Life - How Should It Be Viewed?

[Dilip Panjwani]

'If there is no heaven, what is the point of existing at all?'
This is the notion which makes one believe in all sorts of baseless theories imagining a Heaven high up in the sky or somewhere.
However, as the this guy on Quora Digest explains, there is another way, in which you remain firmly grounded in reality and yet be contented:

Scott Welch
·
Follow
I exist. One day I won't.Updated 1y


If there is no heaven, what is the point of existing at all?
You know, there’s a poem I read over 40 years ago, and it has a line which has stuck with me for all these years:

So instead of getting to Heaven, at last – I’m going, all along.

If you make a great life for yourself and the people and community around you, you can have heaven every single day


(And the definition of a great life is 'whatever your life is...all life is great for the person living it!)

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Pargat:

Nice post with greater elaboration.....there are a number of your statements that I agree with.......I'll specify, since I fundamentally don't accept your "Soul Plan/Suffering" Theology, but wish to get your package right.

I'm playing a weekend chess tournament this weekend, out of Toronto.

I'll respond some time next week.......I find our discussion of your theology most interesting......from lack of comments, except Dilip's somewhat rote atheist responses, though, I'm not sure any other CT'ers care....there comes hence only "crickets" (= silence).

Bob A (Theist)

Hey Bob A, I just watched this video explaining much better than I did the soul planning process ... its about 31 minutes long and chock full of information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JjydDsDdLY

[Pargat Perrer]

Even the nasty troll PP finally gets it !!

Ok, there we have it.

An outright admission that a LIbertarian Natural Law elected government will, in its jurisdiction, TOTALLY ELIMINATE BY FORCE all fossil fuel use on the basis of Natural Law.

Dilip hasn't wanted to confess to this, but I managed to get him to unwittingly admit it.

[Dilip Panjwani]

You hint in your statement that Trudeau's carbon tax is a sensible thing ... a step in the right direction in the Libertarian policy to eliminate fossil fuels entirely

Even the nasty troll PP finally gets it !!

[Pargat Perrer]

The hallmark of a nasty troll applies very well to you: Tell lies about someone and then laugh at those lies!
Even the most climate anxious person does not want to outlaw fossil fuels. On the other hand, as I have mentioned here before, in keeping with Libertarian values, Justin Trudeau has introduced the Carbon tax (the only sensible thing he has done in his tenure) ...

It doesn't matter who wants or doesn't want to outlaw fossil fuels. What matters is the integrity of your Libertarian proclamations that that any violation of Natural Law will be enforced. Since fossil fuels provably harm people, any Libertarian government MUST enforce cessation of all use of fossil fuels, or else they are lying scum ...

the very kind of lying scum you criticize here day in and day out, because YOU are the nasty troll ... and YOU are the liar.

And you can't fall back on your infamous "fair competition" exception to Natural Law, because you defined "fair" as meaning "not using any method to harm others." Fossil fuels provably harm others, therefore fails the "fair" clause.

so ... enforcement of Natural Law means no more use of fossil fuels. Doesn't matter who wants or doesn't want that, it is Libertarian Natural Law policy ... if they have any integrity. LOL

You even hint at this in your statement that Trudeau's carbon tax is a sensible thing ... merely a step in the right direction in the Libertarian policy to eliminate fossil fuels entirely ... again, if they have any integrity.

[Dilip Panjwani]

No such realization, no such evidence. Still a lot of laughter, the guy claiming such evidence exists also claims Libertarianism will enforce Naturel Law but does not support outlawing fossil fuels, which violate Natural Law even under the meaningless "fair competition" clause.

So yeah ... there's gotta be a lot of people laughing at you, Dilip.

The hallmark of a nasty troll applies very well to you: Tell lies about someone and then laugh at those lies!
Even the most climate anxious person does not want to outlaw fossil fuels. On the other hand, as I have mentioned here before, in keeping with Libertarian values, Justin Trudeau has introduced the Carbon tax (the only sensible thing he has done in his tenure) ...

[Pargat Perrer]

And when a nasty troll realizes that there is evidence only for the brain producing consciousness, all he can do is LOL,LOL LOL !!

No such realization, no such evidence. Still a lot of laughter, the guy claiming such evidence exists also claims Libertarianism will enforce Naturel Law but does not support outlawing fossil fuels, which violate Natural Law even under the meaningless "fair competition" clause.

So yeah ... there's gotta be a lot of people laughing at you, Dilip.

[Bob Armstrong]

It is a logical truth - it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

The response is that it is just hiding!

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

LOL this is very funny ....

Atheists hate it when Christians tell them, "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist."

And here we have an atheist saying "You cannot prove that the brain does not produce consciousness."

LOL LOL LOL

And when a nasty troll realizes that there is evidence only for the brain producing consciousness, all he can do is LOL,LOL LOL !!

[Pargat Perrer]

Well, as you yourself have indicated, though in slightly different terminology, consciousness in nature is found only in brains and nowhere outside brains (as yet, and Eben Alexander's claims and the theories discussed by Sid and me, are without any proof). Being an I/O device does not rule out the fact that the brain also produces the consciousness, which after death could (not proven yet) exist independently.

LOL this is very funny ....

Atheists hate it when Christians tell them, "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist."

And here we have an atheist saying "You cannot prove that the brain does not produce consciousness."

LOL LOL LOL

[Sid Belzberg]

The biggest challenge is that our current understanding and methods of detecting consciousness might be biased towards recognizing it in systems similar to our own brains. This is the most probable answer to why consciousness only appears to exist in organic systems only.

In our experiments applying parameters to a quantum computer circuit post-program operations pre-measurement, if one were unaware that the parameters were applied, the output of the Quantum computer would not appear unusual except that detection rates of correct answers improved. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, only observation/detection influences a quantum state, and parameter addition post-quantum operations to a circuit will not influence Quantum State evolution, but we found it does. In particular when the parameters are continually dynamically updated via a genetic algorithm. This is reproducible proof that quantum state evolution is real.


DNA itself is a product of quantum evolution. A gram of subatomic particles in superposition potentially offers computational resources greater than those on the entire planet, yet we have no way of detecting this incredible resource except by the traces it leaves behind, such as the improved detection rates in our Quantum computing experiments.

[Dilip Panjwani]

From Quora Digest:


Divine Atheists
·
Follow
Answered by
James Davis
May 26


If God isn't real, then how could something as big as the Sun work?
Oh, I love this one! If God isn't real, then how could something as big as the Sun work? Well, sit back, my friend, because I'm about to blow your mind with this thing called science.

First off, let's get something straight. The Sun isn't some magic lantern in the sky that God turns on every morning. It's a gigantic ball of hot gas, mostly hydrogen and helium, that’s been burning for about 4.6 billion years. And it works thanks to this nifty process called nuclear fusion. You see, in the Sun’s core, hydrogen atoms are squishing together to form helium, releasing a ton of energy in the process. No divine intervention required, just some good old physics.

Now, I get it, it’s hard to grasp that something as colossal and powerful as the Sun just happens naturally. It’s much easier to believe in a sky daddy waving his magic wand. But let’s give the universe a little more credit. It doesn’t need a celestial handyman to keep things running. Gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism – these are the real heroes making sure the Sun does its thing.

So, the next time you’re tempted to attribute the workings of the Sun to some deity, remember this: humans have landed probes on comets, mapped the human genome, and even figured out how to make a burrito in under a minute with a microwave. Trust me, understanding the Sun isn’t that much of a stretch.

So to boil it all down… the Sun works because the universe is a complex, fascinating place governed by natural laws that we’re slowly uncovering through observation and reason. And that’s way more impressive than any divine finger-poking could ever be.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Well, as you yourself have indicated, though in slightly different terminology, consciousness in nature is found only in brains and nowhere outside brains (as yet, and Eben Alexander's claims and the theories discussed by Sid and me, are without any proof). Being an I/O device does not rule out the fact that the brain also produces the consciousness, which after death could (not proven yet) exist independently.

[Pargat Perrer]

Thank you, Sid, for stressing the fact that consciousness (or soul, as the theologists call it) has a definite physical structure and is a product of our brain;
....

I guess you didn't read what Sid wrote ....

"The brain might be more analogous to an I/O device than the source of consciousness itself."

Exactly what I wrote about souls leaving the body and still having 100% clarity and existence, including vision and hearing, but NOT being able to interface to the physical realm. For that interfacing, and ONLY for that interfacing, the brain / body is required.

Why? Maybe to show us the intelligent design behind it all.

NO ... consciousness is NOT a product of the brain. You can believe what you like, but you can NEVER prove such a claim. Dr. Eben Alexander totally DISPROVED it.

If you want to discuss consciousness arising out of quantum effects, you must address the elephant in the room: Why does consciousness ONLY appear to exist in ORGANIC systems?

And why do such organic systems contain DNA which is by far the most computationally complex entity known to man? (1 gram of DNA can contain the equivalent digital data of a TRILLION CDs).

Why isn't Mt. Everest a conscious being? Well, if you want to claim it IS, you go right ahead and see where it gets you.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Thank you, Sid, for stressing the fact that consciousness (or soul, as the theologists call it) has a definite physical structure and is a product of our brain; whether that is quantum in nature or whether the unique building blocks of consciousness are the same as the uniqueness of electromagnetic brain wave shapes (which can all get added to each other), is debatable. We all hope that our total consciousness (which includes our memories) survives after death, and is able to interact with other consciousnesses even after death, and as you point out, some physical phenomena have raised hopes about that, though nothing is proven yet...
Studying those physical phenomena in some depth, it appears that Deepak Chopra may be right in his interpretation of the ancient Indian belief that after death, all consciousnesses merge into one universal consciousness... and if bliss is a property of every bit of our consciousness (which in this life, we can realize only after training ourselves in 'mindful meditation'), imagine the immense ecstasy after death when we merge into the universal consciousness...