Asrahn
New Member
Hey fellas, hope this would be the right section, because in all honesty I am not sure what the hell to call it.
Short story is that I've been having a huge argument with a guy on youtube, (target video found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJxCFa8YmbQ&feature=email , fellas name is swingerproductions) where he continuously claims that because we are "part" of the universe, whenever we think, the "universe" thinks. He summed his reasoning in 8 points, displayed below, of why he is right, and why everyone who thought of us being "in" the universe is wrong.
IE: The universe is conscious, at a higher level than us.
He claims that his, quote, "argument is logically deduced using pure reason." and that if I find a flaw, then it would be "great.." otherwise I would "have to absorb this into your standpoint as an Atheist". And if I don't then I am "guilty of dogma like the theists."
I've naturally called him on his bullshit many a time, spending a few hours bantering yesterday, and when I came back today he had kept ranting for what seemed like half the bloody night. I went down to responding to him that all he had done was twist the word "universe" to better fit his philosophy. From my point of view, it's all damned wordplay on his part, which he somehow draws what I consider a very much theistic or otherwise supernatural (philosophical?) conclusion from. I have a hard time placing what his damned theory would fall into category wise, but it seems the regular "present proof" does not work on him. He has evidently "presented proof in the form of logical deduction", something that he claimed is "acceptable in every scientific circle!".
For me, this is a nutter, but I am simply too young and inexperienced to tackle him it seems. I don't know enough.
Going back to me mead, shoot me down, or tell me what you think people.
Short story is that I've been having a huge argument with a guy on youtube, (target video found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJxCFa8YmbQ&feature=email , fellas name is swingerproductions) where he continuously claims that because we are "part" of the universe, whenever we think, the "universe" thinks. He summed his reasoning in 8 points, displayed below, of why he is right, and why everyone who thought of us being "in" the universe is wrong.
I won't prove a religious god/creator but I can prove a higher consciousness which is one step closer to a definition of god and needs to be addressed by any Atheist:
a), The universe is the totality of everything there is.
b) We are part of the universe woven from it's very fabric.
c) Therefore whatever we do, it is actually the universe that is doing that thing (through laws of physics, quatum mechanics etc)
d) Therefore when we think, it is actually the universe that is thinking.
e) Therefore the Universe is conscious in as much as we are conscious.
f) But there are 6 billion humans and countless other conscious entities on this planet, plus any other, conscious entities there may be in the universe as a whole.
g) Therefore the universe is simultaneously experiencing the feelings, thoughts and consciousness of every living entity simultaneously,
h) This is patently at a higher level of consciousness than a single conscious entity such as ourselves.
IE: The universe is conscious, at a higher level than us.
He claims that his, quote, "argument is logically deduced using pure reason." and that if I find a flaw, then it would be "great.." otherwise I would "have to absorb this into your standpoint as an Atheist". And if I don't then I am "guilty of dogma like the theists."
I've naturally called him on his bullshit many a time, spending a few hours bantering yesterday, and when I came back today he had kept ranting for what seemed like half the bloody night. I went down to responding to him that all he had done was twist the word "universe" to better fit his philosophy. From my point of view, it's all damned wordplay on his part, which he somehow draws what I consider a very much theistic or otherwise supernatural (philosophical?) conclusion from. I have a hard time placing what his damned theory would fall into category wise, but it seems the regular "present proof" does not work on him. He has evidently "presented proof in the form of logical deduction", something that he claimed is "acceptable in every scientific circle!".
For me, this is a nutter, but I am simply too young and inexperienced to tackle him it seems. I don't know enough.
Going back to me mead, shoot me down, or tell me what you think people.