Well, TBCF, if you were standing on the up quark that is part of the neutron in the oxygen atom that is part of the protein molecule that makes up the K/Na pump on the side of a neuron that is part of somebody’s brain, the greater structure of the brain would probably not be evident to you, especially considering the relative distances involved. There is an enormous amount of empty space in your head (as with all matter).
Good analogy - for the time before we invented radio astronomy. Now we can see the structure of the universe. Back when we couldn’t no one could have been expected to make good guesses as to what was going on.
What Voyager said. As well, like I said upthread the light speed limit to transmitting information means that a universe sized brain is simply impossible, period.
We can see the structure and attribute it to physical processes, but can we certainly discern that there is no more to it?
Well, impossible is kind of a stretch. I mean, the cosmic brain could be functioning in a time frame that we cannot grasp, with information flow making what we know as “glacial” frenetic. Of course, in such a case, why would we care, as we could not possibly have any way to communicate with it and it would care about us no more than we about it.
The real flaw with the concept of the universal intelligence is justification: we have developed intelligence because of survival needs, but why then would there be a universal mind? What would it have to think about? This is the question that theistic types fail to even imagine, much less address or answer: why would god exist in the first place?
No, you don’t understand. I mean that it’s physically impossible for information to make it across the universe at all, not just that it’s slow. The expansion of the universe means that light can’t catch up with the matter being carried along in the expansion once you go far enough.
go back and read the thread. and read the section of the book referenced.
that was my understanding of complicated eastern thought.
If you can do better, do so. :dubious:
I don’t need to follow your suggested reading list to know that you’re reciting nonsense as if it were profound.
that may indeed be the definition of ignorance.
Reciting nonsense as if it were profound may be an example of ignorance, but I wouldn’t call it a definition.
Fostering Ignorance, again READ
I daresay if you want to encourage someone to read your source material, you might want to summarize it in a less gibberishy way.
[QUOTE=Moon Meyers]
Fostering Ignorance, again READ
[/quote]
Okay… let’s give it the old college try…
A fine example of modern science - explaining how and why the universe works the way it does. So far so good.
An example of man being able to manipulate raw material for specific purpose. I see no intent of the chair maker to imbue the object with the quality of “chairness”, only with intended utility.
Please explain why we should seriously consider the quality of “chairness” in this context.
Wat?? 
I undestand all the individual words but nothing about the way they are arranged makes any kind of sense to me. Does it make sense to you? Please explain.
In other words…<sings>… We’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here…<rinse/repeat>
That’s a nonsensical lyric sung by a bunch of bored 12 year olds trapped on a long bus excursion. So it’s true; Everything I ever needed to know I learned in elementary school.
Describing something as “complicated eastern philosophy” does not imbue the idea with enlightenment or inherent wisdom. Gibberish by any other name is still gibberish.
God does care about what happens and a series of events that has a recorded beginning, predicted middle, and predetermined end is hardly random.
As for atheists, I feel a little bad for them. It’s A LOT harder to prove that something doesn’t exist than it is to prove that something does. Making it exponentially more frustrating for them is the fact that “believers” are expected to believe with OR without proof. Ouch.
Luckily then, I don’t have to prove anything.
It’s the believer that has to convince me that what he believes is actually true.
It’s a bit like this;
RadioActiveRich: “Hi, I believe there to be leprechauns under my hat. Do you?”
Latro: “Hahaha…no.”
And now it’s somehow up to me to prove there aren’t any leprechauns under your hat?
I don’t think so. You show me the leprechauns, then I’ll believe you.
I would imagine it to be more frustrating for the religious. It is they that are expected to believe, without a shred of proof. Furthermore they have no leprechauns to show to the unbeliever, I imagine that must be quite frustrating.
So, based on your own arguments I would sooner feel sorry for the believers
How is it that the higher consciousness is not you?
that is my point
That something exists in a conceptual state does not imply it must also exist in a real state.
OK, you do realise that ‘your point’ has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of God?
Only that there may not be a quality of “chairness”
sorry, only that there may not be “chairness”