WTF is Hillary Tingle? — Hillary

Seek and ye shall find! :joke:

A western philosophical koan: A sufficient reason for 'the Principle of Sufficiebt Reason' is missing. — 180 Proof

Oh! Now I get it! :up:

But that's up to the people and not for you to decide. And the truth in science of today might be the woowoo of tomorrow. You only have to look at the history of science to conclude that. If some discipline uses woowoo, it's science — Hillary

Can you not distinguish between science that turns out to be wrong and complete woo woo that started off as woo woo and always will be woo woo?
You have invented a space in-between scientific hypotheses, which have been accepted as 'possible' within the scientific community and complete woo woo BS. Is this where your polytheism lives?

I don't need your SCIgod to know physics... The true gods already informed me about the stuff they used.. Sounds very attractive though, and the price is good! Better than the 4 dollar our friend Carroll asks to ask him a question of which you're not even sure of answer! I knew what I would choose for my money! :halo: — Hillary

If you want to join the SCIgod chosen then don't blaspheme!
SCIgod is physics. You are of the Orga and the Mathaphys.
Respect and live the SCIgodian life or be damned to your existence of eternal unsated wants and needs
Eternal awareness in the dark with no input stimuli forever.
At least in the false christian hell you can hear yourself scream.
We have not yet received your first payment and cannot progress your application until we do!

Can you not distinguish between science that turns out to be wrong and complete woo woo that started off as woo woo and always will be woo woo? — universeness

Of course. But many scientists can't and will stick to the woo woo no matter what.

You have invented a space in-between scientific hypotheses, which have been accepted as 'possible' within the scientific community and complete woo woo BS. Is this where your polytheism lives? — universeness

You mean the woo woo of many worlds? No that's not where the gods live. They live outside the universe and comfartably, eeh, comfortably lay back and watch us.

If you want to join the SCIgod chosen then don't blaspheme!
SCIgod is physics — universeness

All hail to the SCIgod! Love that god! But it can't tell me nothing no more as far as elementary particles, spacetime, dark energy, dark matter, and quantum fields are concerned. But there is much more of course. Ill consider asking him questions for that ridiculously low price. And I don't wanna get lost in the dark eternally!

You are of the Orga and the Mathaphys.
Respect and live the SCIgodian life or be damned to your existence of eternal unsated wants and needs
Eternal awareness in the dark with no input stimuli forever — universeness

I respect Orga, Mathaphys, and even live the Pscigodian life! What awaits me in that case? Eternal awareness in the light with a lot of input?

We have not yet received your first payment and cannot progress your application until we do! — universeness

They can suck my eternal di... oops! :lol:

SCIgod — universeness

The Holy Trinity (science)

1. Mathematics
2. Rationality
3. Experiment

Seek and ye shall find! :joke: — Agent Smith

Of course! Hillary Tingle!

SCIgod
— universeness

The Holy Trinity (science)

1. Mathematics
2. Rationality
3. Experiment — Agent Smith

:lol: Don't tell @Hillary this as I think I can probably get a lifetime subscription out of him for the SCIgodians. I would normally only reveal this to my most trusted upper circle of the SCIgodian leadership structure but SCI has nothing to do with the word science.
It actually stands for Simple Con Idea! :lol:

If you want to join the SCIgod chosen then don't blaspheme!
SCIgod is physics — universeness

It actually stands for Simple Con Idea! :lol:
3mReplyOptions — universeness

Logical conclusion: physics=simpleconideagod! Forget your money! :lol:

RE: God and Existence
SUBTOPIC: Sound and Valid Outcomes
※→ Hillary, et al,

An exploded view of gods, how you imagine that?[/reply]
(COMMENT)

An "Exploded View" of any supernatural entity is an image of the respective components of that entity. If you are defining the attributes of a Supreme Being, the components bundled like omnipotence, omniscient, omnipresent, immortal, and preeminence, as the key components that must be assembled for the entity to be The Supreme Being. In the case of a Supreme Being having dominion over lesser deities, the exploded view would also demonstrate the relative strengths of the particular entity. The God of War might be the most powerful (second only to the Supreme Being) but greater than all other deities in that regard. However, the Goddess of Love would have more influence in that quality than the God of War; etc, etc, etc.


Why has the uncertainty principle offer a perspective on a proof that has greater probability? Do you mean a greater probability being true than the gods being true,?[/reply]
(COMMENT)

With the Uncertainty Principle, you may be able to attribute a given event to a God Like Power being used, but not know which God was exercising that power.

With the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), you might be able to discern the likelihood of the power behind the event, but not know for sure. The Greek God Aeolus's primary power was dominion over the winds. However, the Greek God Poseidon had dominion over the seas. Strong winds over the ocean may create storm-tossed seas. The PSR might deduce a storm to one or the other. But might not know for sure.

Both the PSR and the Uncertainty Principle have an element of probability associated with it.

Most Respectfully,
R

What I'd like to know is how a theist can retain belief in a nonphysical being (God) and still have a coherent definition of nonexistence. — Agent Smith

Humans are flexible in their beliefs : If it "works", it doesn't matter if it's real. For example, the number "Zero" refers to that which does not exist. But the gap-filler symbol (0) of emptiness has been found to be very useful in higher math (higher than fingers & toes). Likewise, imaginary numbers are non-existent in any physical sense, yet again ivory tower mathematicians find them to be necessary or inevitable for their abstract purposes. Even Potential, as defined by Aristotle, is non-existent but powerful. Imagine the power of un-actualized Omnipotential.

Terrence Deacon has coined a new term for non-existence. He uses "absence" & "absential" to refer to a state that has not-yet been realized or actualized. It is especially apt for describing human intentions. His definition of causal non-existence does not specifically refer to a god, but you can see the resemblance in a deity who exists in some sense, but is not physically there or anywhere.

Causal Absence also has physical implications in "strange attractors" of chaos & fractals, and for the "great attractor" out in the cosmos, yet there is nothing there. Even the physical notion of Entropy seems to be pointing to a state of nothingness in the future, toward which all things in the world seem to be "pulled". Are non-existent strings attached to such sink-holes in reality? :wink:

Constitutive absence: A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
http://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

: Don't tell Hillary this as I think I can probably get a lifetime subscription out of him for the SCIgodians. I would normally only reveal this to my most trusted upper circle of the SCIgodian leadership structure but SCI has nothing to do with the word science.
It actually stands for Simple Con Idea! :lol: — universeness

Oop! :blush:

What exists is defined as that which may be known by the mind or otherwise, it does not exist. By convention, things can exist within the confines of the mind as fallacy or reality. The mind is known as the consciousness in individuality, which is born of awareness. In other words, the origin of individuality is the same as the origin of the mind. Also, the mind is the precursor to every state that evokes duality or multiple circumstances. In other words, the mind is the principal source of all perceptions, conceptions, illusions, imaginings, etc. This means that all phenomena are dependent and it does not exist in an intrinsic way like this or that on their own sides, unrelated to the consciousness that perceives them.

Of course. But many scientists can't and will stick to the woo woo no matter what — Hillary

But those few scientists that are in that category, remain at the fringe or are even ridiculed by the main scientific community.
In the vast majority of those cases, the science community is correct but sometimes they are wrong and when that happens, we normally have a very welcome breakthrough and a complete change of direction and focus. All hail the very very very rare scientist whose idea seemed like looney tunes but actually proved to be correct.

You mean the woo woo of many worlds? — Hillary

The multiverse theory is not woo woo, it has many advocates amongst established cosmologists.
I am not a fake news peddler, I don't ignore those who are established experts in their field because some individuals or groups of malcontents in society, advise me to.

They can suck my eternal di... oops! :lol: — Hillary

And I don't wanna get lost in the dark eternally! — Hillary

Careful sinner! Lest you shall reap the whirlwind and be damned by your own utterances.

What awaits me in that case? Eternal awareness in the light with a lot of input? — Hillary

No cash no cure! You think SCIgod is a charity? What level of salvation in the afterlife can you afford?
Abandon all hope. Utter darkness has no meaning of its own. It is hungry for your eternally aware presence. Your damnation and the damnation of your like, will sate its hunger.
One special introductory offer of £34.99 will rise to £55.99 next month.
Choose wisely Mr Physics man :death:

It actually stands for Simple Con Idea! :lol:
3mReplyOptions
— universeness

Logical conclusion: physics=simpleconideagod! Forget your money! :lol: — Hillary

:rage: :broken: Who told you such lies?????
Of Course, SCI is short for science. I hope it wasn't that fallen exSCIgodian @Agent Smith who told you this totally FAKE BS that I typed that SCI stood for Simple Con Idea.
He just makes stuff up! Our lawyers are going to sue him.
Join us brother. Join our happy family. :halo:

:chin:

Terrence Deacon has coined a new term for non-existence. He uses "absence" & "absential" to refer to a state that has not-yet been realized or actualized. It is especially apt for describing human intentions. His definition of causal non-existence does not specifically refer to a god, but you can see the resemblance in a deity who exists in some sense, but is not physically there or anywhere. — Gnomon

Do you therefore agree, that all human thought, projects conceptualisations and interpretations upon what we individually experience since birth? We then rely on others to support/confirm/deny/correct our personal concepts and interpretations.
Intelligent humans will employ our best tool, the scientific method, to try to prove that any popular concept or interpretation is correct or wrong based on empirical evidence and, they will assess, how strong the evidence is.
If empirical evidence cannot be found in support of a concept, then it is at worse, completely rejected, or at best, it is held to the sides, until more knowledge is discovered.

Any causal reference to the god posit as an original source for the Universe has so far, had no evidential support AT ALL except ancient and modern hearsay and the wishful thinking of humans who are simply terrified because they don't know why they are and they fear oblivion after death because they think they may be in some way, still aware of time passing.
The fact that they had no existence for the majority of the past 13.8 billion years does not comfort them.
They need god as their savior because the idea of it not existing simply terrifies them.
Combatting such raw irrational terror is so difficult that I think some theism will always exist amongst humans. I am not so worried about that. I just want to vastly dilute theistic power within human society so that inducing individual humans to commit acts of war or violence or terror on others due to any theistic doctrine becomes as impossible to achieve as possible.

In the vast majority of those cases, the science community is correct but sometimes they are wrong — universeness

Which means the majority sold woowoo.

The multiverse theory is not woo woo, it has many advocates amongst established cosmologists — universeness

Which makes the woowoo even worse!

Careful sinner! Lest you shall reap the whirlwind and be damned by your own utterances. — universeness

Let that wind come! I'll reap it!

Choose wisely Mr Physics man :death: — universeness

I do, I do, brother Uni! :death:

Brother Uni! Even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary you stick to the lie! Forget my subscription! You made it very clear though how many religions function. But there are such examples in the scientific religion just the same.

Any causal reference to the god posit as an original source for the Universe has so far, had no evidential support AT ALL except ancient and modern hearsay and the wishful thinking of humans who are simply terrified because they don't know why they are and they fear oblivion after death because they think they may be in some way, still aware of time passing. — universeness

Objection, objection, your honor! Brother Uni The gods posit might have no evidence in his interpretation of evidence, but that evidence is highly contaminated. We all know science tries to grasp the source of the material just as the gods posit tries. But if the gods posit is posited after the scientific attempt has proven useless, inadequate, meaningless, without reason, and improvable just the same, the posit is justified.

But if the gods posit is posited after the scientific attempt has proven useless, inadequate, meaningless, without reason, and improvable just the same, the posit is justified. — Hillary

A defeatist viewpoint! We cant answer the big questions yet after much effort so let's just surrender to the woo woo god posit. No way! Pascals Wager is surrender at best and absolute cowardice at worse.

A defeatist viewpoint! We cant answer the big questions yet after much effort so let's just surrender to the woo woo god posit. No way! — universeness

The point is, I can answer that question. And the gods even helped me answering it! Pascal wagered, I am sure!

The point is, I can answer that question. And the gods even helped me answering it! Pascal wagered, I am sure — Hillary

Everyone can provide an answer if they choose to. Even the animals can grunt or squeak or quack an answer. That doesn't give such answers any inherent value. Proof boy proof or you are just screaming words into a void where sound doesn't travel. Your answer is more than likely, nowhere near the correct answer. Just like the answers offered by all pernicious theism, including the SCIgodians.

The proof is a cosmological model. A 4d (7d) eternal infinite quantum vacuum on which 3d (6d) real space and TD time emerge periodically. A serial big inflation. In every new big bang, the gods can witness a new and different temporay version of eternal heavenly life. They weren't quite as stupid as you might guess!

Infinite afterlives!

Everyone can provide an answer if they choose to. — universeness

Give me one then!

Give me one then! — Hillary

I already have, many times. A ToE based on String theory/Mtheory and the first cause was a mindless, meaningless spark that no longer has any existence. This is much more likely for me than your 6D manifold and god(s).

I already have, many times. A ToE based on String theory/Mtheory and the first cause was a mindless, meaningless spark that no longer has any existence. This is much more likely for me than your 6D manifold — universeness

Why the ToE of strings is more likely? If you understand it, it offers no clue to dark energy. String theory is a fantasy even worse than gods. Not to speak of a mindless spark. Where the hell did a mindless spark came from?

Why the ToE of strings is more likely? If you understand it, it offers no clue to dark energy. — Hillary

More time is required to complete!

String theory is a fantasy even worse than gods. — Hillary

Says you, from the distant fringes of the scientific community.

Not to speak of a mindless spark. Where the hell did a mindless spark came from? — Hillary

From nowhere! Same as your fictitious god(s)

More time is required to complete! — universeness

There you go again! "Once upon a time in a future, far far away." If the basics are out of touch with reality, it will drift off more and more. Many scientists consider it a dead end street. No wonder, as it arose in the context of the strong interaction.

Says you, from the distant fringes of the scientific community. — universeness

The real stuff happens in the fringes. The modal scientists just repeat the string woowoo. They have no real genius! Majority is no indication of truth. Mass hallucination!

From nowhere! Same as your fictitious god(s) — universeness

Gods didn't appear from nowhere. It takes gods to let the mindless spark come into existence from nowhere. That's the power of creation. And science can't explain that! Which is with which you are struggling. "How can gods create?" The mindless spark is the 4d (7d to fit 6d particles) hyperstructure.