NewStats: 3,261,179 , 8,173,305 topics. Date: Wednesday, 28 May 2025 at 01:01 PM 82c6w

DemMannaScam:
Dead brain filthy animal
Remain confused
The church keeps growing

Still can't relate idiota

Semaj77:

Semaj77 is a fool. Confirmed wasted sperm

[quote author=DemMannaScam post=108063960][/quote]


Still can't relate slowpoke

LordReed:


Says who? I am an atheist and I know my actions have consequences. Whoever told you otherwise has misled you.

Well, one don't actually have to be an atheist to realise that.


It takes life experience to show one that.

Regex:


Well, one don't actually have to be an atheist to realise that.


It takes life experience to show one that.

Correct. This is the nature of our world, no one escapes it.

Pr0ton:




Atheists are just responding to a claim. We are not creating a claim from thin air.

Anyone who responds to a false claim as if it were true and still continue to respond to it, is not different from the person who made the false claim in the first instance

Let's assume a "God" actually exist in a form or something we yet to see but only suspect it is there, how proper is it to entirely reject this "God" based on the false claims or description of it by theist that may not even know anything about it?


In other words ,if that "God" actually exist how did you determine that the description of it by theist is the correct one ?

What if God is not what we think it is or what the theist says it is, how would you know as an atheist?

These are questions the agnostic is seeking answers for before dismissing or rejecting it anything.completely.

Agnostics on the other hand are considering this claim theists created from thin air and saying no one can disprove it. If it is like that, I can create anything from thin air and claim you can't disprove it and so it might exist. But that isn't the way reality is. Agnostics, like theists, are just obsessed with the concept of God.

Wrong. Theist did not create anything from thin air they sense something at the very beginning but are not certain about it and without being sure of what it is have decided to create imaginary stories around it that doesn't exactly describe what they sensed. It might be something that science would one day find a correct explanation for. We can't rule out this possibility.

Agnostics are not even close to accepting the God claim (description) by theists but considering the possibilty that such a thing like a "God" might exist or be there already but whose exact description is not known by any. We might already be interacting with this "God " and don't even know it since its description doesn't fit those of the two abrahamic religions which forms the foundation of most atheists worldview.

Thief
Remain confused

Semaj77:



Still can't relate slowpoke

triplechoice:



Anyone who responds to a false claim as if it were true and still continue to respond to it, is not different from the person who made the false claim in the first instance

We don't continue to respond to it. We have established that the claim is not true. Anything else we do after that would be explaining the sense in what we have established to anyone who is yet to understand our stance.

Let's assume a "God" actually exist in a form or something we yet to see but only suspect it is there, how proper is it to entirely reject this "God" based on the false claims or description of it by theist that may not even know anything about it?

Do not try to win this one from theists. Theists are the originator of the idea of God. Without theists we wouldn't know what God is. Other ideas about God are branches of theism. But theism remains the root. They have presented this God in the form of religion. They are convinced they know everything about it as you have wrongly pointed out up there. They have provided ways to go through to interact with this God. They have recordings of what he has supposedly done and what we expect him to do. They have a list of its features/attributes/traits/ which they claim God itself revealed to them. We can go through and test everything they have provided and conclude if indeed it is true or if they are deluded.

In other words ,if that "God" actually exist how did you determine that the description of it by theist is the correct one ?

Because they brought up the idea in the first place and now we are dealing with that idea. See it this way, a newly born child would naturally be an atheist until the concept of theism is introduced to him.

What if God is not what we think it is or what the theist says it is, how would you know as an atheist?

Now you're branching away from theism but you're still from its stem/root - the concept of God as a supreme being that is the creator of all things. If you disagree with this, then define what your God is. If your definition does not include or imply "conscious" or "creator" then you can't correctly call it God (check the definition of God)

These are questions the agnostic is seeking answers for before dismissing or rejecting it anything.completely.

I think I have cleared things up to a fair extent for you to decide on what you're really questioning.

Are you questioning why everything is and where everything came from? (Good questioning. Even scientists are looking to find answers. And honestly, we may never know)

OR

Are you questioning if a God, as what a God is rightly defined as, actually exists? (Good questioning too. Since God is from religion and based on what we know about religion, such a "thing" does not exist. IF you're talking about a "God" that doesn't belong to religion {doesn't involve faith} then I'll have to ask you on what scientific basis do you think such a thing could exist...else it is just an assumption like every other assumption every other person can conjure up as regards to the origin of the universe. And I wouldn't know why I would want to take something like that seriously)

Wrong. Theist did not create anything from thin air they sense something at the very beginning but are not certain about it and without being sure of what it is have decided to create imaginary stories around it that doesn't exactly describe what they sensed. It might be something that science would one day find a correct explanation for. We can't rule out this possibility.

How do you know their description is not exactly what they sensed if you don't know what the right description is? Except you know what the right thing is you can't say something is wrong. Again, theists are convinced what they know is the right thing. And what they know doesn't agree and can never agree with science.

Agnostics are not even close to accepting the God claim (description) by theists but considering the possibilty that such a thing like a "God" might exist or be there already but whose exact description is not known by any. We might already be interacting with this "God " and don't even know it since its description doesn't fit those of the two abrahamic religions which forms the foundation of most atheists worldview.

I have mentioned something like this up there, about your second questioning. Like I said, and as you have evidently showed here, it's all just assumption.

Pr0ton:


We don't continue to respond to it. We have established that the claim is not true. Anything else we do after that would be explaining the sense in what we have established to anyone who is yet to understand our stance.



Do not try to win this one from theists. Theists are the originator of the idea of God. Without theists we wouldn't know what God is. Other ideas about God are branches of theism. But theism remains the root. They have presented this God in the form of religion. They are convinced they know everything about it as you have wrongly pointed out up there. They have provided ways to go through to interact with this God. They have recordings of what he has supposedly done and what we expect him to do. They have a list of its features/attributes/traits/ which they claim God itself revealed to them. We can go through and test everything they have provided and conclude if indeed it is true or if they are deluded.



Because they brought up the idea in the first place and now we are dealing with that idea. See it this way, a newly born child would naturally be an atheist until the concept of theism is introduced to him.



Now you're branching away from theism but you're still from its stem/root - the concept of God as a supreme being that is the creator of all things. If you disagree with this, then define what your God is. If your definition does not include or imply "conscious" or "creator" then you can't correctly call it God (check the definition of God)



I think I have cleared things up to a fair extent for you to decide on what you're really questioning.

Are you questioning why everything is and where everything came from? (Good questioning. Even scientists are looking to find answers. And honestly, we may never know)

OR

Are you questioning if a God, as what a God is rightly defined as, actually exists? (Good questioning too. Since God is from religion and based on what we know about religion, such a "thing" does not exist. IF you're talking about a "God" that doesn't belong to religion {doesn't involve faith} then I'll have to ask you on what scientific basis do you think such a thing could exist...else it is just an assumption like every other assumption every other person can conjure up as regards to the origin of the universe. And I wouldn't know why I would want to take something like that seriously)





How do you know their description is not exactly what they sensed if you don't know what the right description is? Except you know what the right thing is you can't say something is wrong. Again, theists are convinced what they know is the right thing. And what they know doesn't agree and can never agree with science.



I have mentioned like this up there, about your second questioning. Like I said, and as you have evidently showed here, it's all just assumption.

What if God is ??


Dispose that question!


I can also say what if Dok is?


Do you get it



Those don't stand for anything that's real.....

Pr0ton:


We don't continue to respond to it. We have established that the claim is not true. Anything else we do after that would be explaining the sense in what we have established to anyone who is yet to understand our stance.



Do not try to win this one from theists. Theists are the originator of the idea of God. Without theists we wouldn't know what God is. Other ideas about God are branches of theism. But theism remains the root. They have presented this God in the form of religion. They are convinced they know everything about it as you have wrongly pointed out up there. They have provided ways to go through to interact with this God. They have recordings of what he has supposedly done and what we expect him to do. They have a list of its features/attributes/traits/ which they claim God itself revealed to them. We can go through and test everything they have provided and conclude if indeed it is true or if they are deluded.



Because they brought up the idea in the first place and now we are dealing with that idea. See it this way, a newly born child would naturally be an atheist until the concept of theism is introduced to him.



Now you're branching away from theism but you're still from its stem/root - the concept of God as a supreme being that is the creator of all things. If you disagree with this, then define what your God is. If your definition does not include or imply "conscious" or "creator" then you can't correctly call it God (check the definition of God)



I think I have cleared things up to a fair extent for you to decide on what you're really questioning.

Are you questioning why everything is and where everything came from? (Good questioning. Even scientists are looking to find answers. And honestly, we may never know)

OR

Are you questioning if a God, as what a God is rightly defined as, actually exists? (Good questioning too. Since God is from religion and based on what we know about religion, such a "thing" does not exist. IF you're talking about a "God" that doesn't belong to religion {doesn't involve faith} then I'll have to ask you on what scientific basis do you think such a thing could exist...else it is just an assumption like every other assumption every other person can conjure up as regards to the origin of the universe. And I wouldn't know why I would want to take something like that seriously)





How do you know their description is not exactly what they sensed if you don't know what the right description is? Except you know what the right thing is you can't say something is wrong. Again, theists are convinced what they know is the right thing. And what they know doesn't agree and can never agree with science.



I have mentioned something like this up there, about your second questioning. Like I said, and as you have evidently showed here, it's all just assumption.

I have tried to send an email to you...

Reply..

1Sharon:

Why did sub-saharan Africa never invent the wheel?

I would be careful with this blanket presumption.
There is much that conquering races tend to destroy deliberately in of the history, culture, science, religion and writings of a conquered people. Ask the Inca, the Aztec, and company.

Where is your evidence they crossed the Sahara?

My personal suspicion is that there have been lost generations of humans in Egypt and that some of the relics observed there may not even have been built by the recognized comparatively recent occupants of Egypt.

On the question of ancient Egyptians being black, again, I do not know this to definitively be the case - nonetheless, once again, I would be cautious because it is a fact that there are many statues in Egypt which disclose such flat noses and thick lips that if nothing else, they must give one cause for pause. Similar statues are also found in the Americas by the way.

In addition to this, there was a historical time when Egypt was conquered/ occupied by Kush.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Sudan/The-kingdom-of-Kush

https://www.worldhistory.org/Kush/

Crystyano:



I have tried to send an email to you...

Reply..

I have replied.

@ Pr0ton -

"Gnosis" - refers to knowledge. "Gnostic" refers to persons with knowledge - usually of a special, deep, esoteric or mystical kind.
"Agnostic" simply refers to a person who declares an absence of knowledge.

In short, the gnostic says that he knows, the agnostic simply says that he doesnt know.
And that, my friend, is the wisest, most honest, and most enlightened position to take, not just on the question of the existence of god or Gods, but on the question of all existence.

HellVictorinho3:



There's no need to disprove anything..

You call it naive...


Those that believe in God call you stupid for not believing....


So, it's not about calling names....


It's not about anyone proving....



Humans have shown that they exist by affecting their environment SO the word 'humans' should be taken seriously....


Nobody had to prove humans exist...

Humans existed even before the word 'humans' came into existence....



It's about definitions.....


Since GOD doesn't have any definition that shows anything ,
Then I am correct when I say I know GOD can't be....



There's no limit to what exists BUT that doesn't mean there is no word that shows nothing real...


Actually,
There are words that show nothing real..


E.g.Utopia,God, Heaven,.....


What else?


PrOton is right...

Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you brother

DeepSight:
@ Pr0ton -

"Gnosis" - refers to knowledge. "Gnostic" refers to persons with knowledge - usually of a special, deep, esoteric or mystical kind.
"Agnostic" simply refers to a person who declares an absence of knowledge.

In short, the gnostic says that he knows, the agnostic simply says that he doesnt know.
And that, my friend, is the wisest, most honest, and most enlightened position to take, not just on the question of the existence of god or Gods, but on the question of all existence.

Atheists aren't claiming they know everything. No one knows how everything came to be. But as to questions about God/gods atheists claim to know they don't exist, at least in the sense of rationality, else we can all come up with something out of thin air and claim no one can say for sure it doesn't exist.

Personally, the idea of God as a conscious supreme being who created the universe (religion aside) doesn't make sense to me when you look farther from our world and see how different and infinitesimal our reality (a sense of conscious causality) is to the universe. If a universe that is vastly without consciousness exists and runs on its own, why do we demand consciousness be related to it? It shows our idea of God is more like a mere imagination sprung from a reality our brain is used to so that we tend to think in that direction.

If you ask me about the origin of everything, I will simply tell you I don't know. There is no need to involve a god. If you then ask me about the god of the theist, I will tell you it doesn't exist. If you ask me about a god but not belonging to theism, I'll tell you you're now imagining.

Pr0ton:


Atheists aren't claiming they know everything. No one knows how everything came to be. But as to questions about God/gods atheists claim to know they don't exist, at least in the sense of rationality, else we can all come up with something out of thin air and claim no one can say for sure it doesn't exist.

There are deep philosophical arguments for the existence of a transcendental instigation of the universe which I believe, (no offense intended sincerely) - require calmer and deeper reflection than you appear willing to tolerate.

I found it odd and a little amusing that you asked why anyone would even contemplate a God in the first place. Odd, because the question of origin is so natural to humans, so intrinsic to our being, that it pops into the minds of even very little children.

If a universe that is vastly without consciousness exists and runs on its own, why do we demand consciousness be related to it?

Small problem - current science tends to disclose a beginning. Un-triggerred movement is not known to us. People try to evade this by recourse to quantum physics - which hardly anyone understands yet - but not even quantum physics constitutes a sufficient answer to the problem posed here.

Mind you, the question of the existence of God neednt depend on the ideas of the theist. God neednt be conscious in the sense evoked by most theist thought.

Furthermore, you are in no position to assert that the Universe is vastly without consciousness. There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on Earth, and we, standing within one grain of sand, have not yet been able to explore the next grain of sand. There is thus a great need for us to be humble. We know practically nothing as yet.

If you ask me about the origin of everything, I will simply tell you I don't know.

There you go - This is pure and simple agnosticism.

DeepSight:


There are deep philosophical arguments for the existence of a transcendental instigation of the universe which I believe, (no offense intended sincerely) - require calmer and deeper reflection than you appear willing to tolerate.

I found it odd and a little amusing that you asked why anyone would even contemplate a God in the first place. Odd, because the question of origin is so natural to humans, so intrinsic to our being, that it pops into the minds of even very little children.



Small problem - current science tends to disclose a beginning. Un-triggerred movement is not known to us. People try to evade this by recourse to quantum physics - which hardly anyone understands yet - but not even quantum physics constitutes a sufficient answer to the problem posed here.

Mind you, the question of the existence of God neednt depend on the ideas of the theist. God neednt be conscious in the sense evoked by most theist thought.

Furthermore, you are in no position to assert that the Universe is vastly without consciousness. There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on Earth, and we, standing within one grain of sand, have not yet been able to explore the next grain of sand. There is thus a great need for us to be humble. We know practically nothing as yet.



There you go - This is pure and simple agnosticism.

It's about the uselessness of the meaning of the word....

I don't even think there's anything like all existence....

So , there's nothing like the beginning of what is impossible or all existence...


Going deep doesn't mean going wrong....


What is consciousness

Is it something that can be associated with the entire universe!??

The answer is no!

PrOton!

No need for too much talk!


What does he mean by everything??

Google is wrong when it says there's something like everything that exists!
..


'Nothing' in Physics doesn't really mean it's possible for no thing to exist... towards a perfect vacuum...



Workch contradicted himself by itting there's no perfect vacuum after he said there can be no thing....



He was talking about removing everything in the universe as if that's possible!

You can't remove everything in the universe because that means you will be removing the universe itself.... how does that make sense?

The universe is not a container of what you can remove or separate from the universe...

Hermes119:

Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you brother

Please,

Consider my evidence against triplechoice .....


I created a thread using Crystyano as another name....


It's titled my evidence....

He's been accusing me of lying about myself....



Thanks....

DeepSight:


There are deep philosophical arguments for the existence of a transcendental instigation of the universe which I believe, (no offense intended sincerely) - require calmer and deeper reflection than you appear willing to tolerate.

What I'm not willing to tolerate is why anyone would insist on a God (as what it is rightly defined as) as a possible explanation to the origin of the universe. Having a calmer and deeper reflection doesn't mean you have to consider everything proposed to be the origin of the universe especially when this particular one as a human history from wishful thinking. I'm willing to tolerate an explanation that has a solid basis (big bang, string theory, multiverses) not one you can just conjure up from thin air like God.

I found it odd and a little amusing that you asked why anyone would even contemplate a God in the first place.

Like I have said over and over, an idea of God comes from theism and this idea sprung from wishful thinking because...

Odd, because the question of origin is so natural to humans, so intrinsic to our being, that it pops into the minds of even very little children.

The question of origin doesn't have to have God attached to it. This way of origin thinking was stained by theism. Naturally, if you find something of nature somewhere all you have to ask is how did it get here. Having questions like "who created" draws inspiration from theism. This is why science wins over beliefs everytime when it comes to explaining why things are in this world. A question of "who created" is a lazy way of approaching a problem because it saves you ways you have to go through in getting knowledge of the processes that result to what you currently see as mystical.

To a child who hasn't been influenced by theism or who doesn't have the idea of theism at all, approaching questions of the origin of the universe as "how" rather than "who created" would make more sense to him because his unadulterated mind would see the former as the normal endeavour to solve a mystery and the later a lazy wishful thinking way to get around a mystery.

Small problem - current science tends to disclose a beginning. Un-triggerred movement is not known to us. People try to evade this by recourse to quantum physics - which hardly anyone understands yet - but not even quantum physics constitutes a sufficient answer to the problem posed here.

When scientists recourse to quantum physics to try and explain un-triggered movements, most of the time they are not necessarily saying that was how the world started but instead showing it is likely possible it started that way since things that wouldn't make sense in classic physics (our world as we see it) do make sense in quantum physics. Un-triggered movements seem to occur in quantum physics. If our universe was at a point where it was infinitesimal small (quantum) it is possible it acted the way these quantum particles act (un-triggered movements)

The fact that strange things happen in the quantum world shows how limited our brain is in the knowledge of our universe and how any answer to the questions of the origin of the universe can not be reliable including answers like God that tend to make sense to us in the classic world.

Mind you, the question of the existence of God neednt depend on the ideas of the theist. God neednt be conscious in the sense evoked by most theist thought.

Could you then stop using the word God? If your source of the universe doesn't imply consciousness then it can't be God. The definition of God implies consciousness.

Furthermore, you are in no position to assert that the Universe is vastly without consciousness. There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on Earth, and we, standing within one grain of sand, have not yet been able to explore the next grain of sand. There is thus a great need for us to be humble. We know practically nothing as yet.

The vastness that we have observed has come without consciousness. The only consciousness we know is us. I'm not saying it isn't possible to find consciousness in other places. My point is even if consciousness exists somewhere else it would still be insignificant to the whole of the universe. And this vastness we have observed only make up about 25% of the universe. The rest is dark matter. So it will always be that the universe is just too huge that consciousness has any significance.

There you go - This is pure and simple agnosticism.

If we are going strictly by definition of agnosticism (without knowledge), you could imply this to me as you could other areas of life/thinking that doesn't have to do with subjects about God/gods. When it comes to the existence of God/gods, I'm not agnostic. I'm an atheist.

LordIsaac:
All that is required of them is to have heard the gospel of Christ at least once. Scripture says, the fool saith in his heart that there's no God. There's God o!

YOur scripture is fake and whatever it says are lies including this quote.
There’s no evidence that a god exist, if you can prove that a god exist, go ahead.

Workch:
YOur scripture is fake and whatever it says are lies including this quote.
There’s no evidence that a god exist, if you can prove that a god exist, go ahead.

The very fact that you can type and reply me just further reaffirms that there's God. He is our God. The Creator of heaven and earth. May His name be forever worshipped

LordIsaac:

The very fact that you can type and reply me just further reaffirms that there's God. He is our God. The Creator of heaven and earth. May His name be forever worshipped

The fact I typed this is fact that my parents had sex and fertilization happened and that Iphone manufactured my phone and probably some I.T company invented internet.
I don’t see that how proves existence of your imaginary.

Workch:
The fact I typed this is fact that my parents had sex and fertilization happened and that Iphone manufactured my phone and probably some I.T company invented internet.
I don’t see that how proves existence of your imaginary.

Jesus is Lord!

Pr0ton:


What I'm not willing to tolerate is why anyone would insist on a God (as what it is rightly defined as) as a possible explanation to the origin of the universe. Having a calmer and deeper reflection doesn't mean you have to consider everything proposed to be the origin of the universe especially when this particular one as a human history from wishful thinking.

The essentials of the idea of God are not entirely "wishful thinking." Some of the basic precepts can be grounded in philosophy and logic. A simple example is the quality of transcendence. This is the idea that whatever caused the universe to begin cannot itself be the universe - thus - the universe being material, the cause must be immaterial, the universe being of time and space, the cause must be beyond time and space, and so on. In short, that the cause transcends the universe.

I'm willing to tolerate an explanation that has a solid basis (big bang, string theory, multiverses) not one you can just conjure up from thin air like God.

The Multiverse theory you referred to is notoriously from thin air. It is a mere fanciful postulation without any conceivable proof. It not only lacks proof but is in fact unprovable - at least not until the day you find a way out of this universe. It is strange how atheists often hear this fanciful term and lend it greater credence than the idea of a God.

Like I have said over and over, an idea of God comes from theism and this idea sprung from wishful thinking because...

Saying that the idea of God comes from theism is somewhat tautological - it is like saying that the idea of stars comes from astronomy (just a rough example - I know you can see stars). Or like saying that the idea of logic comes from philosophy or vice versa. Its a very odd statement if you stop to think about it. Theism is not some generative tank that somehow pre-existed the idea of God. Because this is what you insinuate when you say that "the idea of God comes from Theism" . . . the underlying suggestion is that theism somehow existed somewhere and then it generated the idea of God. This is a weird way to speak.

The idea of God - a creator being - has been intrinsic to mankind from time immemorial - throughout the ages and across the entire spectrum of races and peoples such that there is no culture on Earth that lacks a conception of God. You cannot therefore so easily and rather carelessly suggest that there is some school of thought specifically somewhere that generated the idea of God for all else. That simply is not the case.

The question of origin doesn't have to have God attached to it.

Not necessarily God as defined and characterized by religion.
One thing you need to understand is that the word "God" is loaded and means different things to different people. The main unifying element in that word is the understanding of it as the origin of all existence. Therefore whatever you describe as the origin is exactly what some people somewhere conceive of as God. For example, if you describe the origin as primordial energy, this is exactly what some perceive and describe as God.

This is why science wins over beliefs everytime when it comes to explaining why things are in this world.

Science only ever addresses the "how" and never the "why." And even at that it is limited to the physical world alone. It is limited to the material . And the "why" of a question is cardinal in of arriving at the true meaning of something. Another rough example will suffice - You come across a book. You may want to know how it was written. Science can tell you how - perhaps it was written on paper refined from wood from a tree and by ink from a particular chemical. That is the material and scientific answer. It tells you little or nothing in of the meaning of the book. To get the meaning, you will have to read the book. But even that is limited in of answering the question "why" the book was written. Because the answer to that question may be as strange as that it was written because the author wanted to convey a message to a loved one, or because he was bored, or because he wanted to enrich himself, or because he wanted to spark an ideology, or because he wanted political power, or because he wanted to be famous, or damn it, because he wanted to impress his mistress.

Do not be deceived - we still do not know "how" the universe came about - all theories notwithstanding - much less "why!"

When scientists recourse to quantum physics to try and explain un-triggered movements, most of the time they are not necessarily saying that was how the world started but instead showing it is likely possible it started that way since things that wouldn't make sense in classic physics (our world as we see it) do make sense in quantum physics. Un-triggered movements seem to occur in quantum physics. If our universe was at a point where it was infinitesimal small (quantum) it is possible it acted the way these quantum particles act (un-triggered movements)

The excuse of/ allusion to virtual particles in a quantum vacuum is dead on arrival as there is no perfect vacuum observed anywhere. The said quantum vacuums contain low gaseous pressure and as such the excuse dies before taking off.

The fact that strange things happen in the quantum world shows how limited our brain is in the knowledge of our universe and how any answer to the questions of the origin of the universe can not be reliable including answers like God that tend to make sense to us in the classic world.

The fact that strange things happen in the quantum world was enough to frighten and humble Einstein. Is it not enough to frighten and humble you? What do you really know, oh human being?

Could you then stop using the word God? If your source of the universe doesn't imply consciousness then it can't be God. The definition of God implies consciousness.

Consciousness itself is a mystery. I trust you have heard of "the hard problem of consciousness." If finite human consciousness is such a mystery please let us not even attempt to define or circumscribe what sort of consciousness may or may not exist at a transcendental level. That will not just be presumptuous, it will be foolhardy.

Just imagine an amoeba attempting to grasp your consciousness, and you may have a faint idea of how absurd any such attempt may be.

The vastness that we have observed has come without consciousness.

We still dont know this. Because we only have a faint understanding of consciousness and even then only of our consciousness. You have no idea if the universe itself is a conscious being of a different kind. A cell in your body is conscious to a certain degree. It reacts to stimulus and performs other tasks. Nonetheless it is an infinitesimal part of a larger consciousness which is so far beyond it, that it lacks the capacity to conceive it.

And yet it is within it.

From my point of view, you still need basic humility in matters like this. You presume too much. We are too little to make the sort of presumptions you are jumping to. This is why Agnosticism in these matters remains the wisest, most honest and most enlightened position a man can take.

If we are going strictly by definition of agnosticism (without knowledge), you could imply this to me as you could other areas of life/thinking that doesn't have to do with subjects about God/gods. When it comes to the existence of God/gods, I'm not agnostic. I'm an atheist.

Apply agnosticism in virtually all existential matters.

Cogito ergo sum - is as much as a man can know for certain.
Everything else is up for grabs.
The world you see could even be a simulation.
Very likely is.

Crystyano:


It's about the uselessness of the meaning of the word....

While I understand what you may mean here - the frustration that comes with such a loaded word which is used in different ways by different people, I think the vast majority of people have certain fundamentals in mind when they use that word. For most, at the minimum, it connotes an ultimate source or origin of existence.

What is consciousness

Is it something that can be associated with the entire universe!??

The answer is no!

We are too small to address this question.

As I wtote to Pr0ton above -

You have no idea if the universe itself is a conscious being of a different kind. A cell in your body is conscious to a certain degree. It reacts to stimulus and performs other tasks. Nonetheless it is an infinitesimal part of a larger consciousness which is so far beyond it, that it lacks the capacity to conceive it.

And yet it is within it.

.

DeepSight:


While I understand what you may mean here - the frustration that comes with such a loaded word which is used in different ways by different people, I think the vast majority of people have certain fundamentals in mind when they use that word. For most, at the minimum, it connotes an ultimate source or origin of existence.



We are too small to address this question.

As I wtote to Pr0ton above -

You have no idea if the universe itself is a conscious being of a different kind. A cell in your body is conscious to a certain degree. It reacts to stimulus and performs other tasks. Nonetheless it is an infinitesimal part of a larger consciousness which is so far beyond it, that it lacks the capacity to conceive it.

And yet it is within it.

How did you know there is a larger consciousness when you can't conceive it



You said you can't tell IF .....then you say there IS....


I know you are wrong......

KnownUnknown:


Smart and concise.
Do you still hold unto the extraphysical plane and the oneness of infinity or have you itted that it was just your definition of heaven/god(ultimate source or origin of existence)

Existence has no beginning....

DeepSight:


While I understand what you may mean here - the frustration that comes with such a loaded word which is used in different ways by different people, I think the vast majority of people have certain fundamentals in mind when they use that word. For most, at the minimum, it connotes an ultimate source or origin of existence.



We are too small to address this question.

As I wtote to Pr0ton above -

You have no idea if the universe itself is a conscious being of a different kind. A cell in your body is conscious to a certain degree. It reacts to stimulus and performs other tasks. Nonetheless it is an infinitesimal part of a larger consciousness which is so far beyond it, that it lacks the capacity to conceive it.

And yet it is within it.

God is an empty word...

Crystyano:


How did you know there is a larger consciousness when you can't conceive it

I did not say there was.

You said you can't tell IF

Exactly.

.....then you say there IS....

Never said this.

DeepSight:


I did not say there was.



Exactly.



Never said this.

Well

I can tell there isn't....

Crystyano:


Existence has no beginning....

Quite agree.
We are hamstrung by the limitations of language in these matters.
I generally view "origin" in this context as "bedrock" - in other words, its like saying such and such is the bedrock of existence.
That bedrock, is of course eternal, and without beginning.
Again, this is one of the fundamental ideas people have in mind when they speak of "God."