[Serious Discussion] Religion

[STyL4]

"Unless you define the words (cause a broad interpretation is possible): self-observation, self-collapse and the circumstances for the self collapse, i can not aswer that question. I see a 'question' that is entirely built out of assumptions, which in fact does not look promising. I have problems with the use of ontological arguments. Since they are not based on any scientific proof."

you dont know the terms? then that's perfectly ur problem, that question was asked to 10 scientists at Unique Scientist's Boards and they had either answered it or made it quite clear why they shouldn't have doubts in ORCH OR theory no more or tagged the theory as plausable. Hammeroff or you? i'd pick Hameroff. Newton or you? i'd pick Newton. real scientists understan, people like you unfortunately not. im glad u didn't answer the question because that tells something. i wish RL was like that, murderer gets asked in the court the question and he simply says that the question is not really valid and doesn't proof anything 


"The reason why there is a misinterpretation is that the universe does not equal a self collapsing wave function, it is a property that we (humans) have given to the universe in order to try and understand the behaviour and the quantumphysical measurement problem. Is this property correct? Maybe so, maybe not. We use it untill it proves us wrong. Since there are much theories about that problem you can just pick one out and combine it with just whatever theory you like."

equals.... oh ...my...God. im doing misinterpretations yes


"You have never proven me wrong styl4, it seems that you just get more mad by the minute. You are the only one on this forum desperate enough to believe in this fairytale."
oh yes i did, look at the previous posts so far. first u were trying to deny the theory (hehe, but failed! ) then u claimed that the theory is not connected with God and is a misinterpretation. yes starting new theme, wasn't misinterpretation to most APPROVED scientists. im sorry, self called chemistry engineer.

and about insults. i'm sorry, according to my previous post u're self-called bad loser, so yes having debate with u pretty much ... sucks.





"Basically STyL4, what you're doing is finding all these reasons, explanations, etc. that other people (with the same fucked up subconscious such as yours) has made up to give themselves some sort of inner peace.
Yes, you can write down ginormous theories on how everything is a big brain, yadda yadda. One can actually make it sound pretty reasonable by lightly twisting words and simplifying explanations.
If you really just stop for a second and take a look at the big picture you come to realize it's all just a bunch of bull shit."

how can u simplify explanations if they're based on proven scientific theories, i mean the facts were taken from there?  (u're not following, uL) and if u'd have to deny God with "Big Bang" theory, would u need to write down the whole theory? denying is what you're doing, not really a valid argument but same approach as 0target0. insults? alright , if they're insults for you then they actually mean something to u i guess, cya if ure leaving. 



"I honestly feel sorry for your inability to see things clearly; that being said, I'll step out of this discussion/debate and let you think you "win" it somehow by basically tossing lame insults, repeating yourself, and posting links to "information" by brainwashed, self-proclaimed scientists. "
thanks for saying that, just follows that u're not reading. how can they be self-proclaimed scientists after all the scientist awards they had received ? that's what u need, self-proclaimed hacker.

PM ME THE PROOFS HOW 0TARGET0'S POST WAS PERFECTLY LOGICAL ABOUT HIM CLAIMING THAT HE'S IN THE NEXT CONCIOUSNESS OF THE LIFE!!!!

+1

That's what we've been telling him long ago but the kid never listens.

but wouldn't it be better if you believed that your grandfathers are going to heaven?

u also agree that this isn't a debate topic?
"Classic debate emphasizes logic and real-world discussion" , another one that doesn't know what a debate is, so why debate with him? 0target0.. xO

[[SAE]Grim]

Carl Sagan ftw 

[0Target0]

So styla if it isnt about equals, how do you come to the conclusion that the universe IS (=) a mind?

Self observation, self consciousness, can be interpreted in a millions of ways, if I interpret it my way, you lose. Nevertheless the assumptions that you make in the statement make the statement itself worthless. Maybe ask ratz again, since you don't seem to be able to define it yourself. Asking someone to define their terms makes perfect sense, because not on all fields these words mean the same thing.

[STyL4]

* The wave function of the universe is self collapsing *

-> similar to; The color of my hair is brown. Which is a physical property of my hair. see the analogy.

* Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds*

-> As you will understand (I mean you're not THAT stupid), If I set up a self collapsing wave function on my oscilloscope, it is not a mind. An atom orbital, is not a mind. So, while using another UNPROVEN theory (because from what i read this is still under discussion); you might be able to say that the property of a mind is the self collapsing wave function. Even with that it is necessary that you strictly define the word mind.

However combining the both to the universe is a mind is absolutely retarded.

Maybe you can use a list of other consciousness theories to pick one that actually does fit in your arguments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Co..._theorists


hehe Target disproves you once again, better call god to stop me.


I'm having the impression that your mental capacities are below the average reader on this forum. I was posting youtube video's with a bullshit theory so the analogy with your bullshit theory video's might be clear. Hey...I was actually making fun of you.




Me fail?  Oh right, you're anticipating for what others might say to you.

ok.

=fail interpretation, that's why the question remained. so much for losing

[0Target0]

Off course I can also pose you a question with undefined terminology.

Consciousness is self-obliteration, since obliteration is a phi function of the mind. So how can the phi function of the mind not equal schrödingers equation or the ghirardi rimini weber model?

I'm glad you can not define the words in the question you asked, since it means that you did not write the question yourself.

To end your endless and only argument to why I do not answer your question;

An ontological argument for the existence of God attempts the method of a priori proof, which uses intuition and reason alone.

So your question is built up around, quantumphysics, intuition and reason. See the quantumphysics is the domain where the intuition fails, thats why mankind is still struggling with it. Quantumphysics and intuition don't match.

[STyL4]

ur question is off the theme, but how come the question i've presented was published on Science competition on the same ORCH OR theme ? and they COULD answer it unlike u. that makes sense, owned.

So your question is built up around, quantumphysics, intuition and reason - what u're presenting here is intuition and nothing else. a little bit reason around it but it's intuition and that's a fact. what have u provided? ur own INTUITION.

but above (question explanation about the question ) is explained well and focused on reason.

[0Target0]

ur question is off the theme, but how come the question i've presented was published on Science competition on the same ORCH OR theme ? and they COULD answer it unlike u. that makes sense, owned.

So your question is built up around, quantumphysics, intuition and reason - what u're presenting here is intuition and nothing else. a little bit reason around it but it's intuition and that's a fact. what have u provided? ur own INTUITION.

but above (question explanation about the question ) is explained well and focused on reason.

You are claiming that god exists on the basis of reason. Good game. I on the other hand claim that you have no proof. Still up to date you have provided me with no proof that God is connected to orch or. So all you have told us is your opinion, which would be okay, if you wouldn't claim it to be proof.

how is my question off theme? you cannot answer it? you lose. So answer it please. I asked some people the same question and they could all answer it.

[STyL4]

You are claiming that god exists on the basis of reason. Good game. I on the other hand claim that you have no proof. Still up to date you have provided me with no proof that God is connected to orch or. So all you have told us is your opinion, which would be okay, if you wouldn't claim it to be proof.

how is my question off theme? you cannot answer it? you lose. So answer it please. I asked some people the same question and they could all answer it.

you are claiming God doesn't exist and that Bible is fairytale on the bases of UR-OWN-OPINION (what evidences did u prove so far ? answer : none) , so yet again how can u back up urself with that?


"to date you have provided me with no proof that God is connected to orch or. So all you have told us is your opinion, which would be okay, if you wouldn't claim it to be proof."
self-called bad loser, u're like talking to ur self on the bases of reasons and ur own opinion. i know that u're a sceptic but obviously with no proofs. it isn't connected to God? fine then, guess the Factor Universe of the Science is full of dumbies and u're right (chemistry engineer must be right). get real, debates about ORCH OR are not going after whether it IS connected to God (because it clearly is based on creationism = God, it's a matter of how do u explain God now. creator is how i explain him, but yet again if he's God then not all questions can be revealed about him), but whether it is possible that the OTHER SCIENTIFIC THEORIES , where the ORCH OR theory takes scientific facts from, are still yet true.

)

[Slice]

Trashed scientific laws/theories:

• There are 30 orders of insects
  
• Humans evolved directly from tree dwelling apes
  
• The first mammals evolved about 155 million years ago
  
• Flat Earth hypothesis
  
• Ice Age clothing was made of crudely formed animal hides
  
• Phlogiston theory
  
• Geocentric theory of the solar system
  
• The classical elemental theory
  
• Aristotle's dynamic motion
  
• There are 9 planets in our solar system
  
• Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves
  
• Newton's corpuscular theory of light
  
• There are 109 Elements in the Period Table
  
• Newton's Laws of Motion
  

Coming up:
Soon to be trashed..

• God, eternal life
  
• Polar bears are left-handed
  
• Universe is a big, bad brain (containing several black holes, identical to those in the previous poster's brain)
  
• Toast always land with the buttered side down
  

[Hitman]

Coming up:
Soon to be trashed..

• God, eternal life
  
• Polar bears are left-handed
  
• Universe is a big, bad brain (containing several black holes, identical to those in the previous poster's brain)
  
• Toast always land with the buttered side down
  

This won't be proven false.