The Religion Discussion

[bluesclues]

lol.. good luck in your studies bro. i dont have to defend any of this. its on the record. so.. time will prove me right. idc really. about to go have a ball at a chinese buffet party.. peace b!tches

[bluesclues]

yes we can.. this universe known as the tangible universe is separate from the others.. intangible ones. but you wouldnt know that.. uve never travelled to any of them

as ive said before.. this is the only universe like this. with pain and suffering and death. enjoy yourselves.. and distract yourselves with sports stats.. make urself comfortable. enjoy the steak and remain trapped in the matrix.. forever.

[bluesclues]

man this sheit is so easy and i cant move past this to teach the deeper mysteries if people dont get this basic understanding of the structure of the universe. i guess.. man is just not ready. level up .. postponed until further notice.

[MD Marketers]

Readers save yourself the trouble of reading the discussion between me and bluesclues.
Here is the summary of the discussion:

MD:
"Make your conclusion follow your premise" & I will understand your "REASONING"

Bluesclues:
"I don't know how to do that" even though it's so easy once you learn to speak "HOLISM"

It's a good thing this wasn't a debate.

[bluesclues]

the fault is all yours for not understanding the reasoning. "blame the book for me not understanding" they say. lol. dude.. im not insulting you.. but consciousness evolves.. and its just that you and most others havent developed yourselves enough consciously to process the reasoning. im sure there are physicists who can and will should they come across this thread and my posts. but ive really provided you a very solid and connected path of reasoning. trust me.. the fault that you cant understand it.. is on you. most of yall quit on the books calling the phallacies. how come i understand the bible? the whole thing yes. theres no problems in there for me. but for what 7billion people its wrought with contradiction. its oin them for not developing their consciousness. its on them for stagnating. its on them for looking for shortcuts. its on them for failing to procure.

[MD Marketers]

A fault is all yours for not understanding the reasoning. "blame the book for me not understanding" they say. lol. dude.. im not insulting you.. but consciousness evolves.. and its just that you and most others havent developed yourselves enough consciously to process the reasoning. im sure there are physicists who can and will should they come across this thread and my posts. but ive really provided you a very solid and connected path of reasoning. trust me.. the fault that you cant understand it.. is on you. most of yall quit on the books calling the phallacies. how come i understand the bible? the whole thing yes. theres no problems in there for me. but for what 7billion people its wrought with contradiction. its oin them for not developing their consciousness. its on them for stagnating. its on them for looking for shortcuts. its on them for failing to procure.

[rspann]

You two have any proof of what you talking about?

[MD Marketers]

You two have any proof of what you talking about?

That depends on what you think we are talking about.

Bluesclues is claiming that consciousness exists, it affects this reality & it is a form of Energy.
I haven't denied that consciousness exists, nor that it can affect this reality.
I denied his claim that consciousness is energy.
I asked for him to show some form of logic to describe how he came up with the concept that "consciousness is energy".
I believe he was actually very close to piecing together his entire puzzle, there was just a few pieces missing.
Eventually he gave up. I'm not 100% sure why he gave up.
I believe one of the reasons he gave up is because one of his conclusions never followed his base premise when he tried to prove his point. Making his argument sound like a logical fallacy.
I kept pointing it out to him and he stopped trying. He used the common "cop-out" the "insert God here" speaks to him in mysterious ways. His God is something called the wave. His world view is something called "holism" & he claims it is an evolved for of reasoning, which I pointed out coincidentally matches the devolved form of reasoning.

These are the facts from what I gathered.
His reason for leaving the discussion I am not 100% sure as yet, and probably never will be.

It could also be because of this rude comment I made:

I think I'm getting there.
It's like "Holism" is a language with only one word, that can mean anything we want it to mean.

I'm beginning to understand the language now:
"Consciousness is Energy because HOLISM HOLISM HOLISM HOLISM"

Maybe one day I might finally start speaking true HOLISM & my words will sound like this:
"HOLISM is HOLISM HOLISM HOLISM HOLISM"

Oops gramatical error, I slipped an "is" in there

But you Mr Bluesclues have transcended the language in it's utmost purity.
For you would not need to say "HOLISM" 6 times to make a statement.
Only once would be sufficient right?

Wait wasn't HOLISM a Pokemon?
Are you a Pokemon?

Sorry that was rude of me but I'm not editing it. We need the laugh.

I hope he is ok

[MD Marketers]

Bluesclues,

I'm actually trying to follow your logic but you won't even do the one thing necessary to communicate logic. We need a valid base assumption to start discussion.
Throughout this entire thread you repeated that no one is listening to you countless times.
This is probably the first time someone has taken the time & patience to acknowledge your theories on this forum.
Why are you not willing to teach now that your wishes to have an audience have been fulfilled?

All I want in return is for you to use logical reasoning to arrive at your conclusions.
Start with a base premise and follow from there.
This is the 5th time I'm asking.
The ball is in your court.

[bluesclues]

lol dude i told ya i was going to a chinese buffet. i was out all day and just got back in.

so well tell me what first 3 steps are missing. from before what exactly? if i left any blanks its because i assumed u at least had already studied to that level. if i have to add more blanks it means again that i overestimated your level of study and again have to lower the bar to explain more basic scientific concepts. but we will see. tell where to start from.

let me say it again in a different way.

the statement consciousness is energy is looked at from 2 perspectives. u only know one.. from inside the box looking outward. from this perspective as all of us inside this universe are looking outward we are unable to separate energy from nothing. and that statement is both literal and metaphorically accurate at the same time. where there is nothing/empty space, we know there is energy. we just dont know how to harness it. how to excite "nothing" to produce light/energy. and where there is consciousness.. we see nothing. we know consciousness exists but when we look where its supposed to be.. its just seems to be empty space.

the 2nd perspective is from the outside the box looking in. this is known as the true perspective. as we are no longer the observer, but we are now sitting in the perspective of the thing being observed. from this perspective we can see that from outside the box there must be a catalyst that excites empty space to manifest energy. and ive just rightly put it in its place, the piece of the puzzle. filling in the blank. and making a definitive statement that that is where consciousness resides. and if it's ever discovered and confirmed through science.. that is where they are going to find it. i can say more things about the attributes of consciousness. like it doesnt have limits, it doesnt recognize borders. it can pass through matter just as easily as it can pass through a gas or empty space. it can travel 50 km in the same time it takes to travel 5million light years. a permeating living energy. that skillfully activates to create and sustain life in a well.. rather harsh environment.

[MD Marketers]

lol dude i told ya i was going to a chinese buffet. i was out all day and just got back in.

so well tell me what first 3 steps are missing. from before what exactly? if i left any blanks its because i assumed u at least had already studied to that level. if i have to add more blanks it means again that i overestimated your level of study and again have to lower the bar to explain more basic scientific concepts. but we will see. tell where to start from.

let me say it again in a different way.

the statement consciousness is energy is looked at from 2 perspectives. u only know one.. from inside the box looking outward. from this perspective as all of us inside this universe are looking outward we are unable to separate energy from nothing. and that statement is both literal and metaphorically accurate at the same time. where there is nothing/empty space, we know there is energy. we just dont know how to harness it. how to excite "nothing" to produce light/energy. and where there is consciousness.. we see nothing. we know consciousness exists but when we look where its supposed to be.. its just seems to be empty space.

the 2nd perspective is from the outside the box looking in. this is known as the true perspective. as we are no longer the observer, but we are now sitting in the perspective of the thing being observed. from this perspective we can see that from outside the box there must be a catalyst that excites empty space to manifest energy. and ive just rightly put it in its place, the piece of the puzzle. filling in the blank. and making a definitive statement that that is where consciousness resides. and if it's ever discovered and confirmed through science.. that is where they are going to find it. i can say more things about the attributes of consciousness. like it doesnt have limits, it doesnt recognize borders. it can pass through matter just as easily as it can pass through a gas or empty space. it can travel 50 km in the same time it takes to travel 5million light years. a permeating living energy. that skillfully activates to create and sustain life in a well.. rather harsh environment.

Thanks for returning.

Mistake #1:
If you are justifying a non scientific theory you don't get to assume the audience can fill in the blanks.
What possible reason you would assume uncommon knowledge carries the assumption of common knowledge to the listener?

Mistake #2:
"where there is empty space, we know there is energy"
How did you arrived at this conclusion?
If you are saying that it has been proven that all instances of empty space carry some form of energy then this is news to me & my understanding of science.
You will have to justify this somehow. As I said before when you are covering an unproven scientific concept you cannot assume uncommon knowledge will be common amongst your listeners.
That's counter intuitive for you to do that.

Mistake #3:
You continue to correlate more premises & seemingly valid conclusions based on the seemingly invalid initial premise/conclusion "where there is empty space, we know there is energy".
I already pointed out this is a baseless assumption until you can show a proper methodology of how you arrived at that conclusion.
You keep assuming we should know these "basic things".
Well they aren't basic. The very concept that consciousness is energy is not a basic one so why do you keep assuming that it is?

Please address these mistakes before proceeding.

Side note:
I researched holism in depth and found that it is no different to my approach to logic & reasoning.

Holism assumes that we cannot make near absolute conclusions until we examine all aspects of a theory & combine all their valid implications to justify our final conclusion.
If so much as one necessary argument should fail our final conclusion will be flawed.

This in fact is the very definition of how I view deductive reasoning & logic.

[bluesclues]

there is more to holism than one topic. holism can be broadened to unify multiple topics, making them all sub-topics of one larger topic. trust me, a 5 minute study of holism is not the same as a 5 year focal study on holistic thinking and analysis. after that i continued to expand on my use of holism to create a major topic that is like a 'theory of everything'. building a model from all the facts surrounding science, nature, politics, psychology, nature, economics, religion etc. i would say u just need to do more studying. it is only so far the tamarind branch could bend. u got to pick urself up and get it on the level. im not missing anything. its not my fault the audience needs a science class to understand. the schools were supposed to accomplish this. i know, they dont. at least not successfully over the large scale. and mostly because alot of people dont really have the time or interest in real science. just the cool inventions they see pop up every now and again in the media.

its one thing to complain that the writings in a religious book are too vague, and then when provided detailed scientific analysis the audience is unable to properly process all the information. its like there's no helping a situation like that. you cant give credit to the accurate but too vague. and ur not able to process the detailed layout based on scientific facts. ALL based on scientific facts and data. science cant f4rt and i dont know about it. im right up to breast with just about every scientific discovery made to date. fully understanding its progress.. and of course, tucking it under my holism belt and fitting it into it's puzzle piece space to make clearer the larger picture.

ur asking me questions that have all been answered as well. especially in the lecture i posted on empty space. they explain just about every concept ive interfaced in this discussion. so u see u dont fully understand empty space. thats why u ask me "if that is a scientific fact". its no assumption that "everywhere there is empty space there is energy". well its a scientific fact under the banner of theoretical physics. one which gave rise to the zero point theory as i demonstrated previously, and the investigations towards that angle. i trust you know how that operates within the theoretical circles. or maybe i should just trust that you just have a standard 5 level science training?

when you bring yourself up to speed ull understand all that i said and see the correlations. because theyre there. presented multiple times in multiple ways from multiple angles in an attempt to make it easier to understand. but i need to make it easier and easier like i need to teach you basic science before i can move on to anywhere. and certainly not to chat about gravitation and quantum space theories just yet. this stuff seems to be flying over your head, but its really straightforward scientific statements with a scientific foundation that was also properly tested before i came on a forum to talk sh!t. lol

you should probably know that for me. there is more to my drivel than just foruming. i think of myself as a representative of the truth of the teachings of the ancients and true mystics. i cant.. make a mistake. or it shines a bad light and misrepresents the mystic group and it's truths as frauds. i have to be consistent. i have to have a solid knowledgebase. whatever point im arguing i must already truly know and have studied deeply. in other words not fighting battles i cant win. or rather. had already won before it even started. having properly tested knowing fact that others just have not yet been privy to discovering. perhaps too distracted by their televisions. so for me, there's alot more riding on what im saying to provide the proper representation of a true mystic scientist. to maintain the message and to insist that the ancients are not liars, or frauds, or tricksters. sure, theres been alot of frauds throughout history. cooks and quacks of all sorts. but there is certainly merit to the teachings of the ancients. and science can jump high it could jump low. it is eventually going to agree with everything in those books.

u might ask, what is a "mystic scientist"
well its someone who's a mathematician, follows and keeps abreast of the scientific progress, studied and practiced the scientific method. and incorporated and applied it to testing theories found in religious texts. finally also, the mystic scientist, must have succeeded at completing a test with a successful result as promised by the text. another condition for this completion of a successful experiment is that the text on the topic must not be vague. so a detailed text, producing a theory, that when tested, is discovered to have been true. then.. and only then does one become a mystic scientist. if he's still working with theories and incomplete experiments he/she has not yet graduated to that title. he is a mere researcher/scientist. so basically i have raised the bar. many think that once they begin researching mysticism they are now a mystic. and i say.. no.

[MD Marketers]

You keep avoiding the question.

"where there is empty space, we know there is energy"
Is the same aa
"all instances of empty space carry some form of energy"

Your challenge is simple:
Show me where you came across this information. Even if the thought just popped into existence there is nothing stopping you from explaining the concept via the use of real scientific facts.

Is it that you can't explain how you came across this knowledge or that you won't?
No one is asking you to explain the universe, all I'm asking is to back up just this 1 point you made with some form of logical reasoning.

There is no such thing as a "scientific fact under the banner of theoretical science". That would be a scientific theory.

Each time you claim the proof of something is because "everyone knows it" you are committing a logical fallacy that stifles the communication process.
What you are doing is called an "appeal to the masses". Instead of proving your point you claim the reason your argument is valid is because you omnisciently know everyone knows it. Well I hate to break it to you, everyone doesn't know (I surely don't), & if you continue to avoid answering this question because of this dishonest tactic then it just shows how dishonest and fraudulent you are.

Logical Fallacies are the enemies of reasoning. Agreed?

Examples of logical fallacies are:
Appeal to authority
Appeal to the masses
Appeal to the question
Invalid conclusions
Circular logic

[bluesclues]

i never avoid questions. never. it seems ur having a bit of a lapse atm. i said.. watch the lecture i posted on 'the mystery of empty space' and you will see it there.. as divulged by a well known physicist. smh

anyway heading maracas for the day. later ladies n gents.

[MD Marketers]

i never avoid questions. never. it seems ur having a bit of a lapse atm. i said.. watch the lecture i posted on 'the mystery of empty space' and you will see it there.. as divulged by a well known physicist. smh

anyway heading maracas for the day. later ladies n gents.

Logical fallacy:
Appeal to authority.
Explain it yourself. You made the claim that you have complete knowledge on the subject matter but when asked to explain you redirect the discussion to a controversial scientific discussion that only leaves more unanswered questions than answers because the authors are not here to explain themselves in the face of questions.

There is another name for what your doing. Its called:
Intellectual Dishonesty.

Example:

I never avoid questions, never

How is consciousness energy?

Ask yuh mudda

How is this not avoiding the question?
No one is accusing you of ignoring the question, you're deliberately avoiding it.

You made the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you to explain it.

What good reason do you have for consistently avoiding the question?
It would seem that you cannot answer the question because you don't know how to answer it yourself. This makes your claim a "baseless assumption". Level Up.

[bluesclues]

mm i never said "ask yuh mudda" so u couldnt be quoting me on that. but i probably said something in a way that was too technical for you to process. ill try to break it down tomorrow. it's another beach day for me today

u asked if the statement "consciousness is energy" is accepted scientific fact. i said yes.. watch the lecture. i then also explained how the concept of role reversal applies to the statement. i explained how consciousness is energy and why it isnt at the same time. stating that thats how it is for us looking from inside the universe. inside the universe, conscious and energy seem as one and the same. from outside the universe energy is just an attribute of consciousness. one of many. i showed you how dark matter etc share many attributes with those assigned to consciousness(if it walks like a duck...). so ur being a bit strange now bro. first you keep askin me where is my scientific support for my claims. i give you scientific support.. u say stop leaning on acccredited people say it in my own words. u realize everything i say is in my own words right? providing scientific links to show how the picture is painted from science. hope u dont think im copy/pasting from somewhere. in a sense ive put together the picture science is developing before they did. that's all really.

i told u i understand that you dont have evidence to view for yourself. and modestly accept the idea that my concepts are thus cast and will remain as theoretical concepts until proven. in a sense i have told you the future of discovery. well.. yeah.. basically.

[bluesclues]

intellectual dishonesty.. lel

as a person who believes that the truth always comes out. u really think that a representative of the ancients is going to try to trick u with fluff talk? as far as i believe i answered every question posed to me directly. u on the other hand seemed to have skimmed thru my posts and missed the only 2 questions ive asked you thus far.

[MD Marketers]

mm i never said "ask yuh mudda" so u couldnt be quoting me on that. but i probably said something in a way that was too technical for you to process. ill try to break it down tomorrow. it's another beach day for me today

u asked if the statement "consciousness is energy" is accepted scientific fact. i said yes.. watch the lecture. so ur being a bit strange now bro. first you keep askin me where is my scientific support for my claims. i give you scientific support.. u say stop leaning on acccredited people say it in my own words. u realize everything i say is in my own words right? providing scientific links to show how the picture is painted from science. hope u dont think im copy/pasting from somewhere. in a sense ive put together the picture science is developing before they did. that's all really.

Eg. Means example
It's an analogy that shows that when asked a question, instead of answering the question with logical reasoning you answer it with an appeal to some (subjectively) higher authority as a means of answering the question.

How did you take a metaphor to mean something literal is astounding for someone that claims to know everything.

No one is saying you cannot refer to other people's research for verification of your explanation, but when it comes to logic and reasoning it is considered a logical fallacy to use it as part of your explanation instead of a simple form of verification. It is not a proper way to prove a point. It is unscientific and for someone that claims to have once been an advocate of science you seem to have missed out on the basics. Level up the right way.

Eg.

Why do you think I own a Benz?

Improper Reasoning:
Because John said you drive a Benz.

Proper reasoning:
Because I noticed the certified copy has your name on it.

The first one has no bearing on ownership and does not help answer the question unless I speak to John.
The second one is based on "your" deduction based on evidence you personally gathered.

The discussion is between "me & you" & not between "me & John".

[bluesclues]

well for one.. i am still an advocate for science. i love science nothings really changed in that department. yeah well i already gave you all that proper reasoning earlier. when i had no credibility.. i know i probably still have none lol. but when i say how i know and how i tested it its' going to sound too crazy for you guys.

and well the conversation is betwen you and john.. because well my name is John

heading out the door so last try for today.

consciousness is energy because it it occupies empty space where we know dark energy resides, it is invisible just like dark energy, it excited dark energy to manifest energy just like dark energy(minus catalyst) etc etc. where there is empty space there is energy. where there is empty space there is consciousness.

consciousness is NOT energy because truly, energy is just an attribute of consciousness residing in empty space. moving faster than the speed of light and thus does not manifest in this reality because of the limits of physical laws set on this universe. we only get to track those things that are light speed and slower. what is going on outside this universe is on a hyperspeed lane. and this allows multiple worlds to exist within infinite dimensions. as infinity is a property of energy.. it's parent/catalyst and all that exist outside this universe will possess that attribute as well. limits are thing that is ony for this world. physical laws set the limits and we are forced to obey those physical laws with 0 choice in the matter.

essentially, there is no such thing as empty space. only space where we are unable to detect that which occupies it.

[mamoo_pagal]

http://www.obeahrituals.com/#panel-5

any atheist willing to try?

[MG Man]

meem even clickin dat link

[Chimera]

Why would a athiest want to try obeah? That's for the religious folk to use.

[MD Marketers]

well for one.. i am still an advocate for science. i love science nothings really changed in that department. yeah well i already gave you all that proper reasoning earlier. when i had no credibility.. i know i probably still have none lol. but when i say how i know and how i tested it its' going to sound too crazy for you guys.

and well the conversation is betwen you and john.. because well my name is John

heading out the door so last try for today.

consciousness is energy because it it occupies empty space where we know dark energy resides, it is invisible just like dark energy, it excited dark energy to manifest energy just like dark energy(minus catalyst) etc etc. where there is empty space there is energy. where there is empty space there is consciousness.

consciousness is NOT energy because truly, energy is just an attribute of consciousness residing in empty space. moving faster than the speed of light and thus does not manifest in this reality because of the limits of physical laws set on this universe. we only get to track those things that are light speed and slower. what is going on outside this universe is on a hyperspeed lane. and this allows multiple worlds to exist within infinite dimensions. as infinity is a property of energy.. it's parent/catalyst and all that exist outside this universe will possess that attribute as well. limits are thing that is ony for this world. physical laws set the limits and we are forced to obey those physical laws with 0 choice in the matter.

essentially, there is no such thing as empty space. only space where we are unable to detect that which occupies it.

[MD Marketers]

Anglicans,
I recently had a discussion with a female friend of mine who claimed she was an Anglican even though she believed that doing wrong could land her in hell.
I tried to show her that she need not worry about hell so longst as she believed in Jesus as represented by the Anglican faith. She claimed that I do not know what I'm talking about because I'm not Anglican.

Here is my understanding of the Anglican Faith based on a comparison to other Christian denominations.

1. Only faith (accepting the body of Christ) is sufficient to achieve heaven. Good deeds don't count.
2. Only the Bible is sufficient for matters of faith.
3. Only the Bible is sufficient for matters of science.
4. There is no need for a Pope.
5. The Ritualistic Eucharist isn't as important as the Symbolic Eucharist.
6. The only 2 sacraments required for a rite of passage into heaven are Baptism & Eucharist.
7. There is no Purgatory for Anglican sinners to achieve heaven. Believe & Receive.

Did I get it wrong?


Here is another thing to consider:

The people that followed the teachings of Christ for the first 50 years after his death weren't Anglicans. What would be their faith considering they did not follow the 7 defining traits of Anglicanism?
I think they might end up in hell according to Anglican Theology.

What do you think?

[York]

the unconscious may be the king because the conscious is not aware of the former.

2 madmen having a discussion about who perceives the intangible, unprovable better...

the irony: both madmen are unconscious of their consciousness being fit for St Anns or Parliament...

Dan! I reading here and was like .....blues clues got company?

i wouldn't doubt that he may be challenging himself....to win a discussion and evolve into the next avatar state...cause he's that gifted!

[MD Marketers]

the unconscious may be the king because the conscious is not aware of the former.

2 madmen having a discussion about who perceives the intangible, unprovable better...

the irony: both madmen are unconscious of their consciousness being fit for St Anns or Parliament...

Dan! I reading here and was like .....blues clues got company?

i wouldn't doubt that he may be challenging himself....to win a discussion and evolve into the next avatar state...cause he's that gifted!

I wonder if he thinks he might lose his gifts if he loses the discussion & admits it?

[York]

the unconscious may be the king because the conscious is not aware of the former.

2 madmen having a discussion about who perceives the intangible, unprovable better...

the irony: both madmen are unconscious of their consciousness being fit for St Anns or Parliament...

Dan! I reading here and was like .....blues clues got company?

i wouldn't doubt that he may be challenging himself....to win a discussion and evolve into the next avatar state...cause he's that gifted!

I wonder if he thinks he might lose his gifts if he loses the discussion & admits it?

when i said challenging "himself", i meant that you MD Marketers IS his next avatar state.

[MD Marketers]

the unconscious may be the king because the conscious is not aware of the former.

2 madmen having a discussion about who perceives the intangible, unprovable better...

the irony: both madmen are unconscious of their consciousness being fit for St Anns or Parliament...

Dan! I reading here and was like .....blues clues got company?

i wouldn't doubt that he may be challenging himself....to win a discussion and evolve into the next avatar state...cause he's that gifted!

I wonder if he thinks he might lose his gifts if he loses the discussion & admits it?

when i said challenging "himself", i meant that you MD Marketers IS his next avatar state.

[bluesclues]

I personally don't find this sounds crazy. It's logical from a theoretical point of view and starts with a base premise. This is all I was asking for. The method in which you arrived at your conclusion.


Now that you have refined your theory I am able to understand it much better:

lol ive explained it like this before.. but perhaps not on this forum. or maybe even.. waay back on this thread somewhere. the trick is finding an explanation that suits your knowledge level, psychology and getting you to formulate a vivid picture of the universe in operation in your mind.

Premise 1: Dark Matter is the theoretical name we would give to the matter which drives the unobservable force that accelerates the expansion of the universe and also powers black holes. Scientific fact the name exists should we ever be able to observe the actual matter instead of just it's effects. Also known as Anti-Matter because it is assumed to be massless.

problem 1
this is science's problem. again, because they only observe from inside this universe looking outward they see and note everything backwards. earth is not the starting point of the universe. and so because of a lack of perspective, we see everything backwards. this is called "thru the looking glass". remember i said.. consciousness causes matter to manifest by slowing the oscillation rate of itself in different forms. this is an acceptable poise in physics from what we know about empty space. so from dark energy's perspective.. it is slowing itself down but because science is viewing from inside only, they see it as though matter speeds up until it becomes dark matter. hope u understand the change in perspective. and how it changes the viewpoint by placing us at the starting point looking forward.. and not the finishing point looking backward. this is one of the areas of contradiction in science due to specialization. one group working on matter see it as speeding up. which technically it is(for us).. but really isnt. while another group specializing in empty space see it as slowing down. what was there before is moving faster than light by great oodles. and it slowed down certain aspects in certain ways for matter and energy/light etc to manifest visible to those inside this universe.

Premise 2: Dark Energy is the name we give the observable effect that theoretical Dark Matter/Anti-Matter has on the Universe. We know the energy is real because of it's effects. Therefore Dark Energy is real in the same way Electricity is real. It's a provable real process.
Conclusion 1: Since Dark Energy is real it shows that non observable/non physical things (eg. anti-matter, consciousness, gravity, etc.) can have the ability to affect observable/physical things.

Premise 3: This doesn't necessarily mean they exist but we cannot deny they exist simply because we cannot observe the physical matter that drives the energy.

^problem 2

the physical matter that drives the energy? again.. a lookingglass issue. there is no way there is matter driving energy. forces mold, manifest, sustain and drive matter. not the other way around. and it is those forces effects on it's surrounding we view as a type of energy(there are other forms of energy)

Premise 4: Consciousness exists, because we know we exist. Philosophical fact.

Ok so far so good, but this is where my red flags went off:
Premise 5: Consciousness exists in empty space just like unobservable Dark Matter. Please provide reason.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, Consciousness is energy because it exists in empty space. Invalid Argument because it does not follow the premises provided.

You are lacking further information to validate your point.

im not lacking the information. its just i havent conveyed it to you yet.

consciousness exists in empty space just like unobservable dark matter(which is NOT matter at all but a wave/field) because dark matter cannot excite itself for no reason. the catalyst that acts upon dark matter i have identified as the source consciousness. this is the only way and only catalyst that is reasonably and logically possible to the start of the big bang. it's the only catalyst that can break newton's laws of motion. because it can itself decide to animate or excite energy out of itself. besides that science assumes that the catalyst is dumb and a sort of robotic autonomy which did all this for no reason. but most importantly.. a catalyst needs to be introduced into an environment. but who or what did the introducing??? science sometimes seems to assume that we can track catalyst after catalyst right up the chain without finding a starting point. i could say so much about this but dont want to confuse you. ill just cut that there for now.

to use an old analogy. lets take a piece of black cloth 1yard x 1yard in size. we will use this to represent the fabric of dark matter. now..turn that cloth into a functionable, artistic, and useful or fashionable dress. the cloth cant do this on its own. if u left it on a table would u be able to come back in a billion years and find a fully designed dress waiting in it's place? nope. but a conscious intervention by a seamstress could. the seamstress is conscious. and so it has a facility that autonomous creatures(robots) do not have... CREATIVITY. but now.. lets take the consciousness away from the seamstress and give it to the cloth. so now the cloth is conscious. NOW.. this cloth can manipulate itself, design itself, remodel and remake itself from part or all of itself into another form. a dress, a kerchief, or some other cloth product because it doesnt need any further or previous catalyst coming before it.

this to me best describes what is going on with dark matter. it is at the very least "dual-attributed". one facet is fabric of dark matter. but the main facet is that it is conscious and so can act as its own catalyst. just like u can pinch yourself, consciousness and dark matter are ONE just like that. when consciousness pinches itself, matter/energy manifests.

so now we dont have to keep asking. so what was the catalyst for the big bang? and what was the catalyst that made that catalyst catalyze.. and what was the catalyst that started all that.. on and on and on forever without end. no.. it's right there. the end or rather beginning of the catalyzation process is right there. before the big bang, consciousness existed with dark matter. it pinched itself.. there was a big bang and matter flooded this universe as the pinch slowed down that area of itself so that the oscillations of existence could become apparent to those within this matrix/universe.

back to newton a bit.
an object if moving in a vaccuum will continue moving at the same velocity etc unless an external force acts upon it.
an object if standing still, will not move unless an external force acts upon it.

this is the issue. we know there must be a catalyst that got us to the big bang. but if that catalyst was unconscious, then it will require another catalyst to act upon it to get it to catalyze. but if it's conscious, it can act as its own catalyst. and we wont be in an eternal conundrum anymore.

make sense?

[bluesclues]

the unconscious may be the king because the conscious is not aware of the former.

2 madmen having a discussion about who perceives the intangible, unprovable better...

the irony: both madmen are unconscious of their consciousness being fit for St Anns or Parliament...

Dan! I reading here and was like .....blues clues got company?

i wouldn't doubt that he may be challenging himself....to win a discussion and evolve into the next avatar state...cause he's that gifted!

I wonder if he thinks he might lose his gifts if he loses the discussion & admits it?

no i wont lose my gifts. what i would lose is hope and belief that ill be able to convey this to the world efficiently in my lifetime. im not wrong.. as i said, time will prove me right. which is why ive placed these discussions on the internet. for me the internet acts as a timecapsule storing my presentations fo as long as it will take for science to finally discover that what im saying is true.