Then Buddha talk about the Spirit with different word and conceptions and after Him Jesus talk about the Spirit and the awaken Son with different words and conceptions.
Today I talk to you and that is prove that I respect you as grown intellect.
Otherwise I wouldn’t waste my time to do it.
Everything is known to you, my friends and it is delivered to you as light, sound, smell, touch and taste.
You have nothing more to observe.
Start looking for the exit.
- - -
I came in this forum because I found your attitude as deserving respect.
It will be valued much higher if you pin this topic at the top of your forums and let everybody know that you have unarguable statement about the possibility of God’s existent.
Let it be only possibility.
Every belief which tends to certainty create delusion on top of which Religion takes place.
I’m forgiving person but I wouldn’t forgive myself if my knowledge creates RELIGION.
Thank you for showing respect and acceptance and for giving me the real pleasure of being your opponent.

Love to All
Truden

aiia wrote:

You have the burden of proof dumb ass.
Your argument is empty garbage. When you pulled “spirit” out of your ass, did you wash your hands?

Truden wrote:

There are many ways to pull out Spirit if you don’t think with your ass.
Assume the non-material awareness is Spirit and is first (before the matter).
This is what actually the topic discuss - need of awareness for the existence of the matter.

Part One
Part Two
Part Tree
Clarification for Dummies

Share This

All we (with small exceptions) share the same way of observation, the same meanings and concepts.
We have the property of the spirit to observe and we create knowledge through it.
We have self-awareness.
Animals also have the same, but they don’t question (at least we think so) their existence.
I think that the first intelligent human thought was to question an existence - sort of “What is this and where it comes from?”.

Now, we observe that we are not the only observers, and the Universe is existent even when particular observation over it is ceased. That leads as to the conclusion that we are not the main observer.
Am I saning now that if the main observer stops its observation the Universe will disappear.
Yes.
How is that possible?
As part of the Spirit we share the Spirit’s properties.
If the ability of observation is withdrawn we will not be able to observe the Universe, therefore it will not be existent for us except trough the knowledge for its past or presumably present existence.
It actually happens in similar way and it is called “death”.

The main point is the ability to observe thus creating meanings and concepts.

Let’s look in to that.

What is “existence”?
It is the state of observed object separated as different from the self-awareness.
(Do not look in the dictionaries. They suck.)
We observe objects and waves with our five senses.
We create meanings and concepts.
The weak point in the “existence” meaning is that ones we created it we started to apply it to different objects by saying “it exists” or “possibility to exist”.
We forget that existence is notion explaining presence of object in our observation.
We must not apply the “existence” word (and all words derived from it) to objects, because we speculate with it and deceive our understanding. Or at least we must be aware of the way we use it.

Is it possible the existence of rock in the middle of nowhere without being observed.
Yes it is possible and there are existing objects which we do not observe. The process of observation comes from the fact that there was existence which we were not aware off.
But we are also aware of the “existence” meaning and the question comes from that awareness.
The question wouldn’t come if we did never observe anything but only be aware of our existence without having five senses.
So, the mind speculates with created meanings.
Again: the question “is it possible existence of…?” stays in the already possible meaning “existence”.
The answer is: Yes existence is already possible because we KNOW the “existence” meaning.
From then on, everything which we already know as existent stands the possibility to exist in nowhere.
We don’t make the rock existent with our observation, because it is already existent in our understanding.
When we observe it, we will simply observe known object - matter.

The parallel with the “sound in the forest” can explain something very important.
If there was no creature to observe the sound, there was no sound but vibrations with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz. The “sound” meaning applies only to creatures which have sense to perceive it and interpret it as… sound. Otherwise there is silence.

Let’s play again with “existence” to make an explaining parallel.

We hypothetically assume that in our universe exists an entity which has no senses and has the capability to move through matter. This entity is aware of itself and the space which we call Universe. It keeps itself alive by moving through the space and matter. Actually the matter is giving (him) the energy required to keep its existence. That entity does not know that there is matter and that the matter is keeping (him) alive.

We do not exist for this hypothetic entity and the entity does not exist for us.
So, we exist and the entity exists but that existences do not interrelate and do not appear to each other.

What is the Universe?
Is it what we observe or what the hypothetical entity “observes”.
Which Universe is existent, the entity Universe or our Universe?

Because we are made from the matter which we observe does that mean that all entities in the universe are made of matter and interrelate with it as we do?

The Universe is what we observe and our senses for observation are limited to five.
The Universe except everything includes us.
All evidences are based on observation (us)

We can not have evidence of what we can not observe and… for our awareness which is self evident.

Now, back to the Spirit (God, Main Observer).
The spirit gives us the possibility to be self-aware and to be aware of existence through observation.
The Spirit’s properties are evident in us, which makes us part of the Spirit regarding its properties.
Our personalities are based on knowledge.
Our shared properties are based on the Spirit.
In that regard we are different personalities but one as part of the Spirit.
If there is God, it is in everybody as its shared properties – self-awareness and observation.

- -

Part One
Part Two
Point of Exit
Clarification for Dummies

Share This

In my opening of this topic I did not want to mention the “God” word and to set you on that track.
I simply wanted to talk about the Universe which discussion and existence is only possible for us trough conscious observation and conscious discussion.

I’m quite sure that a quantum physicist will answer the question “Can we claim an occurrence of event without being observed” with “No”.
In that regard we can not say that this universe can exist without a conscious observation.
Then was it existent before to be observed?
We can not know.

If you take a deep thought you’ll probably come to the feeling that this Universe is more like a dream world which we inhabit.
That’s why I offered you to comment on the Big Bang and Guth’s theory and in the same time take a thought on my questions about them.
Instead most of you jumped in conclusions and requested from me to clarify my understanding about God.
Why would you need that?
You should comment on the Universe, not on God.

I thank to all who did comment on the subject.
I gave you an example how the limited by borders volume of the Universal mass creates unlimited Universal space in the modern Big Bang and Guth’s theories.
If we assume borders for the Universal mass in the Singularity we must assume that there was space out of the Universe, which can not be called Universal.

Why am I digging in to this?
Isn’t it easier to give my supportive evidences for God’s existence?
After all this is what most of you want.
Based on what must I give my evidences?
Based on your believe about the nature of the Universe?

What evidence about the sound and the light can I give to a person who was born blind and deaf?
You think that this is not a serious argument?
Why?

But let’s talk about God.

The religions make it simple, because they put it on belief.
Every religion has a belief about God but all religions explain it as Spirit.
My English is not good enough for definitions, but I’m sure that all of you will agree that Spirit is consciousness in non material body.

Most religions put personality in God.
God which I’m presenting is not a personality but Spirit which has one only property – capability to observe.
I used few times the “consciousness” word and I found out that it is hard for you to imagine consciousness without intelligence.
As I said few times intelligence is knowledge created in the process of separating subjects and events.
Spirit or Pure Consciousness has no knowledge, but only awareness for itself – “I exist”.
That Spirit will create intelligence only when observes subject or event which must be separated from its own existence.
Hope that the above explanation is clear enough.
Now, let see what we have as evidence for our own existence.

We are aware of our own existence as the Spirit is aware of its own existence.
Others are aware of our existence as the Spirit when separates subjects from its own existence thus creating knowledge about other existence.
We are also aware of other existences.

Except awareness what other evidence we have?
Oh, we are aware of our material bodies.
We are aware that our body needs brain through which our awareness creates personality and controls the body.
Do you have other evidences?
I don’t.
You want me to present evidence that Spirit exists.
It is self evident through your awareness.
But where did I get that Spirit from?
From the same theory you got your matter from.

- - -

Part One
Part Three
Point of Exit
Clarification for Dummies

Share This

Here is the opening of the topic 50/50 posted in their Web Site.

***

The Universe

There were two theories about the nature of the Universe:

1) There is no moment of creation and the Universe is ever existent

2) There is moment of creation, therefore the Universe has beginning

The evidences do not support the first theory, because it is obvious that the Universe expands, which leads the science to the conclusion that there is a moment in which the expansion started.
That moment is considered to be the birth moment of the Universe.
That is how the Big Bang theory took place in the modern science.
However there is a weak point in the Big Bang theory.
Due to the quick cooling matter in the Universe we should not observe such equally distributed matter in the observed Universe.
There is also problem with the mass of the Universe and its gravitational force related to the speed of expansion and its eventual end.

Alan Guth came with new theory called Inflationary Universe which corrects three major points in the Big Bang theory one of which is: there wasn’t “explosion process” but the Universe inflated in “a fraction of a second”. According to the theory the inflation was possible thanks to the “repulsive gravitation”.

In both theories the Universe got its “birth” from a stage called Singularity.
Singularity is scientific taboo and the laws of physics are helpless for its explanation.
We can only say that Singularity is the Universal stage where is no time, space and matter.
Knowing that the matter is motion we can say that Singularity is Absolute Rest or… NOTHING.
Mind the NOTHING word!
We use that word to express lack of presence but in an absolute meaning NOTHING is unexplainable notion, because it is not only lack of presence but also lack of space for any presence.

Now, as we all can see a scientific theory is making us to believe that the observed Universe appeared from NOTHING.
Actually we don’t really believe it, because we don’t think about it.
We have the evidence of an existence and we are happy with it.

We don’t notice the lack of evidence for the assumption of “repulsive gravitation”, because it makes sense in explaining evidence – equally distributed matter in expanding Universe.

We don’t also notice something very illogical:

Obviously the “repulsive gravitation” must be greater than the one we know; otherwise the expansion wouldn’t take place. If so, why the “repulsive gravitation” is not evidently present and working IN the Universe?
It can only be explained if it is placed outside (!) the Universe or to avoid the stupid “outside” word we can use the less stupid expression “the repulsive gravitation only applies to the Universal borders” (correct my English if wrong).

We know that the science uses highly sophisticated abstractions to fit the theory to our understanding; such as “the Universe expands in itself” which is suppose to explain the question “in what space the Universe expands?”

The above abstraction does not explain the NOTHING notion due to the fact that in NOTHING there are no borders.
What do I mean?
Imagine that the Universe did not start from NOTHING but from the possibly smallest particle or even fireball if you prefer so. I’m quite sure that this is much easier to imagine than the birth from NOTHING.
A material particle has properties one of which is “end” which end we call “border”.
If we have border we have space and time to travel in direction opposite of the border.
We need very abstract explanation to accept that a border is possible only from inside but never from outside of material volume (the Universe in this particular case)

We can only make sense in explaining all this if we assume that a border is possible only through observation or conscious understanding about it. That would mean that since there is no consciousness out of the Universe, no outside border exists even if the Universe has the size of a fireball or the size of the smallest known particle.

Now we can correct the theory by saying that the Universe needs consciousness in order to exist in itself even when it is as small as the smallest imaginable particle.

Let’s talk about this before we move forward.

- - -

Part Two
Part Three
Point of Exit
Clarification for Dummies

Share This

Then I decided to show them their belief.
According to Richard Dawkins “there almost certainly is no God”.
I didn’t want to prove that “there almost certainly is God”, because I can imagine how difficult it would be for atheist to change their belief to such a degree.
So, my intent was to proof that the possibility for God’s existence or not existence is 50/50.

Following is my forum posting in Mr. Dawkins forum with small change made to cover my next posting.

[posting START]

The universe is described as matter, space and time.
I support the argument that Consciousness must be included too and I must prove it.
How can it be proved.
If I am right then the consciousness as component of the Universe must affect somehow the matter, the space or the time.
Only then we can agree that the Universe is consists of four (not of three) components.

You will not take any proof from the past because you haven’t seen it, but you will agree if the science has registered consciousness to affect matter.

1) According to the latest study of Dr. Jon-Kar Zubieta, person’s belief can make the brain to produce its own painkillers which is scientific proof that the mind can affect and control the matter.

2) All miracles where person is cured are argued with auto-suggestion (the person cured himself)
Still that is proof that consciousness affects the matter.

3) Although Time is a component of the Universe it is relative only to the consciousness.

4) Although Space is component of the Universe, it is related ONLY to the consciousness.

The last two (3 and 4) do not affect the matter but the way we observe it which makes matter related to the consciousness.

You can argue or accept the first two, but according to the science they are true.
That would make Consciousness the forth component of the Universe.

If you agree on that or can not argue it, I have the “none-preaching” right to place my statement against yours, and it is:

Matter is delusion of the Consciousness.

Now you can argue my statement by proving it wrong.
Let’s assume that I have no interest to prove it right.
The above supporting evidences are enough to reach at least 50/50.
That would make Dawkins very wrong.
I can only comfort him with the fact that my argument is given fore the first time in his web site. :lol:
(Hope I don’t sound sarcastic…)

I suppose that there is more to be said on all this, but let’s start from here.

[posting END]

And then the thread became a little boring…
There is not much to be said from atheist side.
Now they have the evidence which they are always asking for using that smile… you know…

And I have time now to have a thought about the self delusion which makes professors to mistake God with Religion.
Just imagine, to waste such a time for writing book like “The God Delusion” in which you prove that God doesn’t exist because the religion is wrong. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to name the book “The Religion Delusion”?
Because what on earth Religion has to do with God’s existence, professor!?

Just because you met few damn stupid pastors doesn’t make God a delusion.
Did you ever consider the possibility, Mr. Dawkins, that believing has nothing to do with the truth.
So if my granny tells you that God is white bearded old man in the heaven that has nothing to do with the truth, and you can not say that God doesn’t exist just because this belief doesn’t fit the science and the logic.

Did you ever asked yourself how a belief appears?
Some thousands years ago a tribe (in Europe let say) decided to belief in God.
Could happen.
They decided that God is spirit and only good people will go to Him.
They could belief that only the one who kills most enemies will go to God and that would serve their surviving best, but they choose the stupid belief to be good.
Then another tribe on the other side of the earth (Australia) decided to belief in the same God for the same reason.
Could happen. Science can prove it.
But then on the other side of the earth (Asia) another tribe started to belief in the same God for the same reason.
And then another tribe in Siberia did the same.
And then another tribe, somewhere else…
Hm… What science say about this?

If two (or even more) civilizations without any connections created the belief that this world is a dream, would that be a signal to look not only in the white bearded old man as a God?
Or you chose to oppose the most easiest God who can be rejected with your intellectual capabilities.

Come one dear professors, try to think like carpenters.
It might help more than your title degrees.

Share This

So, what was the experiment?
I simply opened a topic in Richard Dawkins website forum
My intent was to examen the thinking and logical capability of the atheists.
I wanted to see if there is any difference between religious and atheist behavior in a discussion.
It is interesting to see how the EGO reacts when is flatter or insulted.
When EGO feels flattered and when insulted?
And again - what is the difference between religious believer and atheist believer.
Yes they both are believers and we know it very well.

A week ago I had a conversation on “Freedom” with Freemasons on Facebook.
You won’t believe it but after I offered my understanding that Freedom is lack of desire they just deleted the topic.
There was no offense or bad language from my side.
It was the way I brought them to the idea and made it irrefutable.
Their EGO broke.

The same happened with Dawkins friends.
Well the topic is not deleted.
It reached 273 answers in two days.
Most of them of course troll sounding, but some of them with serious attempts to defend the atheist belief.

A very interesting result from the experiment is that although atheists claim that religions are creating disrespect between people, based on religious belief, they are more aggressive and disrespectable than any religious opponents.
They fail to prove that atheist are better communicators and community partners.

I hoped that atheists, putting their belief on science will show higher intellectual level and logical capabilities.
Not at all.
Most of them are religiously defending their belief with the primitive request “Prove it”.
If you give them prove they dismiss it not with arguments but with accusations.

[Example]

Humans moral values are first recorded as enforced by God rules in the scriptures talking about God.
Humans accepted the rules but did not accept God who gave the rules.
The world is living under the moral values of God without recognizing (accepting) God.

This is “argued” with the accusation that the one who wrote the rules did lie that they come from God.

Any way, you can read the discussion for yourself.

I have to admit that I used “dirty” ego techniques.
They worked like they do with 99% of the people regardless their belief.
When you address them with “my friend” they take it as a patronizing.
If you argue their statement and make it indefensible with the first strike, they lose their ability to move on to another field of the discussion. The EGO wants victory before moving forward. EGO can not move on other rails but on its own.
They use sarcasm but when you use it on them they warn you with ban.

Twisting meanings is the best defence of the weak person.
Atheists use it all the time.

I gave three simple points as base for God’s existence.

1) Humans moral values are given (first records) in scriptures stating “God exist”. They were given to the humans as enforced law from God. It is not serious to argue it with “they did lie about God, to make humans obey the law”. Your arguments can not be based on assumptions.

2) The scientific impotence to prove present moment makes any material based request irrelevant in connection with God existence. It unfolds endless field for discussing the material observation as a conscious delusion.

3) It is against the Logic to hold the statement “God does not exist”. Such statement has no logical end, while “God exist” eventually (theoretically) goes to an end. In other words, existence can be proved by observation, while none existence can not be proved - there is always possibility for existence.

Three points, based on historical facts, science and logic.
None of them was refuted. Instead they defined them as “preaching”.

In the Psychology text book can be found the explanation that humans tend to like other humans by intellectuality along with all the other signs.
But(!) humans don’t like people that are far more intelligent or perfect.
They feel uncomfortable in the presence of such people.

I found out that they not only feel uncomfortable, but become highly aggressive, mentally unstable and openly manifesting their dislike.
That fully applies to Freemasons and atheists.

Unexpectedly for some of you, religious people are dealing away better with their EGO when meeting person with higher intellectual level.
Their belief in God gives them a moral value which covers the intellectual gap and comforts the EGO.

I observed many interesting psychological and intellectual issues in my experiment, but the most surprising for me was the intellectual impotence of the atheists to differentiate between belief and knowledge

Atheists like most religious people don’t really understand the idea of God.
Religious people are imagining God in as many ways as atheists use to reject Him.
Presenting new explanation about God meets the same nonacceptance in both groups.

Share This