# How do the non-spiritual explain it?



## Boss (Feb 8, 2015)

Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....

Astral projection experiences.
Near-death experiences. 
Transcendental meditation. 
ESP and telepathy. 
Ghost stories and paranormal experiences.
Other unexplained supernatural phenomenon. 
Spells, curses and black magic. 
Edgar Cayce.
Nostradamus.
Prophecy in general. 

Is every single bit of it a bunch of hooey caused by our fears and imagination? 

To me, it just seems as if there might be something more here. Especially in the case of people like Edgar Cayce. If you've never studied up on him, it's worth a search and read... fascinating man. His uncanny ability to predict the future was beyond anything we've ever known. He gave over 14k readings but that includes a brief period where he didn't do them because he was getting headaches. People were exploiting his power to win horse races and trade stock and he believed this was why he was getting the headaches. After some time, he did more readings but only his trusted wife was allowed to ask him questions. 

Can our physical sciences understand this?


----------



## OZman (Feb 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



The short answer is no Boss. The problem is science does not know what consciousness actually is yet, let alone explain higher levels of perception.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 8, 2015)

Here let's see if I can break it down:

*Astral projection experiences - *hallucination of the mind
*Near-death experiences - *hallucination of the mind
*Transcendental meditation *- just smoke weed. It's easier.
*ESP and telepathy - *as you put it... "hooey"
*Ghost stories and paranormal experiences - *also "hooey"
*Other unexplained supernatural phenomenon - *more hooey
*Spells, curses and black magic - *a buttload of hooey
*Edgar Cayce - *see "Miss Cleo"
*Nostradamus - *hooey
*Prophecy in general - *hooey


----------



## cnm (Feb 8, 2015)

Credulity.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> ... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



I don't have any idea why a spiritual man or woman should believe in only one of this points. "Near death" is for example only another expression for life and everyone makes life experiences. Every moment could be the last moment. Another example: Telepathy is existing - but in another way. We are all telepaths. I'm reading your thoughts here for example. And so on, and so on. When god created the world nothing was here before. No space - no energy - no time. Nothing. And now his sun shines over everyone of his children.


----------



## Boss (Feb 8, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Here let's see if I can break it down:
> 
> *Astral projection experiences - *hallucination of the mind
> *Near-death experiences - *hallucination of the mind
> ...



Thanks, Corky... now can we hear from those who still have living brain cells? 

I think when someone dismisses the literal millions upon millions of accounts comprising my rather long list, it illustrates a person who has tuned out all rationality and exists in a state of total denial. I'm not claiming there is something to everything, but that much of something has to be significant. It's at the least, reasonable to consider there might be other forces at work.


----------



## cnm (Feb 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> I think when someone dismisses the literal millions upon millions of accounts comprising my rather long list, it illustrates a person who has tuned out all rationality and exists in a state of total denial.


An appeal to the number of suckers. Well that argument will quash any objections, no worries.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Here let's see if I can break it down:
> ...


You're like some carnival barker hawking his spirit realms.


----------



## Boss (Feb 8, 2015)

Quantum Physics predicts there are as many as 11 dimensions in our universe. 

One notable feature of string theory and M-theory is that these theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency. In string theory, spacetime is ten-dimensional, while in M-theory it is eleven-dimensional. In order to describe real physical phenomena using these theories, one must therefore imagine scenarios in which these extra dimensions would not be observed in experiments.

*cue Twilight Zone music.​


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



Exorsisms ghosts angels devils and gods don't exist.  I'd like to know if that guy ever invited science to come and verify him or before that could happen did he start having headaches?

How do you explain the long island lady who talks to dead people?

How do you explain David copperfield?

Psychology was explaining how unreliable the brain is as far as taking anyones word for what they saw. Brian williams may actually believe his embellished story. So I don't care about stories I or science hasn't verified.


----------



## Boss (Feb 8, 2015)

cnm said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I think when someone dismisses the literal millions upon millions of accounts comprising my rather long list, it illustrates a person who has tuned out all rationality and exists in a state of total denial.
> ...



So you are on record... Absolutely 0% of all the billions of associated events mentioned in the OP are legitimate? There can absolutely be no other power outside the realm of human imagination... that's what you're saying, correct? I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. 


Suckers are those who aren't interested in seeking the truth, regardless of where it leads.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Seems like there are no angels devils ghosts or witches. Nothing that can't or hasn't been outside of our physical world.

Does a mosquito trilobite cockroach dinosaur or tardigrade have a soul?

If you don't believe any of the organized religions then we are back to the original debate how did all this happen. After long thought you decided it must be a creator that cares about you and only you. Not dogs tigers whales or elephant? 

Were just extremely lucky to be this smart but we aren't that smart yet. Still too uneducated and superstitious.

We need to save ourselves from ourselves.  And this planet and our sun doesn't care what we are doing or what you believe.  Neither does a god talk back to you.

I've been talking a lot of shit about god lately. I dropped my new phone today and it didn't break. If a god was upset with me it would have broke.


----------



## Boss (Feb 8, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> ...



Well Cayce is a little different from the lady who talks to dead people, I think. David Copperfield is an illusionist. He makes things seemingly disappear, but this is not some physics power he has, he is presenting an illusion. With Cayce, the guy literally predicted WWII in extraordinary detail, twenty years before it happened. This was at a time where WWI was called "The Great War" and virtually everyone thought there would never be another war. 

There are other people in history as well... Ever hear of Mayhayley Lancaster? Murder in Coweta County?  ....Strange powers some people seem to have.


----------



## Boss (Feb 8, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Seems like there are no angels devils ghosts or witches. Nothing that can't or hasn't been outside of our physical world.



*"...one must therefore imagine scenarios in which these extra dimensions would not be observed in experiments."  ~Quantum Physics*


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I don't know that David Blane isn't really doing magic. I can't explain everything he does. But I'm sure its not supernatural power. Sorry I don't believe other peoples encounters with the supernatural. There is always a better explanation including the power of suggestion.

I remember as a child the news anchor on TV talked to me. Today I know that was a dream. I woke up and was half dreaming when I looked at him. In fact it was bill bonds in the late 70s or early 80s.

Then I see a guy like Brian williams and scientists in the Detroit news today were trying to explain how it might not be a lie if Brian williams believes it and that does happen. A person recalls a real story but embellishes until the myth becomes a belief.


----------



## Boss (Feb 8, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Then I see a guy like Brian williams and scientists in the Detroit news today were trying to explain how *it might not be a lie if Brian williams believes it and that does happen.* A person recalls a real story but embellishes until the myth becomes a belief.



In psychology we call this "Psychopathic behavior."


----------



## Slyhunter (Feb 8, 2015)

I have a hard time understanding how a head can hold so many memories. I've watched entire tv shows with the tv off by mind power alone.

There are a lot of things I can't explain, like microwave ovens, that doesn't make them magic.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Then I see a guy like Brian williams and scientists in the Detroit news today were trying to explain how *it might not be a lie if Brian williams believes it and that does happen.* A person recalls a real story but embellishes until the myth becomes a belief.
> ...



I'm guilty of this myself. I have some great fight stories. Even I don't know anymore when my friends embellish the stories. Did I really throw that guy that far? Probably not.


----------



## Boss (Feb 8, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> I don't know that David Blane isn't really doing magic. I can't explain everything he does. But I'm sure its not supernatural power. Sorry I don't believe other peoples encounters with the supernatural. There is always a better explanation including the power of suggestion.



None of them? In all the assorted areas I mentioned in the OP and all the billions of accounts... not a single one has any validity or legitimacy? 0% possibility... absolutely certain? I can be rational enough to think that 100% couldn't be valid and legitimate, but certainly some must be. 

It just fascinates me to talk to people who have built such a parameter of denial in their minds.


----------



## Agit8r (Feb 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



The human mind is uniquely prone to delusion.

It still exists because those who were unwilling to pretend that the emperor had clothes were usually put to death in one terroristic manner or another.


----------



## Boss (Feb 8, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I edited my post since you replied. I meant to say Psychotic behavior.  A psychopath believes his own lies, to the point they can often beat a lie detector. In their minds, they are convinced events took place as they imagine and not as they actually happened. This is what Brian did.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...


This is awareness. The OT gives understanding.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Feb 8, 2015)

Unexplained phenomena is real. I saw Siegfried and Roy disappear an elephant on a Las Vegas stage in 1989!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know that David Blane isn't really doing magic. I can't explain everything he does. But I'm sure its not supernatural power. Sorry I don't believe other peoples encounters with the supernatural. There is always a better explanation including the power of suggestion.
> ...



How many things did we once think must be god that turned out to be scientifically explained.

Zero supernatural


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 8, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Everything God does can be explained scientifically. Well, that which can't be can just be denied.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 8, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



How does he hide? Scientifically.  How did he turn 5 loaves and 3 fish into a feast for 5000.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 8, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


'Scientifically' he does not exist, now does he? We promise not to open the lid to your little box.


----------



## Boss (Feb 8, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> How many things did we once think must be god that turned out to be scientifically explained.
> 
> Zero supernatural



Well, fundamentally we've explained very little. Whatever things you believe have been explained, I can continue to ask you "why?"  Eventually, the answer becomes "just because that's *the way* things are."  We can't explain the cosmological constant... it's just how the universe is. We can't explain why a molecule of oxygen combines with two molecules of hydrogen to form water, they just do. We can't explain why some electrons can be two places at once. We can't explain why gravity exists. We can't explain why the particular strength of gravity is essential to our entire universe existing.... it just is.


----------



## Boss (Feb 8, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> Unexplained phenomena is real. I saw Siegfried and Roy disappear an elephant on a Las Vegas stage in 1989!



No, you saw an illusion. The phenomenon is explained, it's a trick of the eye. 

I am talking about phenomena that science has no explanation for, where we have clear documented evidence something has happened. The OP was intentionally very broad in perspective, it includes all sorts of 'other-worldly' areas, many of which have nothing to do with each other. But we all know about these things, everything in my list can be Googled and you'll find all kinds of alleged encounters and instances of occurrence. All of these things have been around for many years, are they all hoaxes and delusions? Even the ones which totally baffle science?


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > How many things did we once think must be god that turned out to be scientifically explained.
> ...


Actually the chronological constant is because of an expanding universe. Einstein could not bring himself to admit it so he threw in the cosmological constant to balance the equation. Many of your other examples might be considered scientifically explained. Just saying.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



these can all be explained using energy and science, whether or not we have studied or agreed on this yet.
this does not have to be outside the nature of the universe.

and this can still be consistent with the concept of God
that God is nature or the universe so this is affirming and not rejecting anything

the same laws of science or spirituality still work
whether you see life and the universe as impersonal and just self-existent
or you personify God as a personal being

the same laws still work the same way.
there is no conflict except where we make one up as a condition.


----------



## Boss (Feb 8, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



 Einstein originally posited a nonzero value for the cosmological constant, but after the expansion of the universe was discovered, he lamented that this was his greatest blunder and set the constant to zero [Davies2007, pg. 58].

Physicists, who have fretted over this paradox for decades, have noted that calculations such as the above involve only the electromagnetic force, and so perhaps when the contributions of the other known forces are included (bosons give rise to positive terms, whereas fermions give rise to negative terms), all terms will cancel out to exactly zero, as a consequence of some unknown, yet-to-be-discovered fundamental principle of physics. When "supersymmetry" was theorized in the 1970s, it was thought that it would meet this requirement, but when it was later discovered that our universe is not precisely supersymmetric, this explanation was abandoned. In any event, until recently physicists remained hopeful that some yet-to-be-discovered principle would imply that the positive and negative terms of the zero-point mass density (and thus the cosmological constant) precisely cancel out to zero.

These hopes were shattered with the 1998 discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which implies that the cosmological constant (and the zero-point mass density) must be slightly nonzero. This "dark energy," which is the unknown force accelerating the universe, also appears to be just what is needed to fill the 70% "missing mass" of the universe, namely the mass needed to explain the observed fact that space is very nearly flat (i.e., locally it appears to be almost perfectly rectilinear) [Panek2011]. But this means that physicists are left to explain the startling fact that the positive and negative contributions to the cosmological constant cancel to 120-digit accuracy, yet fail to cancel beginning at the 121-st digit. This is an even stranger paradox! Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10120, or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago [Susskind2005, pg. 80-82].


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 8, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> ...



Dear sealybobo just because these things are not real to you or proven to you doesn't mean they don't exist
don't you think that is a bit egocentric to believe it is not even possible to be true if you haven't seen it proven yet
it could still be possibly true and you just haven't seen science prove it

microbes weren't believed to exist until microscopes were invented that could show these things visually
doesn't mean they didn't exist before there was proof

how convenient that you have to exclude the testimonies of people who were plagued by demonic voices
and then these were later cured by exorcism

in order to maintain the theory these are not possibly true
you ahve to ASSUME they are false when you haven't experienced what these people went through

one of my closest friends who is atheist went through deliverance to get rid of demons he had
are you going to say that isn't true and he was making up his own pain and suffering
he couldn't shake these voices and choose to make them go away until after he went through the healing prayer
to forgive the abuses that these rages were attached to

same with the patients in Dr. Peck's books where they reported very similar.
one used the same terms of my friend and said it felt like rape to remove this sickness
but afterwards they recovered and no longer have demon voices in their heads

how dare you assume these people are lying about their experiences
just because you are lucky enough not to suffer as they did

that is egocentric to think that nothing can exist that you haven't experienced for yourself

people's minds and lives have been saved by exorcism and deliverance prayers

you can read all these testimonies online and in books
(Peck "Glimpses of the Devil" or Martin's books on cases of possession)

or you can "conveniently" say they are all FALSE because you haven't seen it for yourself

and then "conveniently" refuse to look into such cases so you can continue to claim they don't exist.

how scientific is that? to keep avoiding the control group so you can keep assuming your theory is true?


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Here let's see if I can break it down:
> 
> *Spells, curses and black magic - *a buttload of hooey



Dear TheOldSchool
1. one researcher into healing prayer and why this clashes with occult and sorcery
studied the Hawaiian death curse, and found that the creeping paralysis caused by the curse
still affected target victims who were unaware they were the target of the curse.
so how can this be power of suggestion if they didn't even know they were targeted spiritually.

2. another study at Princeton measured the outcomes of random number generators
and found that the correlation of people either meditating or praying to get a certain combination
showed up in the statistics as a pattern greater than just random probability,
and that it made no difference if the prayer/meditation was done BEFORE or AFTER
the numbers were generated. They still had a positive correlation. So this indicated whatever
energy relationship was between the mind and the outcome was independent of time and not linear.

3. the people cured of ills that were interpreted as connected to occult or sorcery influences
all report similar patterns: that first the source or event of the voodoo/witchcraft/spiritism practice
must be renounced, and this removal prayed for in Christ Jesus, and then the negative symptoms
can be removed and healed.  

You can call this psychosomatic, but Forgiveness cannot be faked. it has to be real forgiveness
really chosen in order to break through the negative mindset of victimhood keeping people stuck and sick.

that part is real and cannot be substituted for anything else.

all the recovery groups and especially deliverance and healing prayers that work
are based on forgiveness in order to invoke natural healing.


----------



## Boss (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> the same laws still work the same way.



But we know this is not true in physical nature. 

For instance, at the speed of light, time stands still. This defies reality, but it's what happens. That's why a black hole is black, even the light particles have no timespace to exist. As objects reach the event horizon on the outer walls of a black hole, they begin to reach the speed of light and time slows down until 'poof' it stops. 

At the atomic level, the famous double-slit experiment seemingly defies laws of physics.Light is a particle and a wave at the same time. It's protons can go through either slit or both slits at the same time, depending on if they are observed.  There is no scientific explanation of the observer effect, it defies what should be. Subatomic particles can be connected to other subatomic particles billions of light years away and communicate instantly. Why? How can information travel billions of light years instantly? 

For 2000 years, the physics laws of gravity and levity presented by Aristotle, are the "same laws still work the same way". Newton turned that on it's ear and gave us the laws of motion.  Later, Einstein and Plank would challenge those laws. So our laws are ever-changing.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > the same laws still work the same way.
> ...


Yes man's laws are changing
but that doesn't mean universal laws aren't just what they are
and we just can't pin them down. I know some physicists who know all these same
things and just see it as the Universe and don't personify God as a being, so what?

You can still believe in universal laws of energy and how all these
things do this or that or whatever,
and that doesn't suddenly leap to a "personal God who interacts with man"

You can still believe the universe has its own laws
and we don't know how all they work exactly.
this doesn't have to mean there is a personal God.

Boss I've studied the patterns in why people can or cannot reconcile
their views. the number one reason is unforgiveness and fear, or whatever you call
the bias that makes people REJECT what someone else is trying to say.

get rid of that bias, and it doesn't matter if you call the universe personal or impersonal.
people will come to peace about this business and it doesn't matter if they are theist or nontheist
there won't be this mutual rejection going on caused by fear or unforgiveness or distrust of other people/groups

curiously enough, once these biases of fear/unforgiveness are removed,
yes, people DO open up and quit rejecting what is meant by God.
it is not caused by not understanding all these phenomena

it is caused by rejection from unforgiven conflicts with other people or groups
or by fear they are trying to impose their ways. it creates this weird barrier,
so remove that and people go back to their default state where they are open to truth
and don't fight over who is imposing which bias and trying to convert the other person...


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Quantum Physics predicts there are as many as 11 dimensions in our universe.
> 
> One notable feature of string theory and M-theory is that these theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency. In string theory, spacetime is ten-dimensional, while in M-theory it is eleven-dimensional. In order to describe real physical phenomena using these theories, one must therefore imagine scenarios in which these extra dimensions would not be observed in experiments.
> 
> *cue Twilight Zone music.​



If our universe had only 2 dimensions and an object with three dimensions would cross it - a ball for example - then we would see coming a point from nowhere, the point would grow to a circle and after it reached a maximum the circle will shrink again to a point and will dissapear. This would be the same if the ball had not only 3 but also 4,5,6,7,... or any higher number of dimensions. If an object with more than three dimesions would cross our three dimensions then we would see for example a ball coming from nowhere, growing and going into a nowhere again. As far as I heard never anyone saw something like this. This doesn't mean someone needs not 1,10,100,1000 or more dimensions if he likes to calculate something. But not everything what or how we calculate is reality.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > the same laws still work the same way.
> ...


You should void using Answers in Genesis for your science data.

It would take an infinite amount of energy to actually propel an object to the speed of light so it's best to think in terms of an object _approaching_ the speed of light. Nothing in the above defies reality.

As far as science can make a determination, that _is_ the reality so how can that possibly _defy_ reality?

The physical laws that are operating in the universe are not "ever-changing". Our understanding of those laws is what changes as knowledge and technology expands our understanding.

What _supernatural laws _can you define for us that will explain the natural world?


----------



## Slyhunter (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


who says he did? A book full of fairy tales isn't proof. Just like Mercury flew on winged shoes.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > How many things did we once think must be god that turned out to be scientifically explained.
> ...


Have you seen the old and new cosmos yet? Sagan and Tyson explain how from the beginning humans have asked these questions and the best our ancient uneducated primitive superstitious ancestors could come up with was "must be a god"

Were better than that today. The more we know the less true that comment is. No it doesn't have to be a god. 

I'm only going to believe what can be proven.  The rest is just wild speculation.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


You said everything he does can be explained scientifically. How did he turn 5 loaves and 3/fish into a feast for 5000. The only scientific explanation I can think of is that never happened and people made it up. Bet it isn't even an original story.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Exactly! 

Can you imagine showing the people of Jesus' day your smart phone? They would think you were a god.

Hell just show them a butane lighter or eclipse and they'd believe that was god. And were suppose to believe what they saw? Not a chance. God needs to come back if he wants followers.

But if he does even christians won't believe it.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Sorry I don't believe in demons possessing people. Science explains those people are mentally I'll.

Do you believe in UFO"s big foot and witches? How dare you not believe all the people who do.

I remain open to god like you are open to these things.


----------



## fmdog44 (Feb 9, 2015)

Bottom line - we simply do not know what the human mind is capable of. We may solve the question of the beginning of the universe before we figure out the mind. As long as we lack the knowledge it lacks logic to say one is wrong and one is right.  The mind often plays tricks on us and a small example is multiple witnesses to an event with all of their testimonies being different. We have five witnesses and thus five realities. Ever look for something like your watch and not find it hen go back and look a second time only to see it? It was there all along but you looked right at it but did not see. Isn't the mind responsible for everything, good and bad? We believe in what we believe because of persuasion in one form or another. every single human ever born is unique.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

fmdog44 said:


> Bottom line - we simply do not know what the human mind is capable of. We may solve the question of the beginning of the universe before we figure out the mind. As long as we lack the knowledge it lacks logic to say one is wrong and one is right.  The mind often plays tricks on us and a small example is multiple witnesses to an event with all of their testimonies being different. We have five witnesses and thus five realities. Ever look for something like your watch and not find it hen go back and look a second time only to see it? It was there all along but you looked right at it but did not see. Isn't the mind responsible for everything, good and bad? We believe in what we believe because of persuasion in one form or another. every single human ever born is unique.


Atheists see clearly where god came from. God didn't make us we made up god.

And are you talking about a generic god or the Muslim Jew christian Mormon ones?  Because us atheists are open to the idea something might have created our universe. Were just fairly certain the Abraham gods arent real. Do you get that?


----------



## fmdog44 (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> fmdog44 said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line - we simply do not know what the human mind is capable of. We may solve the question of the beginning of the universe before we figure out the mind. As long as we lack the knowledge it lacks logic to say one is wrong and one is right.  The mind often plays tricks on us and a small example is multiple witnesses to an event with all of their testimonies being different. We have five witnesses and thus five realities. Ever look for something like your watch and not find it hen go back and look a second time only to see it? It was there all along but you looked right at it but did not see. Isn't the mind responsible for everything, good and bad? We believe in what we believe because of persuasion in one form or another. every single human ever born is unique.
> ...



I don't even mention God in my post and atheists clearly see nothing. They simply do not believe but that does not confirm them to be correct.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

fmdog44 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > fmdog44 said:
> ...



Does it matter if I don't believe what I can't see or any conclusions science hasn't verified yet?

In other words will I go to hell if I don't believe in the spiritual or supernatural?


----------



## fmdog44 (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> fmdog44 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Heck if I know I am but a simple man with a simple plan, get happy and stay happy with faith or without it.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

fmdog44 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > fmdog44 said:
> ...



Amen brother. I don't buy any organized religion.  And there were many of them long before even the Egyptian and Greek  gods. What we have now is just the result of thousands of years of thinking about it. Where has it got us? So it may make a lot of people feel better about themselves but I don't think it makes them happy. And I feel sad that they need it. And mad if they try to start wars over it or tells me I'm going to hell for not believing or argues were a christian nation when were a secular one.

Anyways the truth is so much better. Consider yourself lucky not blessed because like an ant you are not blessed.  But you are luckier than an ant because its low on the food chain and doesnt live up to 100 years and isn't as smart as you. But like some ants die young so do people. Just luck. 

Imagine if your parents never met or waited 1/year to have kids. You'd have never been here but another animal with your DNA would.  We came from a fish that crawled out of the water. We are related to every living thing. Evolution.

And this planet will die along with everything on it. But life continues on other planets and will continue.

I could go on and on. Just consider yourself lucky you've lived at all let alone a great life.  Don't have a great life? Make it better. Its short and you only live once. Enjoy the moment.

Or do you think without it people will do bad things? Just look what they do with it. Religion keeps people to stop asking questions. It has all the answers


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



I think the truth is so much better. We don't know how or why but something created everything we see. OUP sun didn't even form for billions of years after the big bang. We are but one of maybe an infinite number of planets probably lots of life out there. The things smart enough to ponder ask how too. But we arent special other than we are the highest on the food chain same as them. Are they superstitious or scientific? Are they good to each other? Are we?

Anyways we have birth defects and can't live naked in outer space like tardigrades can. In other words were just one animal on one planet. Superstitious but curious and intelligent nothing more.

I know you believe god talks to you but honestly are you trying to convince us or you?


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> What _supernatural laws _can you define for us that will explain the natural world?



Dear Hollie
If you consider the healing effect of forgiveness on the human mind, body and relations,
would you consider this "supernatural" as in "forgiveness being DIVINE"
or would you consider this just natural laws of health and healing?

That forgiveness reduces stress so it improves health and facilitates healing
by not letting resentful or negative energy block the flow of positive life energy.

And forgiveness prevents negative thoughts from skewing or biasing perception,
so that one remains openminded and neutral instead of rejecting possibilities
as needed to apply the scientific method without bias and leaving out variables.

I was trying to explain to Boss that all these "spiritual" things can still be
considered part of the universe and following laws, discovered or not.

But if you would agree that the level that "forgiveness" energy works
to heal people "spiritually" counts as something "supernatural"
then all we have to do is prove that "spiritual process" works consistently
and you would have proof of the supernatural if that's what you call this.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> fmdog44 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



sealybobo
Does Constitutional govt count as an organized religion?
Maybe you don't buy into any of the Godbased religions.
What about Political religions?
Do you align with liberal beliefs, or Constitutional beliefs
in freedom of or from religion, free speech and press,
right to assemble peaceably and petition to redress grievances,
due process and equal protection/representation/defense under law,
right of security and right to privacy/rights of people and states separate from federal govt.

Do you believe in any of these principles, or a variation/combination of them,
and doesn't that constitute a political belief (or set of beliefs being a political religion)?

To be honest, I am learning more and more that my convictions
about equality by Constitutional principles count as a political belief or religion.
Especially where I find my denomination disagrees with either party that
impose their beliefs on the other and don't count that as unconstitutional as I do.

So if my beliefs are a political religion,
doesn't that mean that left and right are denominations of a related body of principles?

Is Constitutional law a religion based on natural laws made statutory?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > fmdog44 said:
> ...



Like with religions no two members of a political party agrees on everything. What we can agree on is thou shall not murder. Drop the god lie and were good.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Emily is harder than christianity to understand.  I hate it when good christians like her try to think of a new way they can explain their delisions.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


I agree with the advice about avoiding Answers in Genesis. (I don't know about voiding it.  ) Those explanations are so sort-of right as to be misleading. 

While I think our search for an understanding is noble there seems to be nothing that man understands that they don't want to control. We tried to build the tower of Babel once before. Although he did not blow us all to bits he did scatter us far and wide. We will only listen to that which we learn 'scientifically' when there is so much more we could learn from listening to God. Job 38 21:23 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of they days is great? Has thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > What _supernatural laws _can you define for us that will explain the natural world?
> ...


Emily, 

If you have knowledge of some mechanism whereby Boss's alleged supernatural / magical spirit realms are testable, please let us know.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


When we found answers and cures it was science not god


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Your argument against religion seems to be that you do not like the way some people practice it.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Quantum Physics predicts there are as many as 11 dimensions in our universe.
> 
> One notable feature of string theory and M-theory is that these theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency. In string theory, spacetime is ten-dimensional, while in M-theory it is eleven-dimensional. In order to describe real physical phenomena using these theories, one must therefore imagine scenarios in which these extra dimensions would not be observed in experiments.
> 
> *cue Twilight Zone music.​


When you get to spiritual existing at the molecular level,,,let us know...


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Of course that's my problem with believing in god(s).  I don't think we will ever solve the argument "does god exist".  In fact I'm sure  we won't.  And when muslims and christians continue killing in the name of ____ and you ask if that's my problem?  Of course it is.  

Human behavior is also why I firmly believe that we made god up.  And unless you believe in one of the nutty religions I guess it doesn't matter if I believe because god never came here and told anyone that believing he visited is the main requirement to get into heaven.  That is clearly man made bullshit.  Could I be wrong?  I'll take my chances based on the evidence I feel pretty safe.

From the looks of it when you learn psychology, cosmology, quantum physics, human history, geology and the history of religion that god is nothing but a fairy tale we came up with.

I don't sit around worrying about what's going to happen to me when I die.  Seems pointless or wishful thinking to believe you are going to live forever after you die.  I spend more time wondering how we can get the human race to live forever.  This planet is doomed.  We need to build spaceships so that the human race's existence doesn't die when our sun expires.  I know I'll be long dead by then but I care.  It would be a shame to have come all this way for nothing like the dinosaurs & trilobites who once ruled this planet.  

In fact when I look at Republicans who claim to be very religious and then I see how they don't want to educate or feed the poor or heal the sick, I realize they believe in 2 gods.  Their main god is the god of capitalism.  Second is Jesus.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Physics predicts there are as many as 11 dimensions in our universe.
> ...



Hi Moonglow
for the spiritual healing therapy, this was even reported as helping remediate conditions
and show gradual signs of improvement in Downs Syndrome children over a long period of time.
So that would be genetic.
Does that count as molecular?

This would take a long time to study the effects if the changes are that gradual.
The healing reported on pedophilia type of addictions can also be long term, like 25 years.
If you believe those types of sicknesses are genetic, then healing that might include the molecular or DNA level.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Hi sealybobo
Did human beings create our own nature?
And why our psychology is affected adversely by unforgiveness and fear-related oppression,
vs. positive effects of forgiveness on healing, and positive responses to love and inclusion?

Did we make up these rules or did they come with our human nature?


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I believe there are more things we do not know about than what we do know..I am always open too new possibilities...


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> I think when someone dismisses the literal millions upon millions of accounts comprising my rather long list, it illustrates a person who has tuned out all rationality and exists in a state of total denial. I'm not claiming there is something to everything, but that much of something has to be significant. It's at the least, reasonable to consider there might be other forces at work.


I am not spiritual but used to be. I believe in a god and a realm we don't understand, and may never. I've had a few things happen to convince me there is another aspect or dimension to life but I no longer seek explanations just to feel better about it. I have no problem saying 'I don't know'.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Wolves are mean animals.  They'll kill you just for being in their territory.  If you ate one you would see that they taste like shit.  I bet humans taste like shit too.  LOL.  

But it is amazing that our mental state can and does affect our physical well being.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I think when someone dismisses the literal millions upon millions of accounts comprising my rather long list, it illustrates a person who has tuned out all rationality and exists in a state of total denial. I'm not claiming there is something to everything, but that much of something has to be significant. It's at the least, reasonable to consider there might be other forces at work.
> ...



And do you worry at night when you masturbate about a married co worker or neighbor that you'll go to hell because you are committing adultery?  I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



OK and how would you describe the difference
between the nature of the wolves and animals
and what makes human nature a different "beast".

What is it about the human conscience that makes us different?
That gives us sentience on a different level than animals?
If we didn't choose or make this up, how would you describe the
laws that govern human psychology, can you describe this in your own words?

Thanks sealybobo


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Me too.  And it isn't my fault that I once believed and then stopped believing.  And I'm completely open to being pulled back into the flock once I am convinced.

Theists say you have to want it more.  This is why I know religion is made up.  With science it doesn't matter how bad you want something to be true.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Other animals have compassion and love.  Even wolves do.  They care about the pack but sometimes the Alpha has to kick the Omegas ass maybe even kill him.  Very similar to humans.  Just look at ISIS.  The devil didn't make the wolf or ISIS do what they do.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes sealybobo and that's why Christianity recognizes this and focuses on Forgiveness.
When we have forgiveness for one another, then we can work together to correct and prevent problems that we can do something about. We don't waste time and energy projecting blame and division which causes more suffering
and strife and doesn't solve the problems we are complaining about. we can either work together in harmony,
if we can forgive problems in order to study their causes and correct what we can, or we can fight and cause war/hell on earth.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Ok let's talk about the difference in what makes animals do what they do and what makes humans do what they do.

for example, why do people use contraception but animals don't.
What is the difference in thought process there?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



You are smarter than a whale or dolphin but they are smarter than tigers but tigers are smarter than pigs and pigs are smarter than chickens.  How do you explain that one chicken can just look at another chicken and without being able to talk that chicken can alert the others that a fox is near.  Must be supernatural.  Must be a god.  

We are just lucky to be the smartest animal on the planet and lucky the dinosaurs went extinct.  Life is life.  If you want to teach right and wrong go into criminal justice or law, not religion.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



They don't worry about having enough money to afford whatever children they create.  

Or they don't have babies that take 18 years to be ready to go out on their own.

Because they don't worry about over populating the planet.  

Because they aren't over populating the planet, we are.   

Animals try to have as many babies as they can because if they have 10 9 will get eaten or die of starvation.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> You are smarter than a whale or dolphin but they are smarter than tigers but tigers are smarter than pigs and pigs are smarter than chickens.  How do you explain that one chicken can just look at another chicken and without being able to talk that chicken can alert the others that a fox is near.  Must be supernatural.  Must be a god.
> 
> We are just lucky to be the smartest animal on the planet and lucky the dinosaurs went extinct.  Life is life.  If you want to teach right and wrong go into criminal justice or law, not religion.



Ok sealybobo

1. no, it doesn't have to be supernatural/God to believe that animals and humans have a different purpose and design.
I do have a friend who believes that animals COULD evolve to be at the same level as humans.
the way my Buddhist mother explained it is humans have EGO which makes us different from animals.
And another atheist said it was the development of the human EGO that causes all man's problems,
so this is the equivalent of Christians talking of when the "original sin "got introduced or "awareness of SELF"

Do you agree that people have a skewed sense of self that is not like other animals? 
that we battle with this sense of self vs. others and all religions and laws
come from trying to regulate SELF interest vs. public interest that the govt is supposed to protect

2. So for criminal justice and law, isn't this just a secular way of trying to regulate human behavior?
the secular civil laws are through the state
the spiritual scripture laws are through the church

why are you less afraid of state authority that is mandatory to enforce and follow
but more afraid of church and religious authority that is voluntary under free exercise of religion

Aren't both political abuses of state authority just as bad
as religious abuses of church authority?

Why are you afraid of one and not the other equally?


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Ok let's talk about the difference in what makes animals do what they do and what makes humans do what they do.
> ...



OK so where does this FEAR come from that people are WORRIED about overpopulating the planet,
but animals don't worry and just let nature take care of it.

What in our conscience makes us different?
Is it just that physically we ARE able to manipulate the resources on the planet more than animals?
Is it our brains or intelligence?
Is it our purpose and drive in life that makes us "care" or "aware" on this level?
Do you believe humans have a greater responsibility than animals, why or why not?


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What the fuck is wrong with you? You can't read?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You are smarter than a whale or dolphin but they are smarter than tigers but tigers are smarter than pigs and pigs are smarter than chickens.  How do you explain that one chicken can just look at another chicken and without being able to talk that chicken can alert the others that a fox is near.  Must be supernatural.  Must be a god.
> ...



Going to church is like taking a dog to obedience training.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I guess I was lucky to be raised atheist. Religion was not a joke, it was the abomination of the world. God, angel of God I am sure, revealed his presence when I was about 12. From day on I knew there was something outside of scientific explanation. He would show up every few years, at least where it left no doubt that something just happened. One method I used to try and figure out what was going on is by using D&D logic; OK, magic user, levitation, invisibility, teleportation maybe. Works out to between a level 7 and level 12 magic user depending on exactly what just happened. Mind reading would have been required on a couple occasions. What I knew of God and what I knew of religion sure did not mess though. Like I have mentioned things just changed last spring. It was no longer, "Well, that was interesting." It was, "Oh shit! That made sense." I'm not saying it always made perfect sense. I do not know what is going on. I sure do not know why religion does not seem to understand God. One theory I have is that sometimes in the Bible God will be nice to someone whose ancestor did right by the LORD. I really do not know but I am here to tell you: God is real.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



And have you ever tried arguing with a lawyer about how
imposing restrictive "civil codes and deadlines" on the right to petition violates Constitutional due process?

Law schools are little more than sending dog to obedience school to do what they're trained to do.

There are as many websites/organizations on legal abuses and judicial abuses
as there are on religious abuses and cult abuses.

Which authority is mandatory, where you can go to fail and lose freedom
if you disobey laws and rulings?  Which authority -- church or state -- has
the power to sentence and put someone to death even if they may be innocent
or mentally ill?

And why aren't you more afraid of abuse of mandatory authority
than the abuse of religious authority that is voluntary to follow?

Peek here for correct answer:
[You have more faith in the secular system to follow laws of justice, despite abuses
you trust can be corrected, than you have faith in Christianity because you have forgiven one
for its abuses but haven't forgiven the other so your judgment is biased towards one and against the other.
Both systems have equal flaws and abuses to answer for, but you trust one more than the other.]


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > And do you worry at night when you masturbate about a married co worker or neighbor that you'll go to hell because you are committing adultery?  I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
> ...



Maybe he's gone blind. From thinking about married coworkers too much late at night....


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Why there is no god


*I feel a personal relationship with god OR I experienced god.*
Argument from personal experience.

A result of our naturally evolved neurology, made hypersensitive to purpose (an ‘unseen actor’) because of the large social groups humans have and the way the brain associates pattern with intent.

Humans have evolved a variety of cognitive shortcuts to deal with the mass of information provided by our senses. In particular, we tend to filter sensory input according to a set of expectations built on prior beliefs and past experiences, impart meaning to ambiguous input even when there is no real meaning behind it and infer causal relationships where none exist.

Personal revelation cannot be independently verified. So-called ‘revelations’ never include information a recipient could not have known beforehand, such as the time and location of a rare event or answers to any number of unsolved problems in science. They are usually emotional or perceptual in content and therefore unremarkable among the many cognitive processes brains exhibit, including dreams and hallucinations. These experiences may even be artificially induced by narcotics or magnetic fields. Extreme cases may be diagnosed as a form of schizophrenia or psychosis.

Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are variably attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation etc. The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.

See also: NPR Your brain on god?, Hardwired for religion?, Searching for God in the Brain, The Economist, BBC Doco, PBS Doco and Dawkins on the topic, Deconversion: Personal Relationship (a must watch), TED – How it feels to have a stroke (a must watch) and TED – Ramachandran on your mind.

Papers: Religion and Hippocampal Atrophy.

_“You can tell you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”_ – Anne Lamott


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


sealybobo
If you define God to be Nature then that does exist and is not made up by man.
If you cannot forgive Christians theists or religions, then you stay obsessed with this
strawman argument that God has to be defined by those limited terms. If you forgive
and let go, then you can be at peace that God can mean Life, Universe, nature, collective truth,
universal laws governing all things. So what.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



I don't trust state as much as you trust church.  In fact who's to say the next US President doesn't take us to war with the middle east and declare America a Christian nation and anyone who isn't a Christian must go?  

Church and state were once one and the same.  That was the worst time in human history.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 9, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Here let's see if I can break it down:
> 
> *Astral projection experiences - *hallucination of the mind
> *Near-death experiences - *hallucination of the mind
> ...


hooey....I get all tingly when people talk sciency....


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You are attacking my evidence. How can you say you are open minded?


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



OK  now we're getting somewhere
I trust that
* people who commit to church law receive and correct rebukes that way, where their heart is
* people who commit to natural laws or Constitutional laws, correct and receive rebukes that way where their conscience responds

If you speak and share with people using their own committed systems,
then they have motivation to correct it using that system.

So I trust and distrust these groups equally.
I seek whichever venue leads to resolution, and if it proves to work, then that's what I go by.
If it doesn't work I'll try the other avenues until problems are resolved.

P.S I am a little more biased AGAINST the legal system because
it is so unconstitutional, you have to dance around it to resolve conflicts
before using the system to correct itself. I am a little more favorable to the church
because I have had more success rebuking and correcting people that way
using their own laws and beliefs they are committed to in Christ, so this works
more often. The legal and political system is so overrun with imposing political
beliefs, consensus is more difficult. The abuses are more expensive to fix.
So I am harder on that system because I see the violations as worse.
the people trying to fix the Christian problems are generally more successful
because they can teach forgiveness by example and by spiritual healing.
Trying to teach this in the political world requires scientific proof not done yet.
so that path is harder to make the same corrections, it is so engrained politically!


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Maybe he's gone blind. From thinking about married coworkers too much late at night....


LOL Good one.


sealybobo said:


> I don't trust state as much as you trust church. In fact who's to say the next US President doesn't take us to war with the middle east and declare America a Christian nation and anyone who isn't a Christian must go?


You don't know much about this country.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


sealybobo is biased but is open to reason and answering intelligently.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Joseph smith talked to god but this is not evidence for Jews Muslims and christians. They don't believe it.

The bible isn't real if you ask Jews. They don't believe Jesus was the son of god yet millions of christians believe it.  And Muslims say god talked to Mohammed but this isn't proof for Jews christians or Mormons.

I attack your evidence the same way you doubt Joe and mos evidence.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



I remember my childhood friends who were also religious very much believed in ghosts. One of them shit their pants when we handcuffed him in the basement closed the lights and left. He swears he saw a ghost down there. 

I attack your evidence the same way. Do I believe he saw a ghost? Nope. Does he? Yes.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

I went into the basement and told the ghost to suck my dick. I must not have believed enough


emilynghiem said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Because you provide no proof or evidence.  The only evidence we have are books full of lies. 

Christians admit the Mormon and Muslim books are man made. So is theirs. So why do you believe when you know all religions are made up?  Oh except yours of course. That ones real. I forgot.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



sealybobo you are leaving out the forgiveness factor
1. the Jews who have received forgiveness can see that the Bible and Jesus as Christianity teaches is true
2. the secular gentiles who have received forgiveness do not reject Christians or Christianity
even if they don't believe the same things
3. the Christians who have forgiven Muslims and Muslims who have forgiven Christians
do see they worship the same God.

There is an explanation for the rejection besides just claiming "they don't exist"
and the difference is based on unforgiveness vs. forgiveness


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



RE: ghosts
I met someone at a Buddhist retreat who said that all her family witnessed the ghost of their father  walk into the room after they were gathered for his funeral services.
The Buddhists teach that the soul is still on this plane after death but is outside the body.

You can question that until it is proven,
but "attacking" someone in a non-neutral fashion
biased AGAINST stories of ghosts being true, instead of open either way,
shows an emotional bias caused by not forgiving people in the past
and projecting this onto other people. How is that different from a religious bias
that judges and rejects people for having different beliefs?

If you reject people in a biased fashion against them, instead of being neutral,
they tend to respond to you in the same biased rejecting way. that is a natural
law. So if you don't like when religious people do this, why would you behave the same way?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



They worship the same god? Not what the bible says.

Do you even know the Mormon story? Do you believe it? Then its a man made up religion. A lie.

You can teach how forgiveness is good for your health and prevents wars. No god needed.


----------



## chikenwing (Feb 9, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Here let's see if I can break it down:
> 
> *Astral projection experiences - *hallucination of the mind
> *Near-death experiences - *hallucination of the mind
> ...


Ya you nailed it LOL


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



sealybobo 

If you are teaching there is more than one god that's you doing that here.

I am saying there is only one God or source of universal truths,
and all religions/laws are attempting to represent this in limited language.

Of course there are going to be flaws, biases and conflicts
because people aren't perfect.

As I pointed out before,
if there is any denial or bias going on, which you "unneutrally" call LYING,
it is because of fear and unforgiveness that skews people's judgments
including yours.

You do not mean to project out of denial, but you do.
If you are not intentionally lying, then neither are they.
If you call them "liars" that's why believers say you are "lying."

The reason I don't see this as intentional
is that I can forgive these biases and conflicts
so I can see they are not intentional.

Sorry that you do not forgive these so you see it as deliberately lying.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

chikenwing said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Here let's see if I can break it down:
> ...



Dear @chikewing and TheOldSchool
adding Two Thumbs

the effects of both curses/occult as negative destructive energy
and the healing effects of forgiveness therapy and prayer for deliverance from these influences
*CAN be demonstrated by medical science studies.*
People HAVE been cured of mental and criminal illness from these types of sicknesses
using the spiritual healing methods in deliverance and exorcism.
Even Britain/UK health authorities were in process of looking into
these therapies as valid, and there are doctors who did adopt these methods
into their practices after it was demonstrated to them to work effectively in curing patients
who didn't respond to other treatments.

You are on the right track but haven't finished proving these scientifically yet.

After that, you are free to judge with fuller information.

Otherwise, don't be like the people who rejected heliocentric theories
because these weren't proven YET, or rejected the idea of microbes and bacteria
causing infections because they couldn't be seen until microscopes were invented YET.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You have ESP. I'm impressed, and only slightly postponed.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 9, 2015)

Astral projection experiences.  that requires years, if not decades of practice
Near-death experiences.   final memories or dreams, or.....
Transcendental meditation. that requires years, if not decades of practice
ESP and telepathy. doesn't exist
Ghost stories and paranormal experiences.  people like freaking themselves out
Other unexplained supernatural phenomenon. 
Spells, curses and black magic. 
Edgar Cayce.
Nostradamus.
Prophecy in general.  give someone 2000 years to get it right and.....


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Do you believe you are better than God?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Nonsense.  But buddhists don't claim god told them this. They just believe it. Of course they do. If you just died and you believe the soul continues then of course they believe the spirit is present.  Just wild speculation. Could it be true? Sure. As long as people


emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Why are you so sure there is only one god?  You seem to me like the kind of person who would have really believed in the deep thought that came up with the Greek gods.  One for every occasion.  Why are you so sure there is only one god?  It takes 2 to make a baby, right?  

I don't think theists are lying.  I believe they have been lied to by society that doesn't realize it's been lied to and forced to believe for so long they now believe the lie.  

Why can't you realize that I'm truly trying to help people?  Your trying to say, "forgive and forget that they are wrong, just focus on the good that can come of it and go along".  Try to get them to focus on the good and not the fire and brimstone shit.  And meanwhile we watch ISIS chop heads off for their god.  Stop going along Emily for they know not what they are saying.  Neither do you.

Facts are our country has the luxury of being the world super power and we were smart enough to make ourselves a secular nation.  So we can handle radical theists and we don't have to worry about becoming a theist nation.  

So stop being a completely bullshit artist.  I know your intentions are good but you are just way off base.  I know you know your truth is the best truth going on USMB but it is not.  You're just another person who's still in the stone ages when our ancestors were superstitious wants to believe in god so bad no amount of information is going to get you to see your god is imaginary.  And it is no good for you.  And it is no good for me living in a society full of dopes either.  Pretend you are living in 1940 Catholic Nazi Germany or Italy and those god fearing people are about to do the unthinkable.  How did they justify this with their god?  I don't know but they did.  God is doing a horrible job running the show.  Let us atheists take over.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



I don't believe god(s) exist and if something created the universe it cares about you as much as you care about a fly on a lions ass in Africa.  Even smaller than that.  You would be a single cell organism half way around the world.  

It is you who thinks you are so special that a god built the universe for you and has a heaven awaiting where you will become a god essentially and live forever in paradise.  Who's the arrogant one?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” 

“One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment.” 

“Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham.


― Steven Weinberg


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Hi sealybobo
1. if "you atheists" were truly all inclusive by accepting ALL explanations as right for that person,
you  might be objective and universal enough to cover ALL and protect equal "religious freedom for all"

But since you have shown contempt and bias AGAINST certain views
then you are not objective and all inclusive either. that's why you are not the default.

I would say the Buddhists are probably the closest to being neutral
and letting all people follow their own paths.

2. as for "one God"
it depends how you define this

a. if you mean the way Christians teach God is the only way to teach God
and you try to impose that on everyone else including nontheists, no, that
is not the best way. That still doesn't negate the concept of one God,
it just shows that teaching just one way is not enough to include everyone

b. if you teach that the one God can be EXPRESSED and experienced
in different ways, that MIGHT be closer to universal and including all ways:
God as Life or Source of Life
God as Nature or Creation or Universe
God as Truth or Wisdom, Universal Laws, Justice
God as love, divine forgiveness, spiritual peace

so if you teach that there is one God that all the different ways
describe or point to,
then you can include BOTH
the beliefs in "one God as absolute"
as well as the "relative expressions" of this one God or Source of all truth in life.

Since B. is closer to all inclusive
that is the way I recommend.
I believe in accommodating everyone's free exercise of religion
or their beliefs equally, including secular or political beliefs,
so I try to take the more inclusive approach
and then resolve any conflics from there.

I have never seen any form of conflict resolution
work by EXCLUDING one or both parties in the conflicts.

The first step in mediation is to set up a neutral ground that includes
the parties' views equally, and then letting them work it out between them.

So sealybobo if you want atheists or nontheists to be the
neutral starting ground, then you would have to ALLOW for
the beliefs of theists within that set and not verbally or
emotionally threaten such people to make them feel excluded
or discriminated against. When people are put on the defensive
it blocks the communication process to be skewed and not equally open and free.

If you cannot forgive theists or religionists for their beliefs,
that introduces a bias that makes your starting point NOT neutral and NOT objective.
So you will have difficulty proving anything from a biased starting point
that is already on the side of rejection.

What theist would step foot in a courtroom knowing the judge is already
biased against them? Mediation fails when the process is skewed against one side.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Thought of you when I read this:

“Many of the great world religions teach that God demands a particular faith and form of worship. It should not be surprising that SOME of the people who take these teachings seriously should sincerely regard these divine commands as incomparably more important than any merely secular virtues like tolerance or compassion or reason.

Across Asia and Africa the forces of religious enthusiasm are gathering strength, and reason and tolerance are not safe even in the secular states of the West. The historian Huge Trevor-Roper has said that it was the spread of the spirit of science in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that finally ended the burning of the witches in Europe. We may need to rely again on the influence of science to preserve a sane world.  

Seeing scientists change their minds again and again about the matters that can be studied directly in laboratory experiments, how can one take seriously the claims of religious traditions or sacred writings to certain knowledge about matters beyond human experience” 
― Steven Weinberg


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

“It used to be obvious that the world was designed by some sort of intelligence. What else could account for fire and rain and lightning and earthquakes? Above all, the wonderful abilities of living things seemed to point to a creator who had a special interest in life. Today we understand most of these things in terms of physical forces acting under impersonal laws. We don't yet know the most fundamental laws, and we can't work out all the consequences of the laws we do know. The human mind remains extraordinarily difficult to understand, but so is the weather. We can't predict whether it will rain one month from today, but we do know the rules that govern the rain, even though we can't always calculate their consequences. I see nothing about the human mind any more than about the weather that stands out as beyond the hope of understanding as a consequence of impersonal laws acting over billions of years.” 
― Steven Weinberg


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



“There are those whose views about religion are not very different from my own, but who nevertheless feel that we should try to damp down the conflict, that we should compromise it. … I respect their views and I understand their motives, and I don't condemn them, but I'm not having it. To me, the conflict between science and religion is more important than these issues of science education or even environmentalism. I think the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief; and anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.” 
― Steven Weinberg


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



sealybobo that's fine if you don't believe
but don't let your bias get in the way of discussion and debate either way
or you will find mutual frustration with people biased towards God 
and refusing to be open minded and being closed to the same degree you admit.

If you really want to be universal and objective, then you would have to stay NEUTRAL.
Like agreeing your view is biased and being equally open to people with the opposite bias.
If you keep judging them for their bias, who are you to complain given your bias. Do you see how this deadlocks?

If you and I are equally biased, but AWARE of our biases,
and can forgive the opposite bias, we could work as a team to balance out the bias
and try to be open that way. people who are more atheistic can feel safe with you
on the team overseeing the proof, and people who are more theistic can relate to me.
We can still go through the steps of proving scientifically that effective forms of spiritual healing
are based on forgiveness, and that this forgiveness is the factor that correlated with 
reconciling religious or political differences. So it isn't the person's beliefs that is the
determining factor, it is whether the people forgive each other, or to what degree they can or cannot,
which determines if they can reconcile conflicts or not. We can demonstrate this scientifically
using statistics, while also the same process of studying spiritual healing can be applied to curing
physical and mental illness as well.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

“Many people do simply awful things out of sincere religious belief, not using religion as a cover the way that Saddam Hussein may have done, but really because they believe that this is what God wants them to do, going all the way back to Abraham being willing to sacrifice Issac because God told him to do that. Putting God ahead of humanity is a terrible thing.” 
― Steven Weinberg


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> “It used to be obvious that the world was designed by some sort of intelligence. What else could account for fire and rain and lightning and earthquakes? Above all, the wonderful abilities of living things seemed to point to a creator who had a special interest in life. Today we understand most of these things in terms of physical forces acting under impersonal laws. We don't yet know the most fundamental laws, and we can't work out all the consequences of the laws we do know. The human mind remains extraordinarily difficult to understand, but so is the weather. We can't predict whether it will rain one month from today, but we do know the rules that govern the rain, even though we can't always calculate their consequences. I see nothing about the human mind any more than about the weather that stands out as beyond the hope of understanding as a consequence of impersonal laws acting over billions of years.”
> ― Steven Weinberg



sealybobo
again, it is not necessary to believe in a personified intelligence to reach agreement on how laws of nature work.

We can pinpoint and study the correlated effects of forgiveness and unforgiveness
and prove the same process taught in religions is demonstrated through natural science of how the mind/body works.

Why not focus on what CAN be proven?


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Re: False division between science and religion
Dear sealybobo
doesn't it make sense that whatever is true about human nature
would have to be consistent with science if it is true
and also consistent with what religions teach in order for them to be true.

Well, studies on spiritual healing can bridge this gap in understanding
between science and religion. The doctors who have studied it all recognized this
and support medical studies to establish this more publicly.

Curiously enough, both Dr. Peck and Dr. MacNutt BLAME the false
division between science and religion as obstructing this research.

Makes sense that if these two groups are segregated and enforced in society
as incompatible, there won't be motivation or collaboration to do scientific studies on spiritual healing. 
If people like you are too busy preaching against any such proof instead of pursuing it.

As more people realize this will solve multiple problems,
then it will finally get support it needs for formal research to go public with it.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Nothing helps keep the poor in a state of poverty quite like religion and that is by design. You think Constantine decided Christianity was the official religion of the Roman Empire because he believed? That’s funny. Religion keeps people in intellectual shackles and chains them to subservience.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


So say you think you are better than God. Since it matters not.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



When you learn stuff like this:  

Around 1 in 5 Sun-like stars have an "Earth-sized" planet in the habitable zone.  Assuming 200 billion stars in the Milky Way, that would be 11 billion potentially habitable Earth-sized planets in the Milky Way

Kind of makes it hard to believe we are anything special.  Sort of humbling and makes me feel small.  But that's ok.  I like knowing.  I also feel lucky to have been born.  I don't have any kids.  Imagine how many unlucky sperm of mine will never fertilize an egg and those humans will never be born.  Seems to me a mosquito that lives for a month is luckier than them.  No life for them and no heaven for those sperm either.  What about all the potential brothers and sisters your parents didn't have.  You were lucky not blessed to be born.  Just dumb luck.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



There is no god so ok, here goes.  I'm better than something that doesn't exist.  I'm better than god!  I am a god!!!  Fuck god.  Happy?

I won't live forever.  When I die that's it.  Just like an ant or tiger or bird or maggot or trilobite or dinosaur.  Enjoy your life because its over quick and you only live once.  Everything only lives once.  The cosmos is eternal but your soul isn't.  No intelligent creator that cares about YOU made it happen.  

I can't believe I have to explain this to adult people.  No wonder this world is fucked up with so many dumb superstitious illogical irrational brainwashed people.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Most scientists are also atheists! They claim to have disproven Gods existence but in reality they are evil sinners who will all pay for their sins by ending up in hell. The bible clearly says that those who accepts Jesus Christ as their saviour shall be granted a place in heaven. Those who dont, however, will all be send to hell to burn for all eternity. 

*Psalm 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.*


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

A famous paedophile scientist named Stephen Hawkings claimed that God did not create the universe. In 1963, God answered Stephen Hawkings betrayal by cursing him with Down Syndrome.


----------



## Boss (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Nothing helps keep the poor in a state of poverty quite like religion and that is by design. You think Constantine decided Christianity was the official religion of the Roman Empire because he believed? That’s funny. Religion keeps people in intellectual shackles and chains them to subservience.



You know, I realize the Anti-Christian Storm Trooper Zombies see threads like these and feel compelled to fill them full of their volatile diarrhea, but the OP is not a defense of Christianity and no one here is arguing Christianity. The topic of this thread is phenomenon beyond physical explanation. Ironically, you have previously stated you believe in "Karma" which fits into this category and is part of this topic. 

Now the question is, can you control your inner Zombie Storm Trooper and rationally discuss the OP topic, or do we have to wade through 50 pages of your emotional diarrhea because you can't control yourself?


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Happy? No, not at all actually. It must be awful.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Are you _sure_ you're right about something? Whether it is going to rain tomorrow; whether space aliens have visited Earth; whether God exists?

If so, you've got a religious attitude, even if you don't consider yourself to be religious. That's because science is never completely certain. Scientists always are open to having their ideas about reality disproved.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing helps keep the poor in a state of poverty quite like religion and that is by design. You think Constantine decided Christianity was the official religion of the Roman Empire because he believed? That’s funny. Religion keeps people in intellectual shackles and chains them to subservience.
> ...



Just trying to help.  Like I said, understanding god doesn't exist isn't a one sentence fix.  It took me years to stop believing as you do.  Only I never believed or thought god talked back to me like you do.  Sorry.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I think you have your posters mixed up.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



Which of these things don't you believe in and why?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why?  Boss says god talks to him.

Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur. The existence of a miracle would pose logical problems for belief in a god which can supposedly see the future and began the universe with a set of predefined laws. Even if a ‘miracle’ could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.

Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.

Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.

Note: Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular god’s ‘infinite mercy’ or ‘omnibenevolence’ involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease – all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed. See also: Euthyphro dilemma, Confirmation bias,Cherry Picking.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called ‘moral’ characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.

The god character of the Bible is a misogynistictyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

_“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_ – Epicurus


Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


*I don’t want to go to hell/You will go to hell.*
Pascal’s Wager does not actually argue in support of the existence of a god, rather, it simply attempts to coerce insincere worship. There are several issues with this approach:


Multiple inconsistent and contradictory revelations (Which god/hell?)
Hell is incompatible with an omnibenevolent god.

A god could reward reasoning/skepticism.

An omniscient god would see through feigned belief as a result of coercion.

If a god wanted everyone to believe and knew exactly what was needed to convince people, then why are there atheists at all? Is god unable to prevent transgression of his will?

Infallible foreknowledge is incompatible with free will (Are atheists predestined for hell?)

Most people adhere to the religion they were born into, they have not examined all other religions.


----------



## Boss (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Yes man's laws are changing
> but that doesn't mean universal laws aren't just what they are
> and we just can't pin them down. I know some physicists who know all these same
> things and just see it as the Universe and don't personify God as a being, so what?



It's not about God, emily. Universal laws are not what they are. They are what we think they are. That was my point. We can't *know* things, we can only _*believe*_ we know things. Do you know why there is a "zeroth law" in thermodynamics? It is because the laws of thermodynamics were originally written without the zeroth law. However, it is more of a fundamental than the first law, thus it became the zeroth law. 

But because we put "law" behind something in science, we often become misled into believing that is empirical truth that can't be disputed. Actually, the term "law" is simply a placeholder for what we assume is a universal constant. Many of the physical laws of nature and the universe break down inside black holes and at the subatomic level. 

You can't confirm that you presently exist. I know, that sounds preposterous, doesn't it? You say, well I can look in the mirror and confirm I presently exist.... you're wrong. You can confirm that you existed a fraction of a second ago.... it takes time for the light to reflect off you, reflect off the mirror and reach your eye. What you see is what was there a fraction of a second ago, not presently.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Feb 9, 2015)

There was a time 13. something billion years ago when there was no universe ....what existed then ......


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Yes man's laws are changing
> ...



Hi Boss
do we agree, then, that God is separate from what our laws and religions say the relationship is?
This would be a great first step.

the atheists keep rejecting the religion but throwing out the self-existing laws/God as part of that.

if we can agree there ARE laws of nature and the universe out there
INDEPENDENT of how these are REPRESENTED in our limited science and religious terms
then we can agree to set aside the religious layers 
and just focus on what we agree on WITHOUT that layer.

What do you say, Boss?


----------



## Boss (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.



But no one is positing anything, I am asking how you explain the overwhelming amounts of phenomena which can't be physically explained? So far, the only explanation I  am getting from the non-spiritual, is simply blanket dismissal. I think this points to a mental disorder of someone in denial. 

I am not a religious person. I am not here to defend Christianity. I am not here to lobby for my God over your God. I'm not interested in promoting my religious views over yours. I'm not here to condemn you and tell you that you're going to hell.  If that's your perception of what this thread is about, you are delusional. 

So can we stop with the persistent bashing of theocracy for a moment and get back to the OP topic? Or does every single thing in your entire pathetic existence revolve around being an anti-Christian Storm Trooper Zombie? Are you beyond rational conversation?


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



1. RE morality
What studies have you even looked at 
that examine the effect of FORGIVENESS on human perception, health and  RELATIONSHIPS
or perhaps, since you do not want to forgive certain things
but want to keep with your current mindset and resist change,
then such studies would introduce a CONFLICT OF INTEREST
so you prefer to avoid this factor and any studies that might show FORGIVENESS correlated with health and healing
(not only of mind and body but of RELATIONSHIPS and thus affects MORALITY in terms of SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Any interest in this approach?

2. I AGREE that you can use Secular laws. And the same issues of FORGIVENESS applies to both laws.
people who forgive can resolve their religious or political issues, using either religious or secular laws.
people who cannot forgive cannot resolve their religious or political issues, using either religious or secular laws.

The issue lies with HUMAN NATURE

do you AGREE that both religious and secular laws ATTEMPT to define HUMAN NATURE and RELATIONS
between the INDIVIDUAL will and COLLECTIVE will

*Don't the same Laws of Human Nature apply to both religious and secular laws and authority?*

3. Ok so if you don't agree with this definition of God  DON'T USE IT.
You can reject the geocentric model of the solar system and NOT negate "all science and all the universe"

Why revolve your whole argument around something you don't even agree exists.

Plenty of Christians and Buddhists and others can relate to the Source of Life as self-existent.

I wish you were Buddhist so I could tell you to DETACH yourself from this unhealthy
ATTACHMENT to some false idol you have made out of rejecting a certain image of God.

Since you have a Christian background I ask you to FORGIVE it and let it go.

If you can start there, from a state of forgiving and letting go, you might be neutral.
As long as you hold on to this thing you don't believe is true and keep harping on it,
that is an emotional attachment that is biasing your judgment and limiting it 
until you agree to let go of this thing you don't even want in your life.

How rational is that? To keep holding on to and "ragging on" if not "railing against"
something you DON'T believe in. 

Especially if you don't like people clinging to something you think is false,
why are YOU clinging to it and dragging it around with you?

If you don't like a stinky smelly sock, do you drag it around with you
in order to complain about it?

What does it take to let go of this which you do not believe in and do not want in your life?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Feb 9, 2015)

The more science looks at reality at the physics  the more ethereal the conclusions....


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Most people adhere to the religion they were born into, they have not examined all other religions.



BTW sealybobo if you compare Languages with Religions
Most people can FORGIVE different languages and treat them as NEUTRAL.

Most people do not expect a native speaker to RENOUNCE or CONVERT away
from one language to another. with languages it is considered an ADVANTAGE to speak more than one.

Why not so with religions? When we study a new system of representing concepts,
why don't we see this as ADDING another language so we can communicate with
more audiences?

Again see my other note about human nature and FORGIVENESS.
if people can FORGIVE then we can be neutral and open.

sealybobo is your goal to be objective and open?
or is it to continue to rail about false teachings you don't want in your life
so you keep attaching arguments to them and these remain in your life?


----------



## Boss (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Emily, I don't have a religion. Therefore, I can't  very well have religious layers. This OP really has nothing to do with religion. What happened is, as soon as the OP posted, the Anti-God Zombie Storm Troopers arrived and began filling the thread with their typical volatile diarrhea. All I asked for was an intellectual discussion on paranormal events, things beyond the physical. 

There have only been a few grown-ups here willing to tackle the OP and have an honest discourse. The Zombies want to make it about theocracy and turn this thread into yet another Christian bashfest. I'm trying to bring the conversation back to the intent of the OP and you are not helping by pretending to be a conscientious moderator of dialogue between the religious and atheist. Again, this is not a thread about religion, God, or theocratic belief.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Emily, I don't have a religion. Therefore, I can't  very well have religious layers. This OP really has nothing to do with religion. What happened is, as soon as the OP posted, the Anti-God Zombie Storm Troopers arrived and began filling the thread with their typical volatile diarrhea. All I asked for was an intellectual discussion on paranormal events, things beyond the physical.
> 
> There have only been a few grown-ups here willing to tackle the OP and have an honest discourse. The Zombies want to make it about theocracy and turn this thread into yet another Christian bashfest. I'm trying to bring the conversation back to the intent of the OP and you are not helping by pretending to be a conscientious moderator of dialogue between the religious and atheist. Again, this is not a thread about religion, God, or theocratic belief.



You may not have a formal religion,
but if you have views and beliefs about God then those are your beliefs.
If you have a preferred way of expressing your knowledge or understanding
then that is your language.

So if someone like me wants to reach agreement with you about God
then we have to align YOUR language and beliefs/perceptions with mine. 

And likewise if you are trying to communicate with Hollie or sealybobo
who speak from their understanding and experiences.

We all have beliefs and ways of expressing our perceptions.
You may not call that a formal religion, but it is a layer because we all see
different parts of life and nobody can see, know or describe the whole of what God means as infinite.

So the most we can present is a layer based on
* our perception based on our experiences
* our language for that based on what terms we understand and/or other people we are sharing with


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Feb 9, 2015)

The World s Largest Clairvoyance Experiment Has Begun VICE United States

http://www.thegreatquestion.com/books/On_the_Edge_of_Etheric.pdf





59:01
*Rudolf Steiner and the Science of Spiritual Realities ...*


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> ...



Like you've decided there must be supernatural I've decided they don't exist. None of those things you listed are real. So far that's my belief but I remain open to new information.

All the evidence suggests all that's in your heads.

No anger or animosity from me. And I hope you don't believe I'll be punished for my skepticism?  If you do that's more of an indication to me you're just superstitious and cherry picking what you want to believe from the big 3


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



How do you explain all these things?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



My parents believe something must have made us and we get along just fine.  But they agree all religions are made up.

My mom says "we say we believe which means we don't know".  Well I don't believe. So what? Still a good person in fact better


----------



## Boss (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> ...



I can't explain them and that's my point. I listed about a dozen different areas, each of which contain volumes of testaments from people who apparently experienced something beyond the physical. Now most certainly, some of these instances can be chalked up as hoaxes, imagination, mental disorders, hallucinations, whatever. But my rational mind tells me that cannot be the case 100% of the time, across all these fields for all these years and all the stories. 

So my conclusion is, at least some of these cases are credible and there is something going on beyond our physical ability to detect. Quantum physics supports the notion there are dimensions we cannot observe.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> My parents believe something must have made us and we get along just fine.  But they agree all religions are made up.
> 
> My mom says "we say we believe which means we don't know".  Well I don't believe. So what? Still a good person in fact better



1. but you are SURE there is no God behind all these made up religions trying to define what God really is.
Your mom is able to be honest and say we don't know.
Are you as honest in saying you don't know either?

2. science and math are "made up terms" but we can still use them to measure
and work out problems where they come in handy. we know there are limits
and there are some things not yet proven or defined consistently using these.

Why not use religions the same way -- to communicate with people who respond that way.

You mentioned animals. Don't the bluejays call out to each other in one language
and the whales communicate in other tones?

Don't people do similar, and go door to door calling out as Mormon or Jehovah's Witnesses
trying to find the people who respond to that particular language and join their group?

As we speak, aren't there whole groups of people organizing by party beliefs,
or online organizing as Atheists (even some forming their own congregations and having services!).

Why isn't this seen as a social tool to organize the masses by tribe (similar to organizing
the several states that are sovereign under one national govt).  Why isn't this seen as having good purpose?


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



If you can explain how schizophrenic patients with demons taking over their minds wills and personalities
were cured by using deliverance and healing prayer,
and just call that SCIENCE and NATURAL process, that's fine.

The process STILL WORKS if you call it natural science or you call it supernatural / spiritual.

But I think it is strangely biased to have to ASSUME these processes aren't real
in order to avoid having to explain them using science.

Even if it is just "delusions" going on in patients'  heads
how do you explain away why the other medications or treatments
didn't get rid of the demon symptoms/delusions,
but the spiritual healing did?

Wouldn't natural scientific curiosity compel you to investigate
and find out what makes that process work?

(or is your agenda only to reject religion, so there is no interest
in investigating anything that might prove both religion and science to be compatible.
why is this being avoided except for fear of religion being proven by science?)


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



But you do try to explain them with must be god. 

But you seem like a nice enough person. I like and love lots of people who believe in god. I think they are wrong and the idea is bad for them but I certainty don't rant this stuff to them. I know most people believe this foolish notion and will die believing it. But if most theists were like you that doesn't really bother me.  And the more time goes on the more liberal god gets. Less fire and brimstone christians today than 55 years ago for example. Or those god hate fags people or Isis and mormons. You must hate all the other theists who misrepresents god. 

You don't have to believe because if there is a creator he didn't build a heaven for you and odds are this is it. Knowing that you'll appreciate each day more and won't wait for the afterlife. If its there fine. You seem good enough to get in.

God told me. But he said my karma belief is bs


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Boss, did you state God talks to you. sealybobo, do you have a post number to back up your statement that he did?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Pray and cure my nephews autism see what happens. Ask god to do it.

In the meantime scientists say acid might cure it. If we could just get the christian congress to allow it. Same way Gordy howe had to fly to california to get a stemcell procedure illegal in michigan.  Nice he can afford to do that but many can't. Religions don't care.

Same way religion all over america lowered the number of abortion clinics. That's OK for a girl with a car and money but not a poor girl who needs access to a local clinic. So in every way I see organized religions are all wrong even if their intensions are pure.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



If I'm not mistaken. Boss?


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Don't forget the link: 
Creationism and the Origin of Life s... - Religious Apologies Debunked Facebook


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



1. With autism the successful cases I have seen of therapy involved constant interaction from early on.
One boy I saw on TV, who had his mother work with him daily, fully recovered to normal.

2. to get rid of unwanted pregnancy and abortion, stop the abuse of sex and abuse of relationships
when people AREN'T ready or willing to have children.

This is done by healing relationships where people don't abuse each other and don't abuse sex.

You treat all guns as if they are loaded.
Well treat all sex as if they are going to cause a pregnancy.
And only have sex if all the people this is going to affect AGREE to the partnership and the pregnancy and child.

sealybobo you again keep defining God as something unnatural? why?
Why isn't it good enough to respect the natural laws of life and recognize this is the same as what other people
teach using religion.

Is that just too harmonious for you that you have to fight it 
and make it an argument so something has to be wrong?
what is wrong with focusing on what we AGREE are natural laws and solve problems?

what is wrong with praying for solutions
and they turn out to be natural common sense!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Make adult embreo stem cell research legal and make abortion safe and legal for all women, not just for the daughters of the rich religious hypocrites who will make the drive and pay the $500 to get er done.


----------



## OZman (Feb 9, 2015)

Resuscitation Experts on Near Death Experiences:


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Sure sealybobo you can do this and add to the solutions you see fit.
if you are serious, you invest your own money and efforts into this,
and don't just expect to legislate and make "other people follow your beliefs like a religion"

if you don't like other people telling you what to believe and how to do what, then why do this to others if you hate it too.

Note: But none of this stops rape, incest, abuse, coercing women to have sex have babies have abortions.

More is needed than just focusing on what to do "after the fact"

Your solutions are not "the only ones" just like one person's religious view of God is not "the only one"
Practice what you preach and you won't be so frustrated.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

OZman said:


> Resuscitation Experts on Near Death Experiences:



Dear OZman if you read the statements by Don Piper
he was  crushed lifeless by an 18 wheeler and had to have his arms/legs reconstructed.

Had his heart been beating, he would have bled out in the 90 minutes he had no pulse
and was declared dead.  With no blood going to his brain he should have been impaired.

He recovered and the doctors cannot explain the complete LACK of brain injuries
and no affect at all to his mental and neurological functions. He is completely normal which is rare.

Only the physical damage to his bones and recovery from his reconstruction cause him pain from that,
which is normal.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Actually, what you provided was a rote list of claims that resolve to nothing more than people's "feelings". All of the "experiences beyond the physical" you describe "_can be chalked up as hoaxes, imagination, mental disorders, hallucinations, whatever."
_
How is it that "something beyond the physical" is always "something beyond the demonstrable and supportable"? 

Despite your desperate need to believe in gawds and supernatural spirit realms, don't confuse your alleged "rational mind" with the ability of snake oil salesmen and charlatans to prey upon such fears and superstitions. 

Ask your gawds to magically regrow someone's severed limb or magically part a sea, for real this time. Until then, la cosa nostra, capice?


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...





Slyhunter said:


> I have a hard time understanding how a head can hold so many memories. I've watched entire tv shows with the tv off by mind power alone.
> 
> There are a lot of things I can't explain, like microwave ovens, that doesn't make them magic.


I can explain how microwaves work...


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Yes I want to see a documentary where 6 scientists are all invited to watch an exorcism and show me those scientists reactions and their opinions afterward. I would guess they'd all agree the girl was mentally sick and probably read about exorcists and talking in tongues.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Yes, and the same way microwaves come with a warning
and people are taught not to expose themselves to radiation that is dangerous,
similar needs to be taught with occult energy and dark magic that interferes with natural lifegiving energy
vs. the natural healing energy that is lifegiving and promotes good health


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



YES, I think science and religion are coming to that point.

the point is if the therapy CURES the patient, 
then why not apply and access this therapy if it is shown to WORK


----------



## Hollie (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> OZman said:
> 
> 
> > Resuscitation Experts on Near Death Experiences:
> ...


I see no miracles in the Don Piper tale. Have you considered that the similarities of descriptions of NDE's share common attributes because of human physiology?

I suppose the real miracle is that Don Piper survived a devastating accident. Good for him, screw all those other losers who died.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

And I bet she doesn't climb up to the ceiling or levitate or no doors will slam shut


emilynghiem said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Youre nutz


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I'd try anything if my kid was sick


----------



## Hollie (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Occult energy and black magic?

Good gawd. Have some portions of humanity not learned a thing since Medieval times?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


What part of rattling bones, reading tea leaves, lighting smelly incense, etc., is shown to cure disease?


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yo gotta be naked to get it to work...


----------



## Hollie (Feb 9, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Now ya' tell me! 

Come on over and we'll try it.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I'm watching this Arab christiian show were the guy is going on and on about how 700 years before Christ Isaiah predicted god would come as a child and he's just quoting the bible with such confidence as if what he is reading proves anything. I see how gullible people get sucked in. But ten minutes in and I'm still waiting for something of substance.  Oh its over? Did he prove or even say anything really? Not as far as I'm concerned. 

I should feel bad I don't get it. I must be stupid evil or broken. Maybe I don't want it bad enough.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > YES, I think science and religion are coming to that point.
> ...



Nope, that is not how spiritual healing works.
It is internal work to identify unforgiven issues and pray to remove and resolve these
so the mind lets go of negative blockages that are obstructing natural healing.

No amount of placebo or fake external rituals
can substitute for real work to FORGIVE and let go of divisions and resentment 
in the mind and affecting the body and relationships.

Hollie have you ever tried to fix a broken relationship with someone
by rattling bones in their face? doesn't work too well.

But for people who work to forgive and resolve damages that occurred
between them. to RESTORE trust and HEAL the wounds,
then after a lot of counseling work, their relationship can function again.

The same with the human mind and body connection.
if the energy circuit is blocked or broken, the healing doesn't flow properly.
So the circuit has to be repaired before the natural energy can flow freely.

no amount of fakery "on the outside" can replace the real internal work on the inside.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Don't feel bad. People with degrees and licenses didn't believe until they saw real life
demonstrations that spiritual healing works. Once you see it, then it makes sense.
but before you see it, the average brain is not going to understand how in the heck.

Dr. Peck fought for years with his good friend the priest that the Exorcist movie was based on.
And still didn't believe how any of this hocus pocus could be anything but delusion,
until he saw for himself that patients responded and went through all the stages as predicted by an experienced priest.

Dr. MacNutt thought this had to be dark ages myth, and couldn't believe people really practiced this.
Even after he wrote his book on it in 1974, he has been practicing it and teaching it to others in teams.
His book is a seminary text, and he really only wrote it upon request by people who kept asking for help to understand this.

Dr. Goldfedder is a Jewish doctor, so imagine his change of mind when someone showed him it was real and natural.

None of these people believed it without proof they saw with their own eyes and could replicate over and over.

Now sealybobo if it takes that much before people will believe it,
of course you would not be expected to understand it until you see how it works.

That's probably half the reason why it takes so long for everyone to find out,
it spreads by live demonstration, and everyone's process of healing is different.
some people are instantaneous so how can you study and document something that is already healed
by the time you find out about it.
And some cases take 10 to 25 years to heal so when do you expect to start documenting that type of study.

This stuff is ongoing. The healing ministries just keep on helping more and more people with
healing until it catches on.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Actually it doesn't take much to convince most people. Most people believe in angels devils ghosts demons angels and gods with very little actual evidence.


----------



## Boss (Feb 9, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Boss, did you state God talks to you. sealybobo, do you have a post number to back up your statement that he did?



No, he is mischaracterizing something I said because he's a dumbass. God (my conception) doesn't "talk" because it's not human. I am a Spiritualist. I communicate daily with a force beyond my physical self. I don't "believe" this force exists, I am aware of it.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


What exactly is an "energy circuit"?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss, did you state God talks to you. sealybobo, do you have a post number to back up your statement that he did?
> ...


Do theses communications become more frequent when you miss a dose of your meds?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss, did you state God talks to you. sealybobo, do you have a post number to back up your statement that he did?
> ...


And it communicates with you and you him and it has helped you. Tell him.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



the flow of life energy through the mind and body
(and also connecting other people)
has been described as a circuit connecting appliances and rooms in a house.

so if there is a break in the circuit, either a blown fuse, a broken cord,
or an unplugged fixture, then the first step to get the energy flowing
is to check all the circuits; then also make sure the power is turned on.

otherwise, if appliances don't work people start blaming the appliances
as broken or trying to find where there is a break or block in the circuit.

What's funny is people know not to blame the "laws of electricity"
as false or not real or not working. We know to find where the
break is so the electricity CAN work.

The same is true of life energy and natural healing flowing
through our minds and bodies, and our relations with others:
Once we understand how the energy naturally flows,
we look for reasons why gets blocked or cut off, and try to fix it,
instead of denying it works at all.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss, did you state God talks to you. sealybobo, do you have a post number to back up your statement that he did?
> ...



Hey Boss this sounds more like my bf who senses there is a God
but doesn't get into this "personal relations or interaction" stuff with it.

He is as secular gentile as you can get. Has to see proof or it's no go.
What makes him different from other "dumbasses" is he HAS seen
proof that Christianity does more good than harm, so he does not insult blame attack or obstruct that.
He gives credit for that. He hasn't seen proof of this spiritual healing,
but at least he doesn't go around attacking and insulting Christians because he at least
has sense to recognize the good Christianity has done in the world.

It is funny to me though, that he CLEARLY distinguishes Christianity from Hitler
and says "NO clearly that guy was NOT Christian"; but when it comes to
Muslims and Jihadists he CANNOT see why people make an equally clear
distinction and say "NO that clearly is NOT Islam." He can see it for one side but not the other.

He has a strong sense that something is missing from Islam.
He does see this rejection of Christianity when extreme Zionists do it
but he definitely sees it when the Jihadists do it.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


He agrees or doesnt argue because you let him fuck you. He sounds just like what I would tell you.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What? We argue all the time.
What are you talking about?

He has a bias against forgiving "Muslim extremists"
just like you have a bias against theist religions.

The only reason he has had to listen to these arguments at all
is because I use his computer and I'm in his house all the time.

He didn't like my argument that George Bush was both a military leader (through which
orders are given in war to shoot to kill without due process even if it is innocent civilians)
and a church-going Christian and those two are SEPARATE.  You don't take military
instructions for soldiers in war and enforce those "out of context" in civilian peacetime
and say "that is the same Constitution" -- it's two totally different contexts and no, it is NOT
appropriate to enforce Constitutional laws that way and claim it is the Constitution.
that was the analogy I made about Mohammad having different strategies in wartime vs. civilians in peacetime, and NOT saying it is all Islam. He didn't like that but he couldn't argue with that.

We agree that rejecting Christianity is the key difference.
But he doesn't get that the FORGIVENESS issue is the real key
so when he doesn't FORGIVE he imposes a political bias.

He doesn't get that sealybobo and
NEITHER DO YOU. You have an advantage if you have a Christian
background and might can understand things more than he does.


----------



## Boss (Feb 9, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



It does sound as if he has similar views. Speaking only as someone who has objectively looked into the religious history of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, the Abrahamic faiths, it appears there is a diametric to Islam, almost a slight. In many ways, the prophecies of Mohammad are sort of knock-offs from Christianity. Pepsi will never be Coke. 

And as time goes on, it seems Islam has been taken over by the radicals. I mean, they are like Ken Olsteen with an AK-47. Religious nuts on a mission to violently drive society back to the 5th century through sheer terrorism. The "moderates" in Islam are silent... they're too busy beating and mutilating their teenage daughters. The biggest problem I see with Islam is, it's Christianity before Jesus, in essence. It's the violence and the angry God who punishes and brings down his wrath upon thee... not the message of love, tolerance and forgiveness, as taught by Jesus. 

My mother was Christian, and if there are actual saints in heaven, she is one. She was always disappointed in me not being a Christian, but she accepted my views and respected where I stood on religion. She asked me once, in sort of a rhetorical way... Why do the Atheists hate Jesus so much? All Jesus is doing is offering them a free gift [of eternal salvation] in a pure act of love. There is nothing 'threatening' about that. She simply couldn't understand the animosity toward Jesus. Christianity is a religion of acceptance. You cannot be a Christian until you accept the terms of the religion, no one can force you to.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



He and his family weren't Christian but were brought up "naturally conservative" very similar to my family who were also secular (Buddhist) and share strong traditional conservative family backgrounds.

Where this comes into play, he and I pretty much agree that this rebellion against church or govt authority
(including this disdain for Jesus and Christianity) is like teenagers going through a phase of having to separate and rebel against "Mom and Dad". so it is mommy and daddy issues projected onto party (liberals using the Democrats as the whaa-whaa-cry-to-Mommy party and conservatives using the Republicans as the whip-yo-ass Daddy party) and rebelling against the church as the mother figure and the state as the father figure.

People are either taking the role of "bully on the playground" or "brat having a hissy fit."
Instead of DOING THE WORK IT TAKES to fix problems running the household, they are fighting to take over being in charge by "telling on each other and getting the other person in trouble." None of this is about solutions, but just points for what the other does wrong.

We both criticize people who depend on party or govt to "gimmee gimmee gimmee"
but the difference is that I promote programs and invest in model solutions like campus plans that would train people in whole communities to be liberated from this, and own and manage their own districts (and call for restitution and credit back to taxpayers by wrongdoers responsible for abuses of govt resources) and he just wants to complain and then vote for other people to fix it.  I am saying people need to invest directly in our parties to organize localized solutions and build them ourselves, and THEN pass those solutions that work to govt to replicate as the model.

He is not into THAT independent level of self-govt.

My friend Vern is more into doing it yourself and building business solutions to reform how govt works.

I think the difference may be that my bf is more secular, and absolutely HAS to see proof first
that a program is in place and that it works. He is not going to go out and "build it yourself."

My friend Vern and I aren't afraid to push in advance on a faith-based approach, before an idea is yet proven.

Someone has GOT to see things in advance or nothing would get done if they all have to be proven first before anyone will support them. Duh!


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 10, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> ... Going to church is like taking a dog to obedience training.


Strange.


----------



## Politico (Feb 10, 2015)

You can explain what has never been proven.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Feb 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



A lot can be explained away as simply using the wrong terms for otherwise scientific concepts and phenomenae. For example, prior to understanding our inner monologues (the voice in our heads when we 'think' to ourselves,) that voice could have been thought to be angels, gods, or whatever else. But calling it something supernatural doesn't change what it actually is. As with things like 'astral projection' being something perfectly mundane and explainable via neuroscience. Way our brains works and our thoughts get processed is only now being defined and understood by science. So a lot of what passes for supernatural phenomenae is on its way out of our lexicons and getting replaced with science. 

I've had numerable experiences with near and short-term precognitive events in my life, but I can never do it on-demand. It's always when my mind is relaxed and I don't focus on anything in particular. Some seemingly random thought pops in then I become more consciously aware of it and to me it seems like I had a glimpse of a very near future event. Unfortunately, my growing knowledge of neuroscience has killed this romantic explanation and been replaced with a better understanding of perception and neural processing. Basicly, we retroactively define or explain something out of chronological order making it seem like knowledge of an event took place prior to perception of it. But in reality it happened in the right order but our brains tricked us. Stage illusions/magic has taken advantage of this sort of thing for millenia. It's neat to think somehow some of it might be real, but it's not. There is no supernatural, just natural and extranatural (natural things but off planet Earth.)


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss, did you state God talks to you. sealybobo, do you have a post number to back up your statement that he did?
> ...


Well there you go, sealybobo , you are unable to get just about anything figured out, including which poster is which. And that once again leaves me as the only one on the planet who claims God speaks to him as far as I know.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 10, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


he told me you would say that........


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 10, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're a hoot.


----------



## Boss (Feb 10, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> A lot can be explained away as simply using the wrong terms for otherwise scientific concepts and phenomenae. For example, prior to understanding our inner monologues (the voice in our heads when we 'think' to ourselves,) that voice could have been thought to be angels, gods, or whatever else. But calling it something supernatural doesn't change what it actually is. As with things like 'astral projection' being something perfectly mundane and explainable via neuroscience. Way our brains works and our thoughts get processed is only now being defined and understood by science. So a lot of what passes for supernatural phenomenae is on its way out of our lexicons and getting replaced with science.
> 
> I've had numerable experiences with near and short-term precognitive events in my life, but I can never do it on-demand. It's always when my mind is relaxed and I don't focus on anything in particular. Some seemingly random thought pops in then I become more consciously aware of it and to me it seems like I had a glimpse of a very near future event. Unfortunately, my growing knowledge of neuroscience has killed this romantic explanation and been replaced with a better understanding of perception and neural processing. Basicly, we retroactively define or explain something out of chronological order making it seem like knowledge of an event took place prior to perception of it. But in reality it happened in the right order but our brains tricked us. Stage illusions/magic has taken advantage of this sort of thing for millenia. It's neat to think somehow some of it might be real, but it's not. There is no supernatural, just natural and extranatural (natural things but off planet Earth.)



Lots of things can be "explained away" ...especially using complicated scientific concepts that can neither be proven or disproved. Certainly, there are many so-called phenomena which can be logically explained by modern neuroscience... but 100% of the time, all the time? In every documented case in every field mentioned in the OP.... ALL of them? I say that is as unlikely as all the cases being legitimate and valid. Reason and rationality tell me that, at least in some cases, there is something happening which science can't explain. 

Now, I do understand why someone who is non-spiritual and virtually "at war" with the religious, would systemically reject any notion of something outside the physical, regardless of the evidence. If it is ever admitted that just ONE of the literally billions of accounts is valid, it means there is a possibility they can all be valid. That possibility simply cannot exist for the non-spiritual. They are resigned to physical nature being the only nature of reality.


----------



## cnm (Feb 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> So you are on record... Absolutely 0% of all the billions of associated events mentioned in the OP are legitimate?


What does legitmate mean, that people perceived things in a certain way? Oh, I'm happy to stipulate some people will swear they experienced some things. So  what. Rumsfeld for instance swore Iraq had significant stashes of WMD.

That there are 0% events that can be objectively verified as being the work of supernature? Yup.

I'd imagine if you are aware of an instance that could be objectively verified that you would have brought it to our attention.

PS Your argument was still an appeal to the number of suckers.


----------



## Boss (Feb 10, 2015)

cnm said:


> That there are 0% events that can be objectively verified as being the work of supernature? Yup.



If all the cases could be explained by physical nature, none of the areas I mentioned would amount to anything.  That's the whole point here, nature can't explain very much of this stuff. Still... even with science failing to give you any rational answer, you are willing to remain in blissful denial of any possibility outside your narrow thinking.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > That there are 0% events that can be objectively verified as being the work of supernature? Yup.
> ...


Yet another reiteration of the fears and superstitions that have been the hallmark of religious belief: "I don't understand it, therefore, the gawds did it"

What a shame. No converts to the religion of _Boss' Ministry of Spirit Realms. _
_
_


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...


For an open minded non spritual person, I'd say they'd explain it like this...

"It's unexplained phenomena." It's actually a brilliant way to answer your question. Some people simply don't feel the need to claim that it's spiritual gobbledygook. I don't know what it is really makes anybody claiming to know what it is appear to be charlatans.


----------



## Boss (Feb 11, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> For an open minded non spiritual person...



That's an oxymoron.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > For an open minded non spiritual person...
> ...


No it isn't. I think people that insist that unexplained phenomena must be spiritual hooey are not only close minded dullards but extremely childish and arrogant.

My spirituality is truth. I'm a Taoist. To me unexplainable crap isn't worth talking about.


----------



## turzovka (Feb 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Here let's see if I can break it down:
> ...



People like “Theoldschool” are here because most likely they are afraid.  They are looking for affirmation that they do not have to be accountable to any God because they want to live their lives as they please but also hedge their bet.  They want some documentation that shows they tried to find out if there was a God, convinced themselves through the lamest of excuses there was no sign of God, and now they can continue on their merry way.  Misery loves company to put it another way.

His answers were a total embarrassment devoid of a scientific explanation.  For instance, in 2008 when a non-believing neurosurgeon, Dr Eban Alexander, lay near death in a coma for six days because of bacterial meningitis and the doctors are ready to pull the plug on him, all of a sudden his pop open and he makes a remarkable fully recovery.  While he had virtually no brain function he experienced paradise as an atheist.  He did his research afterwards demonstrating how his condition could never have allowed such brain activity.  But no one wants to believe his scientific work.  Why?  Because his science gives evidence for God not the opposite.  Deniers of God only point to science when it supports their wishes and dismisses its findings when it proves them wrong.

There are many souls on earth that are either brought back from purgatory or are having some connect with what God intends.  Ghosts, yes, in some cases.  Spells and curses are too often real.

You will not get anyone on the side of the skeptic here to admit they could very well have been wrong because they have already been given the evidence.  Their preferred defense is to try to pick them off one by one, but from my experience, it comes off sad.  Everything is hallucination or mass hallucination when thousands see the same thing, or of course, all the eye witnesses are liars. 

I still love the events from Indiana where the devils scared the hell out of the social workers and law enforcement personnel who came to investigate the strange occurrences in that house.  Once again, the deniers of the supernatural here had nothing but lame counter-explanations.  I no longer expect anything else.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/25943051

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/01/25/the-disposession-of-latoya-ammons/4892553/


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 11, 2015)

turzovka said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...


^ this nigga cray


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 11, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Yeah, you're scared. You know it. That God you don't believe in May actually be real...lol


----------



## turzovka (Feb 11, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I should be surprised you have nothing intelligent to say?     

Life in general and people in general cause me a lot of sorrow and concern.       We are not playing a game.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 11, 2015)

turzovka said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...


Don't worry about atheists. You should really be concerned with proper evangelism. Nothing turns people off more than a believer with a bee in her bonnet about an atheist person.


----------



## Boss (Feb 11, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Inevitable said:
> ...



Where did I claim unexplained phenomena must be ANYTHING? I am the one leaving that door of possibility open as the non-spiritual try desperately to close it. To me, it's far more childish and arrogant to say "it's can't possibly be X!" 

You're no more of a Taoist than you are open minded, if you believe we can ever be certain of truth.


----------



## turzovka (Feb 11, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



Yes, agreed.   I do not share my thoughts with others in the real world in a know-it-all way.  I am charitable and I do not make them feel inferior.  

But on forums such as this, the game changes.   Atheists or agnostics or even unbalanced believers are not interested in being pursued with flowers and kindness.   They have more of a mission to mock and to lay waste to whatever Christianity says with boldness or assuredness.     And if someone is going to be laughing at the evidence then they need to be challenged.    They may take offense here in some way, but so what?    Maybe later on in their own bedroom they can become more open and honest and introspective.    If they begin to pray and feel a bit scared none of us bullies will even know, nor will they ever have to admit anything to me or you.    Maybe some scornful yet challenging words is just the thing?    I personally do not care if I am not welcome.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So when somebody sees the northern lights and says it's magical unicorns you accept that as equal to the explanation that it's solar wind?
There has been rational explanations for everything that you listed. Give me a reason to believe that it's some fantastical explanation.



> You're no more of a Taoist than you are open minded, if you believe we can ever be certain of truth.


That's a nice opinion. It doesn't seem relevant and it really seems more emotionally motivated.


----------



## OZman (Feb 11, 2015)

Seems some people are investigating these experiences.


The Mystery of Perception During Near Death Experiences - Pim van Lommel:


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 11, 2015)

turzovka said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...


That is a good point.


----------



## Boss (Feb 11, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> So when somebody sees the northern lights and says it's magical unicorns you accept that as equal to the explanation that it's solar wind?
> There has been rational explanations for everything that you listed. Give me a reason to believe that it's some fantastical explanation.



We understand the scientific reasons for the northern lights. What would the northern lights mean if there were no human life to observe them? Think about it before answering.

There has not been rational explanations for most of the things I listed. If there were a rational explanation, they wouldn't be a thing. I didn't cite 8-9 specific incidents, I listed about a dozen general areas, each of which has a significant and recognizable number of people who profess to have some kind of experience or evidence that nature can't explain. These people, across the assorted fields listed, number in the billions. Many of them are credible and reliable people... pilots, astronauts, scientists, doctors... are they all looney tunes? 100% of them? In all the history of man?

I just can't buy that, sorry! I think there are forces beyond physical nature as we know it. If you want to say that is "supernatural" it's up to you, I think it's more a part of nature we don't see.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > So when somebody sees the northern lights and says it's magical unicorns you accept that as equal to the explanation that it's solar wind?
> ...


If you believe in ghosts and such why not in leprechauns the tooth fairy and Santa clause.

These fables are made up to explain the unexplained. To believe that certain phenomena are ghosts is like believing that zuse is forging lighting bolts.

I think it's superstition and it doesn't serve any valuable purpose.


----------



## Boss (Feb 11, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> If you believe in ghosts and such why not in leprechauns the tooth fairy and Santa clause.
> 
> These fables are made up to explain the unexplained. To believe that certain phenomena are ghosts is like believing that zuse is forging lighting bolts.
> 
> I think it's superstition and it doesn't serve any valuable purpose.



It's not a matter of "believing in" something. There is very little I am willing to accept on blind faith. I've said nothing about believing in ghosts. I don't know if ghosts exist or not. I don't know if some people have psychic abilities or paranormal experiences. I'm not placing my certification on any individual account, but the fact is, this kind of thing is not only normal in everyday life, but prevalent.  Across a wide array of areas as mentioned in the OP, across millions and billions of people through thousands of years... trying to argue that 100%, without exception, is total made-up, hallucinated or delusional garbage, is just laughable to me. Even if it's true, how would you possibly know? It's the epitome of arrogance to hold this view and say you are "open minded" because you just aren't.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe in ghosts and such why not in leprechauns the tooth fairy and Santa clause.
> ...


Well it isn't freaking magic.


----------



## Boss (Feb 11, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Inevitable said:
> ...



In a certain way of looking at it... it might be magic? 

Or at least what we understand magic to be.. an illusion that makes things appear a certain way to us.  I can't offer a blanket explanation for the billions and billions of instances, that's the point. I'm rational enough to think that some number of them must be valid. But if any are valid, they all could be. And this is why we get this quirky absolutist denial on behalf of the non-spiritual... totally contradicting free and open thought and closed to any and all possibility. 

It's amusing to me how human beings tend to think of us as the most aware and intelligent thing in the entire universe. That what we understand of physics and physical nature is all there is to know, that nothing else in the universe could possibly have more insight than us.... simple carbon-based life forms on a tiny rock orbiting an average sun. We're IT! We're the Shit!  

I can't be that naive and foolish. I believe there are other dimensional forces to the universe, and we are simply not aware of them because we lack the proper senses to be aware of them... Let me demonstrate what I mean here.... There is a musical symphony playing in your room right now but you don't hear it. Is that hard to believe? Yes, but it's true. Turn on your radio and see! You are simply not equipped with the capability of reading the waves and disseminating them into anything. If you are in any kind of major city, there is data flowing all around you right now, going here and there through WY-FI and cell signals... dark energy and matter are passing through you as if you were a ghost.... strange and unusual things are happening but you're not aware of them. 

To think that our five limited human senses, none of which we are superior at btw, is all there is to the entire universe, takes a leap of faith greater than any God man ever created, in my opinion.


----------



## Abishai100 (Feb 11, 2015)

*The Stylistics Approach*

This is definitely a worthwhile perspective on the historic problem of skepticism.  I'm glad this thread is receiving attention.

When we look at ends-based revolutions such as the Guevara-Castro overthrow of the undesirable Batista regime in Cuba, we find studied pragmatism stories about resource redistribution as well as culture-rich sentimentalism stories about self-governance drama (i.e., the positive rebellious human spirit).

When we celebrate political events or achievements, are we giving into emotional immaturity or silly sentimentalism?  Why do we celebrate the 4th of July in the USA?

When the AIDS community engages in mass political rallies, why do we become doubly concerned about the dangers of sentimentalism as well as the urgency of political initiative?

Maybe such questions will reveal why Native American cultures celebrate ideas about Earth's natural spirits and ghosts.  Maybe these cultures are fascinated by 'the problem of exuberance.'

We can perhaps approach this problem then with a _stylistics _angle.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Lol, if we can't perceive things outside of our perception. So what point is there in talking about such things?


----------



## Boss (Feb 11, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Lol, if we can't perceive things outside of our perception. So what point is there in talking about such things?



Because the things we don't perceive can still effect us. 

We have no perception of tiny living microbes in our milk, that's why we have it pasteurized. If not, we'd drink the microbes, get sick and die. It wouldn't do us much good to refuse to speak of such things.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Lol, if we can't perceive things outside of our perception. So what point is there in talking about such things?
> ...


There's nothing supernatural about milk.

Other than claiming "it's magic", how do the spirit realm'ists explain it?


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Lol, if we can't perceive things outside of our perception. So what point is there in talking about such things?
> ...


Bull shit we have plenty of perception of micro organisms. 

Things we don't perceive cannot be perceived. I don't see how there would be any effect on us whatsoever.


----------



## Boss (Feb 12, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Inevitable said:
> ...



We didn't have perception of them until Louis Pasteur found a way to observe them. We can't see them with regular human vision and they can kill us. And they did kill us, and people thought supernatural forces were at play because people drank the milk and died. When Pasteur discovered microbes, people thought he was out of his mind. 

The point is still there. Something existed outside of our perception until we discovered it.


----------



## cnm (Feb 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> If all the cases could be explained by physical nature, none of the areas I mentioned would amount to anything.  That's the whole point here, nature can't explain very much of this stuff. Still... even with science failing to give you any rational answer, you are willing to remain in blissful denial of any possibility outside your narrow thinking.


If _'not making stuff up'_ is the same as _'blissful denial of any possibility outside your narrow thinking'_ I plead guilty as charged.


----------



## cnm (Feb 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > That there are 0% events that can be objectively verified as being the work of supernature? Yup.
> ...


What part of 'the work of supernature' did you not understand?


----------



## cnm (Feb 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> [..,]
> I can't be that naive and foolish.


Ah, I see your problem.



> I believe there are other dimensional forces to the universe, and we are simply not aware of them because we lack the proper senses to be aware of them... Let me demonstrate what I mean here.... There is a musical symphony playing in your room right now but you don't hear it. Is that hard to believe? Yes, but it's true. Turn on your radio and see!



And when you turn the light on you can see. A miracle!


----------



## Hollie (Feb 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And that "something" was entirely natural, as is the case with all of existence. We get it; you have a need to recruit others into your world of supernatural realms. You just continue to fail in your efforts to make any case for those supernatural realms.


----------



## Boss (Feb 12, 2015)

You two have anything to offer or is it just more of the same?


----------



## Boss (Feb 12, 2015)

cnm said:


> If _'not making stuff up'_ is the same as _'blissful denial of any possibility outside your narrow thinking'_ I plead guilty as charged.



Let's get it straight, Bozo... You have offered exactly zero evidence that anyone has "made up" anything. I listed about a dozen general areas of unexplained phenomena, each has thousands and thousands of stories and testimonials over many years. With NO evidence whatsoever, you throw a blanket of denial over everything and then claim you're not being closed minded. What a joke. 

Yep, you are guilty of being a closed-minded moron... glad you realize it!


----------



## Boss (Feb 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> We get it; you have a need to recruit others into your world of supernatural realms.



I have no need for anything, especially from you. Is that really what you think is happening here? You think I am somehow expecting my post to make such an impression on you, so as to change your mind about God and cause you to praise me for showing you the light? Hahahahaha... that's funny! 

No, I knew when I posted this thread, exactly what was going to happen and it did. All non-spiritual people are automatically forced into a position of absolute denial and closed-minded rejection of all possibility. It's amazing to see how quickly the closed-minded intolerance blossoms.


----------



## Yarddog (Feb 12, 2015)

cnm said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...




I had a hard time understanding  that part


----------



## Boss (Feb 12, 2015)

cnm said:


> That there are 0% events that can be objectively verified as being the work of supernature? Yup.



I can give you one.. Origin of the universe. 

Want another one? Origin of life. 

It can be objectively verified both things happened and physical nature doesn't/can't explain them. This means, objectively, it must be "supernature."


----------



## Yarddog (Feb 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > That there are 0% events that can be objectively verified as being the work of supernature? Yup.
> ...




yep Origin of energy, laws of  attraction,  origin of matter, all that


----------



## cnm (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> I can give you one.. Origin of the universe.
> 
> Want another one? Origin of life.
> 
> It can be objectively verified both things happened and physical nature doesn't/can't explain them. This means, objectively, it must be "supernature."


Why must those be the work of 'supernature'? That we don't precisely know what happened doesn't mean 'the spirits did it' which seems to be the point you're trying to make.

Especially since all/most of the events previously ascribed to 'spirits or gods' - take thunder and lightning as an example - have been shown to have 'natural' causes.


----------



## cnm (Feb 13, 2015)

All you have to do is indicate some double blind trials and your point is carried.


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

cnm said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I can give you one.. Origin of the universe.
> ...



It's not a matter of not knowing, it's a matter of what we know through science is possible. Physics says that matter cannot create itself. Biology says life only comes from life. Our science answers the question of origin in both the case of the universe and life, and it says that it's not physically possible. By definition, if it cannot be by physical nature it must be by "supernature" ...we're out of options.


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

cnm said:


> All you have to do is indicate some double blind trials and your point is carried.



You can try all the double trials you please as soon as you find something in nature to try when it comes to originating matter or life. So far, we've never discovered anything in physical nature to explain it or to try. You said: zero events that can be objectively verified as being the work of supernature. I gave you two. Origin of the Universe and Origin of Life. Now you seem to want us to apply physical science evaluation to the supernature which it can't apply to. What causes your brain to do that, retardation?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > All you have to do is indicate some double blind trials and your point is carried.
> ...


Be satisfied that your fears and superstitions are placated by belief in magic and supernaturalism. 

"The gawds did it". That addresses all you need to know.


----------



## MaxGrit (Feb 13, 2015)

cnm said:


> All you have to do is indicate some double blind trials and your point is carried.



hahahahahahah 

Do you need double blind trials to let you know if you feel pain after stubbing your foot against a chair?


----------



## MaxGrit (Feb 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



One true God exists as a Trinity.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



That is evidence of Satan's existence.  Astral projection, Edgar Cayce, Nostradamus, TM, false near death experiences brought about by demonic visions, voices, etc.  All the Occult. Anyone who is involved with the occult must repent of it and turn from it completely and come to Jesus Christ for salvation.   Otherwise they will be in hell eternally.  You need to be born again, Boss.  You're lost.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


We were able to perceive it. Just because nobody bothered until Pasteur, doesn't mean we didn't have the ability.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> You two have anything to offer or is it just more of the same?


I answered your thread question and you got your panties in a bunch because you didn't like the answer.

If you don't think I have anything to offer stop talking to me.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 13, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> ... We were able to perceive it. Just because nobody bothered until Pasteur, doesn't mean we didn't have the ability.



He's speaking about a dimension of quantity you are speaking about a dimension of quality. What about to try to imagine something in a room what is without sharp edges and soft curves? That's impossible although it sounds easy to do so.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 13, 2015)

cnm said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I can give you one.. Origin of the universe.
> ...



There was no nature - then was nature. This point was about 13.8 billion years ago.



> That we don't precisely know what happened doesn't mean 'the spirits did it' which seems to be the point you're trying to make.



Perhaps a good question in this context could be: Is mathematics (spirit) creating physics (nature) or is physics (nature) creating mathematics (spirit). Whatever the result of this question will be:  Anyway god is the creator of everything and more.



> Especially since all/most of the events previously ascribed to 'spirits or gods' - take thunder and lightning as an example - have been shown to have 'natural' causes.



There is only one thing that we fear, namely, that the sky should fall on us.


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> We were able to perceive it. Just because nobody bothered until Pasteur, doesn't mean we didn't have the ability.



Nope. We didn't have the ability then and we don't have the ability now. The human eye cannot see microbes, we need a microscope. Now.... we did have the capability of creating a tool to enhance our ability. And once we've torched your rather childish argument, we get back to the point made... there are many things happening in the universe which we have no perception of.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > We were able to perceive it. Just because nobody bothered until Pasteur, doesn't mean we didn't have the ability.
> ...


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Be satisfied that your fears and superstitions are placated by belief in magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> "The gawds did it". *That addresses all you need to know.*



Actually, it doesn't.  I need to know HOW God did it. I develop tools like microscopes and telescopes to help me see how God does it. I developed Physics and Quantum mechanics to help me calculate how God does it. I developed a scientific method to evaluate how God does it. 

Meanwhile, you sit shivering in your cave in fear of the fire because you don't understand it.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Feb 13, 2015)

When I was in my late teens, I was hitchhiking up the California coast and was picked up by a girl about my age. We hit it off right way and as it was getting late, decided to pull off the side of the road to sleep on a beach somewhere in Mendocino county. 

 Some time during the night, I had a horrible nightmare, though. It was almost more than a nightmare, because in it, I had a vision of a balding man wearing a hat perched on the cliffs above us intending to kill us both, and in my dream, my perspective kept shifting from me looking up at him, and he looking down at us.

 I awoke with a start, looked up and my travelling companion had the most frightened look I have ever seen. One of us said "let's" and the other said "Get out of here", and we ran back to the car and sped off. Once we got in the car, she told me of HER dream, and in that dream she saw a balding man wearing a hat on the cliffs above us intending to kill us and her perspective kept shifting as well. She had the exact same dream at the exact same time and we kept going over and over it with each other and there wasn't a single detail that was different!

 Ever since that time, I have been much more willing to believe in matters spiritual.


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

Dogmaphobe said:


> When I was in my late teens, I was hitchhiking up the California coast and was picked up by a girl about my age. We hit it off right way and as it was getting late, decided to pull off the side of the road to sleep on a beach somewhere in Mendocino county.
> 
> Some time during the night, I had a horrible nightmare, though. It was almost more than a nightmare, because in it, I had a vision of a balding man wearing a hat perched on the cliffs above us intending to kill us both, and in my dream, my perspective kept shifting from me looking up at him, and he looking down at us.
> 
> ...



Believe it or not, your story is not unusual. These things happen every single day to people all over the world. I have three specific instances in my life, where by all accounts, I should be dead. Physics and science says there is no way I should still be alive, yet here I am. I have to assume it just wasn't my time to go. Oh, I could sit here for an hour and type out all the details, but what's the point? The nay-sayers aren't going to believe it. They will always find some way to dismiss what they don't want to accept.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > We were able to perceive it. Just because nobody bothered until Pasteur, doesn't mean we didn't have the ability.
> ...


a microscope is a tool. Are you saying that the tool gave us the perception? Huh, all this time I was paying a mechanic to fix my car when all I need was a wrench



> Now.... we did have the capability of creating a tool to enhance our ability. And once we've torched your rather childish argument, we get back to the point made... there are many things happening in the universe which we have no perception of.


If we have no perception of them, they don't matter.


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Inevitable said:
> ...



It's really not much fun to continue arguing with an idiot. 
Yes, the tool gave us the perception we did not have without it. DUH!
Yes, things we have no perception of do matter.. microbes, for instance. DOUBLE DUH!


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Calling people idiots because your losing the argument? 

No the tool did not give us the perception it only aided it. Yes they effected us, we perceive the infections. I've never had any effects from fortune telling or astroprojecting. I have had the flu before.

What effects do all these things have on us?

I can perceive microbes. Are you telling me you can't see this picture?


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > When I was in my late teens, I was hitchhiking up the California coast and was picked up by a girl about my age. We hit it off right way and as it was getting late, decided to pull off the side of the road to sleep on a beach somewhere in Mendocino county.
> ...


I agree they aren't unusual, but coincidence happens. And because dreams are a reflection of our subconscious state it isn't far fetched that two people in the same time and place share the same subconscious state.


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Inevitable said:
> ...



You're showing us a picture of something we can't see with our normal human vision. We have no perception of it whatsoever. We use a microscope to give us a perception we did not have before. Now, let's go back to before man invented a microscope... Did the flu virus exist? Did it kill people? So.... Even though it was something we had no perception of, it could (and did) kill us. It was important, even though we had no perception of it. 

To legitimately try and make the argument that you have made, that things we have no perception of are unimportant... is the proverbial equivalent to sticking your head in the sand.  

Apropos for you indeed!


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> I agree they aren't unusual, but coincidence happens. And because dreams are a reflection of our subconscious state it isn't far fetched that two people in the same time and place share the same subconscious state.



Except, it contradicts virtually all the science we understand when it comes to dreams. That's what makes it so bizarre, according to nature, it shouldn't have happened because the odds are too incredible. It's like trying to imagine the possibility that you are typing this same post at the same time I am posting it. Coincidence doesn't explain such a phenomenon. I know that's your "go to guy" here, but rational minds have to think rationally. Yours seems incapable of that.


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Calling people idiots because your losing the argument?



No, I call you an idiot because you are behaving like an idiot. You've failed to make any valid argument as far as I can see. You've been trying to defeat my argument but you can't. It keeps making you sound like a moron over and over.


----------



## MaxGrit (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > When I was in my late teens, I was hitchhiking up the California coast and was picked up by a girl about my age. We hit it off right way and as it was getting late, decided to pull off the side of the road to sleep on a beach somewhere in Mendocino county.
> ...



You got me curious. Please tell us your story.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Be satisfied that your fears and superstitions are placated by belief in magic and supernaturalism.
> ...


Actually, you will need supernatural telescopes and microscopes to tell you how your supernatural gawds did it.

BTW, the mechanics of fire are well understood. No shivering required.

So tell us about the physics and quantum mechanics you developed to understand your gawds. Have you submitted your developments to the journal _Nature_ for peer review?

No? I'm shocked!


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Actually, you will need supernatural telescopes and microscopes to tell you how your supernatural gawds did it.



Now you sound just as stupid as Inevitable.  Maybe more stupid.


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

MaxGrit said:


> You got me curious. Please tell us your story.



It doesn't matter because those who want to dismiss them will do so. Just as they dismiss the millions and millions of such accounts daily. Not all, but  I would say MOST of us, can relate to some incident in our life which can't be explained. Back years ago, people may have referred to these things as "miracles" but today we define them as "circumstantial coincidences." Does that make us smarter?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, you will need supernatural telescopes and microscopes to tell you how your supernatural gawds did it.
> ...


I see you're angry and frustrated because your arguments are indefensible. 

How does anyone investigate the supernatural with natural mechanisms as our only frame of reference? Why don't you identify a single supernatural phenomenon or occurrence that would prevent our current, natural means and methods of investigation? Identify just one. 

Can't do that? No, I didn't think so. All your whining and crying about the invention of spirit realms and magical gawds you have concocted is just so much bluster.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> > You got me curious. Please tell us your story.
> ...


It obviously doesn't make you smarter.

Your alleged "millions and millions of accounts" as a means to support your baseless claims is classic fallacy.


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You are just TOO funny sometimes. You're wanting me to explain to you why physical sciences designed and intended to deal with physical nature and physical phenomenon, are inadequate to evaluate that which is beyond physical nature. This should be obviously self-evident. Are you blond?

This is like trying to say that certain sound frequencies do not exist because we can't reproduce them with a musical instrument. I can tell you that frequencies exist that we can't even hear and you claim I am a denier of music and believer of magic. 

How do people investigate spiritual nature? Well, they open their minds first. That's the biggest step. Until you can get beyond that barrier here, you will always be lost in these conversations. You simply don't have a context... you can't relate.... does not compute. Regardless of your incapabilities, others have found many different kinds of ways to interact with spiritual nature. We call it _Spirituality._


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Your alleged "millions and millions of accounts" as a means to support your baseless claims is classic fallacy.



LMFAO.... Yeah because "baseless claims" quite often have millions and millions of testimonial witnesses.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I can see it, apparently the people that took the picture can as well. So it seems there is perception of it. We use microscopes to enhance our perception.

If the virus makes people sick than we have perception of it. Sickness is perceivable. We did have perception of it. Fever, body aches, symptoms and so forth. That is perception.

Perception is the effect it has on us. If we have no perception it has no effect. You are conflating perception with seeing. We can't see viruses, but we do get sick. We feel them. Just like heat. We can't see it yet we can still perceive it

You are saying because we can't see things they aren't perceivable. We can't see heat yet we perceive it.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > I agree they aren't unusual, but coincidence happens. And because dreams are a reflection of our subconscious state it isn't far fetched that two people in the same time and place share the same subconscious state.
> ...


No it doesn't. Coincidence isn't unknown to science. 

I think the odds that a leprechaun blew magical pixie dust on them and made them dream the same thing seems far more ridiculous than a coincidence. Substitute any mythical apparition you wish.

Well coincidence does  explain a part of it. Standard logic explains the rest.

Rational minds don't jump to the conclusion that coincidence is proof of supernatural phenomena.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Calling people idiots because your losing the argument?
> ...


I made plenty of valid arguments, they just don't support your conclusions. And because you have both a confirmation bias and an inability to understand that bias, you lash out emotionally out of frustration.

You jumped to a conclusion that similar dreams mean something supernatural happened. I provided a rational alternative and you didn't even consider it.

If you are too emotionally invested in this perhaps it isn't appropriate to have a discussion on it.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> LMFAO.... Yeah because "baseless claims" quite often have millions and millions of testimonial witnesses.




The "baseless claims" of millions and millions of testimonial witnesses is that Mohammed was the greatest prophet of God, a holy man and the ultimate example of a perfect life,  even though the historical facts indicate that he was a delusional and violent megalomaniac with a little misogyny and pedophilia on the side.

Millions and millions of testimonial witnesses claim that God is edible.

Billions of people making baseless claims, even outright lies.

. Shocking isn't it?


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> I can see it, apparently the people that took the picture can as well. So it seems there is perception of it. We use microscopes to enhance our perception.



And before you enhanced your perception, you had none with this. The organisms still existed before we were able to perceive them. They were still just as important. Your statement was; If we can't perceive it, it's not important. You're wrong. I am right. Get used to that.



> If the virus makes people sick than we have perception of it. Sickness is perceivable. We did have perception of it. Fever, body aches, symptoms and so forth. That is perception.
> 
> Perception is the effect it has on us. If we have no perception it has no effect. You are conflating perception with seeing. We can't see viruses, but we do get sick. We feel them. Just like heat. We can't see it yet we can still perceive it
> 
> You are saying because we can't see things they aren't perceivable. We can't see heat yet we perceive it.



*per·cep·tion*
pərˈsepSH(ə)n/
_noun_
1. the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

Our perception is limited. We have five physical senses and we're not the BEST at any of them. Some organisms have better sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. And it's not just that they are better, in some cases they are extraordinarily better. So... We have these five totally inferior senses as humans, and you believe that is the "end all-be all" to the entire universe? Only the things that our feeble human senses can detect are worthwhile? 

You may like to know that you have now officially dismissed 96% of the universe as inconsequential and unimportant. Dark energy and dark matter.... called that because they contradict our laws of physics with regard to matter and energy. All the things that make up physical material existence in our universe only represents about 4% of the total volume. 75% of that (3%) is the helium and hydrogen which make up the stars. The remaining 1% is everything else... you and I, all the other elements in the table of elements, the compounds, minerals, enzymes, proteins, organisms, water, carbon, ice... all the "stuff" we see, feel, hear, touch and taste... 1% of the universe.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > I can see it, apparently the people that took the picture can as well. So it seems there is perception of it. We use microscopes to enhance our perception.
> ...


We had perception of the virus before we could see it. People get sick, they perceive it that way. People were aware that the flu existed before microscopes that could see it existed. They experienced the effects of it. 

Our perception isn't limited to the five senses. When I come down with the flu, I know it. I don't smell, touch, taste, see, or hear it. You clearly don't understand what perception is.

I can perceive vast complexity in just one percent of all matter, must mean we are excellent at perceiving things that exist.


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Inevitable said:
> ...



Stop being a myopic twit hung up on your ignorant understanding of "perception." I gave you the definition. *The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.* Perception doesn't mean "suspicion" or "intuition."


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Stop falsely accusing me of things because you can't see your own bias.

It isn't intuition that tells me that I'm ill, it's the actual effects on my body


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> must mean we are excellent at perceiving things that exist.



Because of our cerebral cortex, we are pretty good at enhancing our senses to enable better perception of things that physically exist. It does not mean that we are any good at enhancing perceptions we don't have or of things outside our perception. Physical reality of existence basically boils down to frequencies. Some you can detect and some you can't. 

Here is the paradox to end all paradoxes... You can't prove anything exists in present reality. Whatever you see is a reflection of light frequency bouncing off an object. It takes time for that light to travel from the object to your eye, so what you are seeing is actually something that was there in the past.


----------



## Boss (Feb 13, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Stop falsely accusing me of things because you can't see your own bias.
> It isn't intuition that tells me that I'm ill, it's the actual effects on my body



It has nothing to do with "perception" retard. 

You can certainly GUESS you have the flu by deducing the symptoms. However, you lack the ability to perceive the influenza virus with your limited five senses. For that, you need to see a doctor and have a test done. The test enhances our human perceptions and let's us know that you have the flu. 

I really don't understand why you remain hung up on this because it just keeps reinforcing the point I made all along. If science had been approached with your line of thinking... that we cannot explore things which seem outside our abilities of sensory perception... we would still be stuck in the Dark Ages.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > must mean we are excellent at perceiving things that exist.
> ...


effects on us is perception if something doesn't have any effect on us, we don't perceive it. And it doesn't matter.

You think seeing is the only form of perception.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Stop falsely accusing me of things because you can't see your own bias.
> ...


It has everything to do with perception. Calling me names only means that you know you are wrong and you are quickly losing ground. Like a cornered animal lashing out in a desperate attempt to defend itself.

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" -Socrates-



> You can certainly GUESS you have the flu by deducing the symptoms. However, you lack the ability to perceive the influenza virus with your limited five senses. For that, you need to see a doctor and have a test done. The test enhances our human perceptions and let's us know that you have the flu.


No, I can tell I have the flu, it has some tell tell signs that, hepatitis, or HIV doesn't have.



> I really don't understand why you remain hung up on this because it just keeps reinforcing the point I made all along. If science had been approached with your line of thinking... that we cannot explore things which seem outside our abilities of sensory perception... we would still be stuck in the Dark Ages.


Nobody can study things outside perception. You have to be able to perceive something in order to observe it.


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



*Yes.*


----------



## Boss (Feb 14, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> It has everything to do with perception. Calling me names only means that you know you are wrong and you are quickly losing ground. Like a cornered animal lashing out in a desperate attempt to defend itself.
> 
> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" -Socrates-



But I'm not slandering you. I'm calling you a retard because you are acting retarded. It doesn't mean I know I'm wrong or think I am losing, it means I think you are acting like a retard. There is nothing for me to lash out at or defend.... just you behaving like a retard and me pointing it out. 

Guessing that you might have the flu, is not perception. 



Inevitable said:


> No, I can tell I have the flu, it has some tell tell signs that, hepatitis, or HIV doesn't have.



I'm sorry, I don't believe you have the capability of this perception. You can speculate you may have the flu, based on symptoms or whatever... you are not capable of recognizing the influenza virus without assistance to your senses. You have to visit the doctor and they will take a sample of your mucus and test it for presence of the influenza virus. That is the only way to confirm you have the flu. 



Inevitable said:


> Nobody can study things outside perception. You have to be able to perceive something in order to observe it.



Again, the word "perception" has been defined.  We should have absolutely zero disagreement at this point about what the word means. The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses. 

Now people often study things beyond our perception. You may have to perceive before you observe but you don't have to observe to study. Observation is just one form of perception, and wasn't this what you were accusing me of saying? That only what we see is perception? I didn't need help refuting your retarded argument, but thanks for it anyway. 

The profound discovery of microbes is evidence that man can and does study things he can't perceive. We had to invent a microscope to enhance our perception. Before we invented microscopes and confirmed their existence, the microbes still existed. We had no perception of them. Same thing applies to atoms, electrons, neutrinos, quarks, subatomic particles... not to mention dark matter and energy or black holes again. We have perception of them now because we've discovered they exist, in spite of our inabilities to detect them with our five limited human senses. 

The point here is simple, there are a lot of things happening in the universe which we have absolutely no perception of because it's beyond our ability to perceive. Just as microbes were beyond our ability to perceive before the microscope or black holes were beyond out perception until we invented powerful telescopes or the subatomic makeup of atoms before the large hadron collider. Because we lack the ability to perceive something, doesn't mean it isn't there or it's not important. 

That was your argument but it fails miserably.


----------



## cnm (Feb 14, 2015)

The origin of the universe and the beginning of life are by definition part of the natural world we live in. That we do not precisely understand them does not make them part of supernature. Everything we do not understand is not part of supernature. If you think it is I can see where you're coming from.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Why don't you start by identifying what is "beyond physical nature". You lead your argument with baseless assumptions that there are spirit realms and magical existence beyond physical nature yet you're unable to make a case for such. 

You then proceed to assert that you "interact" with some invention of yours that you call "spiritual nature". You're unable yo define this realm you have invented except to identify that it does indeed exist. Apparently, the sitting manager / director of your asserted spirit realm is so gawd or gawds you claim to communicate with on a daily basis. How nice!

You suffer from "_because I say so" _syndrome.


----------



## Boss (Feb 14, 2015)

cnm said:


> The origin of the universe and the beginning of life are by definition part of the natural world we live in. That we do not precisely understand them does not make them part of supernature. Everything we do not understand is not part of supernature. If you think it is I can see where you're coming from.



We do understand them, that's the thing. We understand physics to the point of being able to intricately measure every aspect of physical nature through mathematics and it never fails. With the exception of four places... The instant of origin for the universe, inside a black hole, at the subatomic level and the origin of life. 

"Supernature" is a word you've conveniently defined as "all things which are not physical nature" ...and that's fine, but let's not then expect physical nature to prove them. That's sort of ridiculous. If supernature is that which is not nature, then nature can't verify or confirm it. If it ever does, it ceases to be "supernature" doesn't it? 

So we have to first understand that what we actually have here is "physical nature" and "non-physical nature"  ...everything has to be one or the other. There is not a third option. Having established that, we examine what physical nature says.... 

In the case of the origin of the universe, physics and science says the universe must defy physics in order to exist. It's not that there is no physical explanation, it's that the only physical explanation is non-physical, or not supportable by physics. 

The same can be said for life. Biogenesis says  life comes from life. All of human biological science for every living thing we know or have ever known to exist, conforms to this law and principle of science. So again, it's not a matter of what we don't know, it's what we know is certain. Origin of life has no physical explanation which does not contradict physical nature itself.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > It has everything to do with perception. Calling me names only means that you know you are wrong and you are quickly losing ground. Like a cornered animal lashing out in a desperate attempt to defend itself.
> ...


You are calling names because you are a child. Your argument is flawed I pointed it out. I don't really care what more you have to say about it. It isn't relevant.

Now when you can grow up and act like a big boy then we can have a discussion.

Watching t throw a temper tantrum was funny at first but it's run it's course.

If you had a point to make you could make it without being do childish. Clearly you don't.

This shit isn't real and it seems to really bug you when people don't agree. Perhaps you suffer from some existential angst.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


It's like trying to teach a pig physics. It's pointless and it only frustrates the pig.

He believes in magical crap because the world is too boring for him.


----------



## Boss (Feb 14, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> You are calling names because you are a child.



I already corrected you on this, I am not calling you names. If I were calling you names, I'd start with "faggoty-ass gay bait" and I'd make fun of you being a degenerate pervert who gets off sucking men's dicks before you let them fuck you in the ass. But I didn't go there. 

I called you a retard and idiot because you're acting retarded and being idiotic. I pointed out why and you've not been able to respond without making yourself appear even more idiotic and retarded. Now you're trying to get in one last shot and run away like the sissy-pants you are. 

...Buh-Bye!


----------



## Hollie (Feb 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > The origin of the universe and the beginning of life are by definition part of the natural world we live in. That we do not precisely understand them does not make them part of supernature. Everything we do not understand is not part of supernature. If you think it is I can see where you're coming from.
> ...


That was even more confused and convoluted than your earlier confusions and convolutions. Your invention of "non-physical nature" is a hoot. I suppose your invented supernatural spirit realms reside your invented realm of "non-physical nature" which apparently exists only in your rather vivid imagination.

Lastly, I would avoid the silly "biogenesis" references. You tip your hand at being just another Jehovah's Witness hack.


----------



## Boss (Feb 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



You know, I've noticed something about your posts. They never contain any substantive argument of any kind. No links or references, not even so much as a coherent opinion. It's always the same whiny-ass gum flapping, which you seem to be rather proud of. And for some odd reason, you believe that I am compelled to respond to you seriously. 

If I didn't know any better, it's almost as if you believe what you have to say is important and people are somehow moved by your gum flapping. I actuality, it is your talent of attracting stray cats by spreading your legs which impresses me more. That's truly a lost skill.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > You are calling names because you are a child.
> ...


You are posturing. It means you know your argument is weak.

Any way, my argument was sound and logical. A posturing child can't really debate it.

Bye bye indeed, you are free to go. Run away wherever you go, make sure you can learn how to logically debate. 

It feels like I was just talking to a second grader tell me why Spiderman is better than Batman.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


My that would explain a lot if he was a jw. A brainwashed cult member doesn't really make for interesting debate.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yep. Your failed arguments for the alleged supernatural realms you carry on about have all failed so you're left to hurl vulgarities.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 14, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I agree. The Lad has exhausted all his available tripe and is now left to stomping his feet in angry tirades like a petulant child who has been sent to his room for a time out.


----------



## Boss (Feb 14, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> You are posturing. It means you know your argument is weak. Any way, my argument was sound and logical.



Your argument was totally destroyed in post #269 above. Since then, you've been whining about name calling and trying to pretend that I am calling you names because I said you're being stupid. 

You've told us twice that this is boring to you and that you're done with this, but here you are still posting.... I guess you're too pathetically stupid to follow your own advice?  That's really sad.


----------



## Boss (Feb 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> I agree. The Lad has exhausted all his available tripe and is now left to stomping his feet in angry tirades like a petulant child who has been sent to his room for a time out.



...FAP FAP FAP!


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I understand the belief in supernatural phenomena, it's just that it always seems to depend on coincidence.

I used to work nights at a cemetery, alone. I was doing security, locking gates and running of intruders. Well the office the security people operated in was in the shed they cept all the equipment. And everybody that worked out there said that it was haunted. They kept referencing this thumping sound. 

I heard it when I was out there. A deep low pitch thump. Almost like a heavy object hitting soft soil. Curious I walked out of the office and into the shed where they kept the equipment, where the "ghosts" were most active. I leaned up against a back hoe and listened. THUMP!!!  It was the back hoe. I used to work on hydraulic equipment and after it is used and stored it tended to settle. That was the ghost.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > You are posturing. It means you know your argument is weak. Any way, my argument was sound and logical.
> ...


It's funny to watch you get all ginned up over being wrong.

So it's entertaining, though I spouse about as much as bothering ants.

As far as debate goes. You aren't capable off doing it logically. So there isn't a point in that.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Funny how that occurs. 

"You aren't agreeing with me so you are dumb." That is so incredibly clever, I wonder why politicos never use that debate tactic.


----------



## Boss (Feb 14, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> It's funny to watch you get all ginned up over being wrong.
> 
> So it's entertaining, though I spouse about as much as bothering ants.
> 
> As far as debate goes. You aren't capable off doing it logically. So there isn't a point in that.



You've not shown me wrong about anything. Feel free to do that any time you think you can. You wouldn't know logic if it were sitting in your lap, sucking your teat and calling you "mamma!" 

You came in here, made some bonehead comment about perceptions, including such priceless gems as your belief that perception doesn't have to involve our senses. Boasted about being a Taoist, which was a lie... and since I destroyed your argument, you've been putting on this cute little show as if you have won the argument and are now just having some fun with me. 

Now I see this tactic being deployed often here, and at first I wondered why. I mean, can't idiots like this understand that people can simply go back are read the conversation to see they are full of shit? How can they think they'll get away with just boldly claiming victory when there is no victory? But... this place is full of empty-headed morons like Hollie who don't bother reading. They see Inevitable (their hero) claiming victory over Boss (the enemy) and they assume this is what happened. Stupid is as Stupid does. 

You've not refuted any argument of mine.
You can't refute any argument of mine.
All you can do is whine like a gay liberal pansy with hurt feelings. 
And keep right on lying your ass off with every post!


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny to watch you get all ginned up over being wrong.
> ...


I have presented a logical argument that you addressed with ad hominem and other sorts of fallacy.

Clearly you have abandoned logic for adversarial conflict. You feel threatened by people that don't agree with you. So much so that you abandon discussion in order to ridicule people. I'd suggest you avoid team sports and competition.


----------



## Treeshepherd (Feb 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



Quantum Entanglement: "One particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances." -wiki

Erwin Schrodinger coined the word _Verschränkung (_entanglement). Entangled particles "communicate" with one another outside of the dimensions of space and time. 

Paradoxes exist. You and I are paradoxes in the sense that we are both individuals, and at the same time we are not separate but part of the same continuous indivisible universe. There is no actual border which separates you from not you. Everything is connected. Everything is one. Everything is in "communication" with everything else instantaneously, outside of the dimensions of time and space. Your query begins with there.


----------



## MaxGrit (Feb 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > You are calling names because you are a child.
> ...



You shouldn't waste your time on him. He really is retarded. I tried to teach him a while ago. I initially thought he's too stupid just from reading one of his post. Even so, I tried to explain things to him. It's ended up as a big waste of time because he's simply too stupid. I ignored him for being too stupid. Did you recognize how the retard can't even comprehend what he reads?

Afterwards, I made it my standard protocol to insta-ignore anyone I think is too stupid. It works out great. I sparingly do "show ignored content" checks on my ignores. I find that I'm always accurate on recognition of retards, who gets insta-ignored for being too stupid.

A flaw of the ignore system is that tapatalk will show all posts. It sucks a lot. My ignore all retards policy turns USMB into a much better site for discussion.


----------



## Boss (Feb 15, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> I have presented a logical argument that you addressed with ad hominem and other sorts of fallacy.



Here's a synopsis...

1. You argued, if it is outside our perception it doesn't matter. I countered this with billions of things outside our perception that DO matter. 
2. You argued that human "perception" doesn't necessarily involve our five senses. I countered your argument with the dictionary definition of "perception." 
3. You argued that you naturally have the perception to know when you have the flu. You factually do not have this natural perception or we wouldn't need microscopes. 

And from here, there has been no intelligent communications flowing from your port.


----------



## Boss (Feb 15, 2015)

Treeshepherd said:


> Erwin Schrodinger coined the word _Verschränkung (_entanglement). Entangled particles "communicate" with one another outside of the dimensions of space and time.
> 
> Paradoxes exist. You and I are paradoxes in the sense that we are both individuals, and at the same time we are not separate but part of the same continuous indivisible universe. There is no actual border which separates you from not you. Everything is connected. Everything is one. Everything is in "communication" with everything else instantaneously, outside of the dimensions of time and space. Your query begins with there.



This is brilliant. 

We exist in a physical state of reality that shouldn't logically exist. The cosmological constant, if any aspect were off by .0000000000001 the universe would have no stars or planets, and certainly, no life. It's not only finely tuned, it is the epitome of finely tuned. We see people just casually dismiss this as "oh, it just so happens..." That's an illogical answer. 

There is no such thing as universal reality. We are all experiencing the same dimension of time together but our realities are individual. We can experience the same exact event standing beside each other holding hands and our perception of that moment may be entirely different. 

Our brains are producing electrical impulses constantly. Science says energy can't be created or destroyed, so where does this come from?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> > Erwin Schrodinger coined the word _Verschränkung (_entanglement). Entangled particles "communicate" with one another outside of the dimensions of space and time.
> ...



Ah, the "finely tuned universe". Really boss, why could you not have been honest and just admitted that you're shilling for your Jehovah's Witness cult.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. The Lad has exhausted all his available tripe and is now left to stomping his feet in angry tirades like a petulant child who has been sent to his room for a time out.
> ...


Though so.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 15, 2015)

MaxGrit said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Inevitable said:
> ...


As I recall you were just as terrible at this as boss is.

Boss and max grit. Clearly egotistical names for mice among men.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > I have presented a logical argument that you addressed with ad hominem and other sorts of fallacy.
> ...


Which was incorrect. Things that have no effect on us cannot be perceived, thus they don't matter. Things that do effect us can be perceived.


> 2. You argued that human "perception" doesn't necessarily involve our five senses. I countered your argument with the dictionary definition of "perception."


I don't know why you thought that was a good argument. The dictionary only specifies general meanings of words and how they are used. It's a lexicon. Not definitive proof.


> 3. You argued that you naturally have the perception to know when you have the flu. You factually do not have this natural perception or we wouldn't need microscopes.


It doesn't have to be seen to be perceived. I can perceive love or hunger without touching, tasting, seeing, hearing, or smelling it. It wouldn't be intuitive it would be instinctual.



> And from here, there has been no intelligent communications flowing from your port.


You started telling me I was retarded because you were wrong. All communication breakdown was on your end.

Maybe if you could control your temper and logically respond or better yet consider your position and perhaps adjust it maybe you'd deserve inelegant debate.

But calling people names such as retarded or idiot is what people do when they are emotionally insecure about their position. The point is my words threatened you, and you were threatened. You may call me an idiot and stupid to save face in this board, but I know the truth. Your behavior here was indicative of angst.

I forgive you for it and it could be water under the bridge in your next post, never to be spoken of again should you return to logical discussion.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 15, 2015)

The op seems to have done to the thread what Samson did when he killed the philistines.


----------



## Treeshepherd (Feb 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> This is brilliant.
> 
> We exist in a physical state of reality that shouldn't logically exist. The cosmological constant, if any aspect were off by .0000000000001 the universe would have no stars or planets, and certainly, no life. It's not only finely tuned, it is the epitome of finely tuned. We see people just casually dismiss this as "oh, it just so happens..." That's an illogical answer.
> 
> There is no such thing as universal reality. We are all experiencing the same dimension of time together but our realities are individual. We can experience the same exact event standing beside each other holding hands and our perception of that moment may be entirely different.



We exist in a superposition, multiple things at once. Individuals. Facets of a whole. Spirit. Animal. Light. Matter. Cells of the bio-sphere (Gaia). Hosts of a trillion cells. 

Regarding Ed Cayce, he brings another analogy to mind. We think of our brains as the source of ideas and concepts. Brains generate consciousness? Perhaps a better analogy is to think of a brain as a type of radio which condenses consciousness from without. Ed Cayce had a powerful antennae. Or perhaps there are orders of consciousness. Cayce was said to be able to access universal consciousness. 

It makes me think of bees, and how they can all decide something at the same time. They'll lose their hive and all swarm on a tree branch. Suddenly, a message is received and all receive it instantaneously (or more instantaneously than can be explained by physical transference).  They exist as if in a state of quantum entanglement. 

"_If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there_." (Psalm 139:8)


----------



## Boss (Feb 15, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Which was incorrect. Things that have no effect on us cannot be perceived, thus they don't matter. Things that do effect us can be perceived.



This is incorrect. Things effect us all the time without our perception. I've presented examples of this but you then want to abandon the definition of perception and make your own apply. 



Inevitable said:


> I don't know why you thought that was a good argument. The dictionary only specifies general meanings of words and how they are used. It's a lexicon. Not definitive proof.



Dictionaries define the meaning of words we use to communicate. When someone just openly rejects the concept of language and claims words are only defined generally, we can pretty much establish this person can't be communicated with, they have mental retardation issues. 



Inevitable said:


> It doesn't have to be seen to be perceived. I can perceive love or hunger without touching, tasting, seeing, hearing, or smelling it. It wouldn't be intuitive it would be instinctual.



I've never said that something has to  be seen to be perceived. It does have to be realized through our senses. That's the definition. That's what the word means.  

Hunger falls under our sense of touch. You become hungry and your stomach growls, you feel this, it gives you the perception you are hungry. Love is something beyond our ability to perceive. It is an intuition based on our emotions. You cannot physically prove someone loves you or that you love somebody, or how much love exists or doesn't exist. It's an emotional speculation. Speculation is never perception. Words have meanings. Non-retards understand this.


----------



## Boss (Feb 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Ah, the "finely tuned universe". Really boss, why could you not have been honest and just admitted that you're shilling for your Jehovah's Witness cult.



Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. This is not disputable. Even the atheist astrophysicist is perplexed by this. It is why they have now developed this "multi-verse" theory, in order to explain a finely tuned universe. 

The force of gravity must be precisely as it is or the universe would not exist. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

Now any objective person knows that Stephen Hawking is not Jehovah's Witness, he's not even religious.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, the "finely tuned universe". Really boss, why could you not have been honest and just admitted that you're shilling for your Jehovah's Witness cult.
> ...


Actually, your baseless claim: "Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned." is simply nonsense. 

I understand you're desperate for some measure of credibility to prop up your claims to gawds and spirit realms, but your desperation isn't served by inventing nonsensical claims wherein you presume to impose those nonsensical claims on the science community. 

Really, boss, you're getting quite hysterical. The "finely tuned universe" meme is right out of the Jehovah's Witness playbook.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 15, 2015)

Treeshepherd said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > This is brilliant.
> ...


Good gawd, man. A tinfoil hat is not an antennae.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


can you quote one who says it isn't?.......


----------



## Boss (Feb 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Really, boss, you're getting quite hysterical. The "finely tuned universe" meme is right out of the Jehovah's Witness playbook.



Well I just presented it to you from Stephen Hawking who isn't JW, as far as I am aware.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> This is incorrect. Things effect us all the time without our perception. I've presented examples of this but you then want to abandon the definition of perception and make your own apply.


Your examples were poor as I explained. People can perceive that they are sick. Just because they didn't completely understand micro organisms doesn't mean they didn't perceive them. I also stated that dictionary definitions only explain how the weird is generally used. Are you saying you can't perceive betting sick unless you draw blood and look at it under a microscope? Because if that's the case, I must be some super intelligent being. I was sick this morning, and I never looked at my blood under the microscope. Hum, how did I know I was sick. I even knew what I was sick with. It was a migraine. I perceived constructing blood vessels in my head but I didn't see touch, taste, smell, or hear them.



> Dictionaries define the meaning of words we use to communicate.


No they don't. It's a lexicon. People define the meaning of words and write a dictionary to tell others how the words are used.



> When someone just openly rejects the concept of language and claims words are only defined generally, we can pretty much establish this person can't be communicated with, they have mental retardation issues.


I didn't reject anything. I simply said that the dictionary is a tool to understand the meaning of a word. It isn't the ultimate in all matters. Think about it. Do you know when you are sick? And if so, how? Is it because you see your blood under a microscope?




> I've never said that something has to  be seen to be perceived. It does have to be realized through our senses. That's the definition. That's what the word means.



You can't touch hunger, you can't see it, hear it, taste it, or smell it. So do people just not perceive hunger? If it had to be something you only get through the five senses clearly we don't perceive hunger, enjoyment, love, and other such things because they cannot be perceived by the five senses.

You are just going to ignore this and insist I'm retarded because it really points out how you are wrong. Save face at all costs.



> Hunger falls under our sense of touch. You become hungry and your stomach growls, you feel this, it gives you the perception you are hungry.


I've never touched hunger. I've felt it, but feeling isn't touch. Touch is how you tell if something is hot



> Love is something beyond our ability to perceive.


Not beyond my perception.



> It is an intuition based on our emotions.


Its not instituted. If so what institutes it?



> You cannot physically prove someone loves you or that you love somebody, or how much love exists or doesn't exist. It's an emotional speculation. Speculation is never perception. Words have meanings. Non-retards understand this.


I didn't say I could prove it. I can perceive it though. Perception isn't proof kiddo.

Even retards understand the difference between proof and perception.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Well I just presented it to you from Stephen Hawking who isn't JW, as far as I am aware.


I wasn't aware Stephen Hawking believed in Astral projection,
Transcendental meditation, ESP and telepathy, Ghost stories, and other unexplained supernatural phenomenon.
Spells, curses and black magic.

It's like saying he believes in hobgoblins and unicorns.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Your examples were poor as I explained. People can perceive that they are sick. Just because they didn't completely understand micro organisms doesn't mean they didn't perceive them. I also stated that dictionary definitions only explain how the weird is generally used. Are you saying you can't perceive betting sick unless you draw blood and look at it under a microscope? Because if that's the case, I must be some super intelligent being. I was sick this morning, and I never looked at my blood under the microscope. Hum, how did I know I was sick. I even knew what I was sick with. It was a migraine. I perceived constructing blood vessels in my head but I didn't see touch, taste, smell, or hear them.



I'm still lost as to what kind of point you hope to make. The only point I see is that you believe someone granted you permission to define and redefine words as you please. The problem with that concept is communicating with other intelligent beings. In order to do that, we have to all be using the same definitions. 



> > I've never said that something has to  be seen to be perceived. It does have to be realized through our senses. That's the definition. That's what the word means.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't touch hunger, you can't see it, hear it, taste it, or smell it. So do people just not perceive hunger?



I've already told you, it falls under sense of touch. You feel hunger pains. That's our perception of hunger. Of course, hunger is not pain, and hunger pains are only a symptom of what is actually happening. Your body is not obtaining the nutritional resources to thrive as an organism. Interestingly enough, your hunger pains will subside after several days of hunger and you have no perception your body is starving. Dehydration is closely associated to hunger and people often become dehydrated without any perception of it whatsoever. 



> I've never touched hunger. I've felt it, but feeling isn't touch. Touch is how you tell if something is hot...



Do you not understand how treacherously stupid you sound? 



> > Love is something beyond our ability to perceive.
> 
> 
> Not beyond my perception.
> ...



Are you drunk or fucked up on meth? Or is this just normal retard thinking for you? 

I didn't say "institute" regarding anything. Love is an emotional *intuition*, not a perception. Again, this stems back to your stubborn refusal to accept the definition of words and insist on creating your own as you go. 

_*intuition: *A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning._

Now we can perceive love in a cartoon character, they have little hearts floating out of their head and their eyes turn into hearts. We don't have this perception in real life, at least, most of us don't... you may be different. 



> I didn't say I could prove it. I can perceive it though. Perception isn't proof kiddo.
> Even retards understand the difference between proof and perception.



No, you really can't perceive it. You can have intuition of it and believe you perceive it. Lots of people do this every day, it's why there is so much heartbreak. 

And why can't perception be proof? If dictionaries are only general ideas of words and we can redefine them to mean whatever we please. then I can make perception mean proof. (tongue in cheek, of course.) 

Our prevailing perceptions have often caused us to balk at scientific evidence. For instance, Aristotle's perception of gravity and levity was the prevailing "science" for over 2,000 years. Our perceptions told us that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. But Calculus was beyond our perception at the time, it had not yet been invented by Newton and there wasn't Newtonian physics and Laws of Motion. .....Pay close attention because I know you're retarded.... that doesn't mean that Newtonian physics weren't happening in the universe around us before he discovered it. Newton's discoveries opened a new perspective, and we gained a new perception.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I was expecting that you could support the nonsensical Boss'ism wherein he claimed: "Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned.". 

I haven't seen such statements. This is the danger you YEC'ists and fundamentalist cranks create for yourselves. You make statements that are false in the hope it will lend weight to your fears, superstitions and magical spirit realms.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

*Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. ~Boss*

Find one who disputes it.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Really, boss, you're getting quite hysterical. The "finely tuned universe" meme is right out of the Jehovah's Witness playbook.
> ...


You make the mistake of the typical religious zealot in that you selectively cut and paste edited and parsed snippets of an alleged statement and then present that as suggesting it means what you want it to mean.

So, I'm waiting for your comprehensive list of all astrophysicists who believe in your "finely tuned universe".

As you stated: "Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned." 

I accept such a statement as false, a lie, and a desperate claim that is unsupportable. However, you can prove you're not a pompous blowhard with a comprehensive list of all the astrophysicists who believe as you claim they do. 

Where's your list?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> *Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. ~Boss*
> 
> Find one who disputes it.



You're desperate, right? You know your statement is false and a bald faced lie.

Give us a list of every astrophysicist who believes as you say.

 It's your claim. You support it.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I don't need a list, I made a definitive statement. ALL astrophysicists on the planet agree the universe is finely tuned. You need one who claims otherwise, and I'm not seeing that. 

If you want to prove my statement wrong, you need to post the name of an astrophysicist who is duly recognized as such in his field, and who also claims the universe is not finely tuned. 

Squawk all you like... screech and scream... be an absolute unhinged bitch about it!   Them's the facts.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You make many statements that are false and unsupported.

Your "because I say so" nonsense is unsupportable.

Support your nonsense claim that "ALL astrophysicists on the planet agree the universe is finely tuned".

You must have something, right? Isn't there a governing body of astrophysicists that grants you exclusive rights to speak on behalf of all astrophysicists?

BTW, bossy. all astrophysicists agree that your specific statement is false and utter nonsense. 

If you want to prove my statement wrong, you need to post the name of an astrophysicist who is duly recognized as such in his field, and who disputes that.

See how that works?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 16, 2015)

in other words, she doesn't know what astrophysicists think and doesn't know where to look to find out.......


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> in other words, she doesn't know what astrophysicists think and doesn't know where to look to find out.......


In reality, you don't understand the concept of burden of proof.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> In reality, you don't understand the concept of burden of proof.



Reality? You mean the perceptions we have of 4% of the universe? Largely based on math and physics which are finely tuned mechanisms making the whole thing work, cosmological constants which apply to everything from the most distant galaxies to genetic reproduction of life. 

A reality we experience through our five senses, none of which we are superior at among the species on our own planet. The most important sense we have is sight, it is where observation comes from and this often confirms discovery. Sight is simply our perception of something we call "light" reflecting off objects and appearing as particles when observed or waves when not. Spooky!

But the real kicker is this... You can't prove reality exists. You can only prove that it once existed.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Your examples were poor as I explained. People can perceive that they are sick. Just because they didn't completely understand micro organisms doesn't mean they didn't perceive them. I also stated that dictionary definitions only explain how the weird is generally used. Are you saying you can't perceive betting sick unless you draw blood and look at it under a microscope? Because if that's the case, I must be some super intelligent being. I was sick this morning, and I never looked at my blood under the microscope. Hum, how did I know I was sick. I even knew what I was sick with. It was a migraine. I perceived constructing blood vessels in my head but I didn't see touch, taste, smell, or hear them.
> ...


All you are doing is repeating the same nonsense.

Dictionaries don't define words they are a lexicon. They give general usages. We invented the language than wrote the dictionaries. 

But go ahead and cling to your ignorance. It's all you really have.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> *Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. ~Boss*
> 
> Find one who disputes it.


Victor Strenger and Fred C Adams don't. In fact they argue against it. They are both astrophysics.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 16, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. ~Boss*
> ...


though they admittedly have to presume non-carbon based life forms to get around its necessity.......


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 16, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Okaaaaaay.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So we can agree your goofy comment was pointless and a waste of time.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > In reality, you don't understand the concept of burden of proof.
> ...


No, I mean the reality that you also don't understand the concept of burden of proof.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Dictionaries don't define words...



What a fucking moron.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. ~Boss*
> ...



They argue against a finely tuned universe by claiming our finely tuned universe is but one of many universes and it coincidentally happens to be fine tuned.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


If it wasn't the way it is we wouldn't be here. 

What does that mean its fine tuned? You mean it works? If it didn't you wouldn't be here.

There's life on billions of other planets. How do I know? Well I don't just feel it. It seems very probable.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> If it wasn't the way it is we wouldn't be here.
> 
> What does that mean its fine tuned? You mean it works? If it didn't you wouldn't be here.
> 
> There's life on billions of other planets. How do I know? Well I don't just feel it. It seems very probable.



It's not just that it works, it's that if any cosmic constant parameter were off by a micro-fraction, it wouldn't exist.... none of it would exist. 


As for you knowing things because you feel them... this is not how science works, this is how FAITH works. Just so you know.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The universe is not finely tuned. It's actually a very violent place. The illusion of a benign, ordered "finely tuned" universe is primarily an artifact of scale. We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale. This (luckily for us) means most of us expend our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment. A perfect universe hardly requires mass extinctions via meteor impact. Remember Shoemaker-Levy? Ever hear of that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years so.

Pass that on to your friends at the Kingdom Hall.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > If it wasn't the way it is we wouldn't be here.
> ...



And if today was Tuesday, it wouldn't be Monday. But it is Monday. 

Amazing, huh?


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Inevitable said:
> ...



IF the cosmological constant were off by 1 to 10^120 the universe would not exist. If the gravitational constant were greater or less by 1 to 10^60, the stars and planets would have never formed... the universe would not exist. 

None of this has anything to do with how vulnerable we are to the forces of the universe or how violent they can be.


----------



## dblack (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



How do I explain them? Well, I don't. That's why they're 'unexplained'. I suppose I could come up with completely unfounded claims to explain them, and then insist that those claims be taken seriously unless someone can prove them false. But why bother?





> Is every single bit of it a bunch of hooey caused by our fears and imagination?



Maybe. There's probably something to some of them though. Right now we don't really know though.



> To me, it just seems as if there might be something more here. Especially in the case of people like Edgar Cayce. If you've never studied up on him, it's worth a search and read... fascinating man. His uncanny ability to predict the future was beyond anything we've ever known. He gave over 14k readings but that includes a brief period where he didn't do them because he was getting headaches. People were exploiting his power to win horse races and trade stock and he believed this was why he was getting the headaches. After some time, he did more readings but only his trusted wife was allowed to ask him questions.



Interesting. I'll check it out.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > If it wasn't the way it is we wouldn't be here.
> ...



And there are many planets where life doesn't exist because they arent in the goldilocks zone.

And if your dad pulled out you'd have never been born just like the millions of sperm in your dads balls that didn't result in a brother or sister.

Or the baby croc that gets eaten by a bird but its sister lives 60 years. Both baby crocs prayed they'd make it to adulthood. Did god save the one and take the other to croc heaven?

Can't you tell this is all just wishful thinking? A coping mechanism.

God isn't even a theory. A theory requires evidence. Your god doesnt even qualify. Its just a hypothesis.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> The universe is not finely tuned.



Says no one who has any science education on cosmology.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> ...



Never scientifically tested or verified. Hooey.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


But the "cosmological constant" is not off by 1 to 10^120. 

How interesting (and predictable) that you sidestepped addressing the fact of a profoundly violent and chaotic universe that refutes your silly "perfectly tuned" meme.

Really, bossy, your pals at the Institute for Creation Research are making you appear to be quite the raving christian fundamentalist.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I enjoy talking to you so much more than christians Muslim Jews.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > As for you knowing things because you feel them... this is not how science works, this is how FAITH works. Just so you know.
> ...



Let's set the record straight... There has never been any life discovered elsewhere in our universe. Until we discover it elsewhere, we can't say that it exists elsewhere. You are merely speculating based on a feeling... that's FAITH, not Science.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I thought he wasn't a christian. If he is he's a cherry picker. Boss are you a christian?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The universe is not finely tuned.
> ...



I wouldn't hold up your pals at the Institute for Creation Research as having a working education in cosmology.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So you believe a fairytale without proof but doubt the high probability that life is not rare in the universe?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Much like your belief in magical spirit realms inhabited by supernatural gawds which you insist you have daily communications with.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Creation is not a science. Not even a theory because you'd need evidence to decide if its a theory. Right now its just a hypothesis.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So you need to see life on other planets before you will believe it? What if I told you you'd go to hell if you don't believe will that help? Lol


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> But the "cosmological constant" is not off by 1 to 10^120.
> 
> How interesting (and predictable) that you sidestepped addressing the fact of a profoundly violent and chaotic universe that refutes your silly "perfectly tuned" meme.



I know the cosmological constant is not off, thanks for admitting the universe is finely tuned. I didn't claim it was "perfectly tuned." That's YOU changing the words around so you can try and defeat a fact that you just admitted was true. 

Math, physics and chemistry are not chaotic, they are very ordered and structured. There are about a dozen or more variables which are constant and must be constant for the universe to exist. It's finely tuned, whether you like that or not, whether it fits your personal faith or not, whether you deny it and try to refute it.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> So you need to see life on other planets before you will believe it? What if I told you you'd go to hell if you don't believe will that help? Lol



Doesn't matter what you tell me to support your faith-based beliefs. Until we can observe it, science can't evaluate it.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Creation is not a science.



You're right, creation isn't a science. Physical science has no explanation for creation. Origin of life contradicts physical science.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > But the "cosmological constant" is not off by 1 to 10^120.
> ...



Physicist victor stenger explains why you are wrong.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > But the "cosmological constant" is not off by 1 to 10^120.
> ...


You have made no case for a "finely tuned" universe overseen by your gawds.

The violent and chaotic nature of the universe refutes your "finely tuned", nonsense. What is "finely tuned" about asteroid impact, black holes gobbling up stars, planetary collision?

Tell your pals at the Institute for Creation Research to actually open a book  on cosmology.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Creation is not a science.
> ...


Actually, no. Your claims to magic and supernaturalism contradicts physical science. 

How does "the gawds did it... by magic", answer anything?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > So you need to see life on other planets before you will believe it? What if I told you you'd go to hell if you don't believe will that help? Lol
> ...


Just saying more chance life exists elsewhere than your god existing. Based on the history of man and religion its obvious we made it up when we were primitive and superstitious and ignorant. Were at a point where the idea of god is becoming an old superstition. Like we look at the people who worshipped the Greek gods I look at you the same way.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > So you need to see life on other planets before you will believe it? What if I told you you'd go to hell if you don't believe will that help? Lol
> ...


Wrong, as usual. Science evaluates many phenomenon which are not observable.

You're reading a script from the Institute for Creation Research. 

Stop. You're an accomplice to ignorance and lies.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



We're never going to convince him because when it comes down to it he believes he has experienced this god. Yup. Seen him with his own two eyes. Wasn't dreaming either. 

So no matter what facts you present just remember he says he's seen it! How you gonna respond to that?


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


. 

*bossy:* ... and it coincidentally happens to be fine tuned.







which part, the Garden or the 99.9% universe admired by the sudo-spiritualist ?

.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Just saying more chance life exists elsewhere than your god existing.



When did someone die an make you cosmic prognosticator? Until you FIND life elsewhere, it's a faith-based belief it exists elsewhere. Sorry... fact of reality.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> You have made no case for a "finely tuned" universe overseen by your gawds.
> 
> The violent and chaotic nature of the universe refutes your "finely tuned", nonsense. What is "finely tuned" about asteroid impact, black holes gobbling up stars, planetary collision?



Who it's overseen by and whether it's a God, is a philosophical question. The finely tuned universe is a scientific fact. This has absolutely nothing to do with chaotic events, impacts, black holes or asteroids. You're deliberately taking "finely tuned" out of context to mean "stable and orderly" and that's not what it means.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Inevitable said:
> ...



Why are you quoting Stenger and Adams and attributing it to me?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Just saying more chance life exists elsewhere than your god existing.
> ...


At least I never claimed an alien talked to me or has special powers and can make me live forever and never get sick or get old.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Based on the history of man and religion its obvious we made it up when we were primitive and superstitious and ignorant.



No it's certainly not obvious. In fact, it's impossible that this is what happened. It's what you like to CLAIM happened, based on your feelings and emotions... a faith-based, non-scientific rationale. When the theory is examined and scrutinized it completely falls apart. It defies rational logic, it defies factual realities, it defies physical nature itself.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> At least I never claimed an alien talked to me or has special powers and can make me live forever and never get sick or get old.



Might as well claim that, it has as much scientific merit as what you have claimed.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You have made no case for a "finely tuned" universe overseen by your gawds.
> ...


Earth for now is fine tuned for life.

A puddle of water says "what a perfect puddle. Fits me perfect. Must have been made for me. Then the sun heats up and the puddle disappears


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Based on the history of man and religion its obvious we made it up when we were primitive and superstitious and ignorant.
> ...


At least its a theory with evidence. All god is is a hypothesis. No actual logical scientific reasoning behind it.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Earth for now is fine tuned for life.
> 
> A puddle of water says "what a perfect puddle. Fits me perfect. Must have been made for me. Then the sun heats up and the puddle disappears



The UNIVERSE is fine tuned for life. The Earth is the only place life is known to exist. Puddles of water don't say anything, they can't speak. Do you ever listen to how silly and ridiculous your retorts are?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

What proof do you have besides words. Put it on the table.

All you have to do is look at the history of christianity to know its made up. Then throw in the other religions and forget about it.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



There is no evidence and no theory.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Earth for now is fine tuned for life.
> ...


Earth is fine tuned for life right now. Use to be mars.

Where's all the life if the universe is so pro life?

I actually agree with you. I think life is everywhere. Were nothing special in fact were too small to know.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> What proof do you have besides words. Put it on the table.
> 
> All you have to do is look at the history of christianity to know its made up. Then throw in the other religions and forget about it.



What you are basically saying here is important for everyone to hear in order to know exactly how your particular mind and thinking work. In sillyboob's universe, one must merely "look at something" and form an opinion of conclusion. Actual evidence and facts don't matter, they take a back seat to what you want to see. Open-minded objectivity is a trivial inconvenience sillyboob doesn't have time for while slaying Christians. 

Human spirituality FAR predates Christianity. Humans have been spiritual since they stood upright. This is documented. This is not disputable or questionable. If it were "made up superstitions" it would have died out as made up superstitions along with the lengthy list of made up superstitions which met that fate. Instead, 95% of us believe in something greater than self... YOU believe in "Karma" for instance.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > What proof do you have besides words. Put it on the table.
> ...


It is dying. Might take 1000 years but it will die. Were still very young


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > What proof do you have besides words. Put it on the table.
> ...


You don't have any good evidence. No words. Present evidence. Can't? Fail!


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Earth is fine tuned for life right now. Use to be mars.
> 
> Where's all the life if the universe is so pro life?
> 
> I actually agree with you. I think life is everywhere. Were nothing special in fact were too small to know.



You have no idea if Mars was ever suitable for life or if any life has ever existed on Mars. There are people who believe this is possible, and I agree... anything is possible. You have this fixation problem where certain things are said to be possible and your brain converts that to undeniable truth. Science has been wrong more times than it has been right. 

I actually don't believe life is abundant in the universe. I think it is extremely rare, at least as far as intelligent life as we know it. Aside from a fine tuned universe, there are about another hundred or so circumstantial variables which have to be a certain way or life on Earth never exists. Dozens upon dozens of specific events in specific order at a specific place and time... Thousands of totally lucky rolls of the dice for literally millions of species to have even had a chance to evolve... humans included. 

Now think about this a moment... If an asteroid or whatever it was, had not wiped out the dinosaurs... mammals could have never evolved any larger than rabbits. Humans would have never emerged. Without the human mind, what does any of this mean?


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> It is dying. Might take 1000 years but it will die. Were still very young



I know that you fervently believe this and I hate to dash your hopes, but human spirituality has been around since the beginning and it won't ever go away. There have been real and brutal 1,000 year wars fought to banish human spirituality... they failed. You cannot stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Earth is fine tuned for life right now. Use to be mars.
> ...


Must be a god


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Earth is fine tuned for life right now. Use to be mars.
> ...



To most human minds it does not mean a thing.  They would prefer to make up their answers.  

WE as a society have NOT come a long way.  There are only a handfull of individuals that put any serious thought into what happened and how we got here.  The vast majority are playing make believe like little children.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Must be a god



Certainly!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Earth is fine tuned for life right now. Use to be mars.
> ...



Evidence suggests life on earth came from mars. Were on mars with robots getting samples. Keep your pants on. Weve only begun to figure things out. Why it seems like just yesterday we believed in gods.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > It is dying. Might take 1000 years but it will die. Were still very young
> ...



I don't see americans going back to church. I know a lot do but a lot more don't. We're losing our religion. Even religious people agree.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

HUGGY said:


> To most human minds it does not mean a thing. They would prefer to make up their answers.
> 
> WE as a society have NOT come a long way. There are only a handfull of individuals that put any serious thought into what happened and how we got here. The vast majority are playing make believe like little children.



I am a huge fan of old 50s science fiction. What intrigues me the most is the way people thought back then in terms of science, space, humanity, culture itself. In just a matter of 60 years, our knowledge of the universe has blossomed so much it's really incredible to look back on now. 

Then I think about, as big of idiots as we were 60 years ago, we'll probably be looking back on today in 60 more years, thinking the same thing. What morons we were back then! 

I look at things like "quantum entanglement" (look it up) and I am in awe of the universe. There is SO much we do not know or even understand. I don't think my God cares that we don't just accept "God did it" and we actually seek to explore HOW. I can't speak for other people's Gods, I don't know what they think and don't really care, to be honest.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Evidence suggests life on earth came from mars.



No it doesn't.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> I don't see americans going back to church. I know a lot do but a lot more don't. We're losing our religion. Even religious people agree.



Don't know about religions, don't know about Americans. Human spirituality encompasses about 95% of the species population, always has, always will.  It hasn't changed in thousands of years and it won't change in thousands more. Religions will rise and fall, they always have. Human spirituality prevails.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see americans going back to church. I know a lot do but a lot more don't. We're losing our religion. Even religious people agree.
> ...



I don't see religion getting stronger in Europe or america and I don't see another time in our future where millions will believe another Joseph smith.

You said it yourself. We will look back 60 years from now and laugh at how stupid you were.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Were on mars with robots getting samples. Keep your pants on. Weve only begun to figure things out.



We've not discovered ANY life on Mars. So how in the hell does evidence suggest life on Earth came from Mars? What evidence? There has been NO EVIDENCE OF LIFE ON MARS! 

There are certainly the building blocks for life. It's entirely possible we will one day find evidence of microbial life in fossils on Mars. This might help answer questions regarding how prevalent life is in our universe. I can't dispute any of that, but we've not discovered a damn thing living on Mars yet. Until that happens, anything you have to say about life on Mars is a faith-based belief.


----------



## Boss (Feb 16, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> I don't see religion getting stronger in Europe or america and I don't see another time in our future where millions will believe another Joseph smith.



Once upon a time, people couldn't see a time in our future where we didn't worship the Roman dictator and people who were Christians weren't fed to the lions. Shit changes.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Dictionaries don't define words...
> ...


They don't. 

Don't be mad because your argument is stupid and wrong. Just learn from your stupidity and try not to look foolish in the future.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, not necessarily. Sorry dude.


----------



## Muslim75 (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...


 
I speak of the taditional knowledge in Islam.

It is obvious that there is more to life than science. There is something beyond science. You may have a dream and later sees it happening in real life. Those who read the horoscopes frequently know very well that there is more than what we see, even though horoscopes mix one truth with 1000 lies. What science came up with, that man is the result of evolution of apes is a clear proof that there is more to life than science.

The most direct proofs of the existence of an Almighty God are the pathways in the sky above our heads, the rain coming down from the sky and the constellations of the Zodiac. The stars are symmetrical in the sky, if you pay attention and notice the shapes and patterns. Just as you would know from footprints that there is a walker, you know from His act that the Almighty God exists, Doer of all that happens.

One may do some wondrous things without his religion being true. He may be helped by some beings we do not see and who are not necessarily good, and may be evil. It is actually exactly that.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Inevitable said:
> ...


no merely that you can't come up with an astrophysicist that doesn't acknowledge our universe is finely tuned and that our part of it is finely tuned for the carbon based life that exists on it......that we can agree on.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> So you believe a fairytale without proof but doubt the high probability that life is not rare in the universe?


upon what do you base this "probability"?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Science evaluates many phenomenon which are not observable.


no, that would be the realm of science fiction......


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 17, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > So you believe a fairytale without proof but doubt the high probability that life is not rare in the universe?
> ...



The billions of other suns and planets in our universe


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


and "probably" there is no life at all on almost all of them.......


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Here let's see if I can break it down:
> ...


Well that lets you out, since all you have is an ad hominem.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Quantum Physics predicts there are as many as 11 dimensions in our universe.


PHYSICAL dimensions!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like there are no angels devils ghosts or witches. Nothing that can't or hasn't been outside of our physical world.
> ...


- Barton Zwiebach
Why didn't you credit the real author?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> How does he hide? Scientifically.  How did he turn 5 loaves and 3 fish into a feast for 5000.


Well, that is probably the only true miracle! Jesus miraculously got people to SHARE.

Back then people did not have cars or rapid transit, so invariably they carried dried bread, fish, etc. slack their hunger during their travels to a town, neighbor, etc and back. By starting the sharing with his food, Jesus coaxed others to share theirs and thus turned hungry hoarders into satiated sharers with plenty left over. Only hoarders claim the miracle was a supernatural creating bread and fish from nothing.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 17, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Why?  The majority of scientists who specialize in this say you are wrong. Based on facts. Don't tell me that the majority of priests agree with you because their studying an out dated text book.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 17, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


How pointless, as usual. Bossy made a completely bogus argument wherein he claimed all astrophysicists agree the universe is finely tuned. He failed to support that argument just as you have failed to support it.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 17, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Science evaluates many phenomenon which are not observable.
> ...


Actually, that would be the realm of science. 

You're at a disadvantage because your madrassah has left you without a science vocabulary.


----------



## Boss (Feb 17, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Physics predicts there are as many as 11 dimensions in our universe.
> ...



Uhm... not really.  We can SAY they are "physical dimensions" because they relate to physical sciences, but since these extra dimensions have not been confirmed or observed, we can't define them as anything, physical or not. 

But you do make an interesting point... Let's imagine something for a moment... Let's say that somewhere in the future, science and physics confirms some cosmic evidence for spiritual nature and energy... the age old secret is revealed, God is proven scientifically to exist as a form of spiritual energy supported by physics. Is God still a spiritual entity or is God now a physical entity? Would God change or would our perspective of God change?


----------



## Boss (Feb 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> How pointless, as usual. Bossy made a completely bogus argument wherein he claimed all astrophysicists agree the universe is finely tuned. He failed to support that argument just as you have failed to support it.



Speed of Light
Gravitational Constant
Planck's Constant
Planck Mass-Energy
Mass of Electron, Proton, Neutron
Mass of Up, Down, Strange Quark
Ratio of Electron to Proton Mass
Gravitational Coupling Constant
Cosmological Constant
Hubble Constant
Higgs Vacuum Expectation Value

The above values are precise and constant. If ANY of these values were off by just a hair, there could be no interacting life of any kind, anywhere. There would be no universe as we know it. It IS finely tuned, there is no question it is finely tuned, and anyone who doesn't believe this is a science-illiterate moron.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Here is the full quote you didn't get the other day when I paraphrased on my smart phone:

_“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 17, 2015)

*Complexity/Order does not prove god exists.  *The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defectsconsistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


.



> *b*: Why are you quoting Stenger and Adams and attributing it to me?




- you are the one attributing a "finely tuned universe" to Spirituality, el pseudo ...


not one blade of grass from 200 million years ago to the present or for all eternity will ever be the same.

.


----------



## Boss (Feb 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> ...even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years.



Hmmm... Mindless rules operating in a finely tuned system for billions of years? 

I absolutely LOVE for people who don't believe in God to attempt explaining life and the universe without God. It never fails, they manage to catch their britches on the fence every time. Where did these "rules" come from? Mindlessness, you said... but that makes no logical sense. It seems that any established "rule" would have to be contemplated and put in place by something. 

Now, the most important point to make on this observation is, we don't know how life originated. So this person is making the assumptive statement that we somehow know how life arose, and that's simply a lie. We do not know how life arose and every conceivable theory science offers is a contradiction to Biogenesis and has never been proven.


----------



## Steven_R (Feb 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Let's say the universe is finely tuned just for us. Why bother creating such a wonderful universe with all the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology to support humans and then create the universe in such a way that pretty much the entire universe can kill us all? There are any number of ways the beautiful night sky objects can simply wipe out humanity in an instant, from the vacuum of space to radiation to supernovas and gamma ray bursts to black holes to cosmic hammer blows from asteroids and planets and comets hitting the Earth. Even the Earth itself goes out of its way to kill us. 75% of the planet is covered in water and will kill us via drowning and hypothermia and exposure. Whole regions are too hot, too arid , or too cold for humans to live in. Weather patters such as hurricanes and tornados. Geological problems exist like mudslides and earthquake and volcanic eruptions. Forest fires, predators, bacteria, waterborne parasites, famine, lack of clean water.

If the universe was created, the Creator went out of His way to make the place a death-trap for His most beloved of creations.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.



A hallucination.



> Near-death experiences.



A reaction to the failing of the brain.



> Transcendental meditation.
> ESP and telepathy.
> Ghost stories and paranormal experiences.
> Other unexplained supernatural phenomenon.
> ...



Generally fraud.



> Is every single bit of it a bunch of hooey caused by our fears and imagination?
> 
> To me, it just seems as if there might be something more here. Especially in the case of people like Edgar Cayce. If you've never studied up on him, it's worth a search and read... fascinating man. His uncanny ability to predict the future was beyond anything we've ever known. He gave over 14k readings but that includes a brief period where he didn't do them because he was getting headaches. People were exploiting his power to win horse races and trade stock and he believed this was why he was getting the headaches. After some time, he did more readings but only his trusted wife was allowed to ask him questions.
> 
> Can our physical sciences understand this?



Psychics are frauds - 100% of the time.

{James Randi, a.k.a. The Amazing Randi, magician and


 author of numerous works skeptical of paranormal, supernatural, and pseudoscientific claims has for about ten years offered "a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power."}







Randi 1 000 000 paranormal challenge - The Skeptic s Dictionary - Skepdic.com


----------



## Steven_R (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> I absolutely LOVE for people who don't believe in God to attempt explaining life and the universe without God. It never fails, they manage to catch their britches on the fence every time. Where did these "rules" come from? Mindlessness, you said... but that makes no logical sense. It seems that any established "rule" would have to be contemplated and put in place by something.



The laws the universe operates by aren't created by anyone or anything. They just are. Science tries to understand those laws, but it may just be that the universe is what it is because of the way it shook out.


----------



## Boss (Feb 17, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> - you are the one attributing a "finely tuned universe" to Spirituality, el pseudo ...
> 
> not one blade of grass from 200 million years ago to the present or for all eternity will ever be the same.



I just said we have a finely tuned universe. I didn't attribute it to anything. I have no dispute on blades of grass all being different. However, from blades of grass to cells in the human body to subatomic quarks to massive stars... everything follows a specific pattern dictated by finely tuned constants. Certain values and ratios are repeated in everything from forms of life to chemical bonding. 

Denying the universe is finely tuned is delusional... on the order of believing the earth is flat. It simply contradicts what we know are the facts. The reason we see ape-women like Hollie and Neanderthals like silly boob and Inevitable trying to refute a finely tuned universe is because when we understand this is the case, it raises the question of who the tuner is? Chance or Design?  Well... if it's finely tuned, that sort of rules out chance. 

Imagine 12 roulette wheels, each one has 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 numbers. The wheels all begin to roll and they ALL land on the ONLY one specific number that makes everything work.... that's the level of "luck" we need if chance explains the finely tuned universe.


----------



## Boss (Feb 17, 2015)

Steven_R said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I absolutely LOVE for people who don't believe in God to attempt explaining life and the universe without God. It never fails, they manage to catch their britches on the fence every time. Where did these "rules" come from? Mindlessness, you said... but that makes no logical sense. It seems that any established "rule" would have to be contemplated and put in place by something.
> ...


*
The laws the universe operates by aren't created by anyone or anything.*

Where is your evidence?


----------



## Steven_R (Feb 17, 2015)

There is no evidence of any outside influence. Until someone can show that outside evidence, it's not considered.

You want me to put God in anywhere in science, show me God.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The extra dimensions have been derived mathematically and it is only a matter of time before they will be probed by gravity, once we have a workable quantum theory of gravity.

Well, if that happened God would no longer be personified, so our perception of God as a supernatural person will change.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > How pointless, as usual. Bossy made a completely bogus argument wherein he claimed all astrophysicists agree the universe is finely tuned. He failed to support that argument just as you have failed to support it.
> ...


Of course with the disclaimer "as we know it" makes what you say a half-truth only. If those items you ticked off were different, a universe and life etc could still exist, just not "as we know it."

So the logical conclusion is WE are tuned by those items, NOT they are tuned for US!


----------



## Boss (Feb 17, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



They have been *theorized* mathematically, not derived. The dimensions have to be there for quantum mechanics to work, but we have no perception of them, we have no way to measure or examine them at this time. Our material universe exists in four-dimensional reality, that's what we can evaluate and define through physical science. Theoretical physics goes a step beyond, and this is where quantum physics comes in. These are not traditionally observable or testable theories, they are supportive of the mechanics we can observe at the subatomic level. 

Yes, our perception of God would change, and that's my point.  Supernatural is simply things not currently explained by physical nature. It doesn't mean they can't eventually be explained. Once they are explained, we no longer classify them as supernatural things. So when I hear you say God is Supernatural, it makes me think you don't believe God is explained by physical nature. This makes rational sense because physical science hasn't proven God exists. BUT... If Science always could explain physical nature, there would be no need for Science. Science would simply render itself obsolete if it already knew everything about physical nature. 

Therefore, the possibility exists that God and spiritual energy does exist and is part of physical nature but we've not been able to discover this through physical science. Like the Atom and Microbe of the past, it is something we haven't developed the enhancement to our senses to be able to perceive and observe. Like the other 7 dimensions in quantum theory.


----------



## Boss (Feb 17, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well life as we understand life couldn't exist because there wouldn't be any planets or stars and there wouldn't be any chemistry or compounds. None of those things would exist, but what would exist instead, I have no idea and neither do you. 

The logical conclusion is, the universe exists in a finely tuned state which is conducive to life. From there, we can be as philosophical as you please, but that's the only logical conclusion there is. We don't know if other universes exist. We don't know what might have happened in an alternate universe. We can only go by what we know of our own universe and the finely tuned constants which make it conducive to life.


----------



## Boss (Feb 17, 2015)

Steven_R said:


> There is no evidence of any outside influence. Until someone can show that outside evidence, it's not considered.
> 
> You want me to put God in anywhere in science, show me God.



But there is evidence, you just don't recognize it as such. 

The very laws of basic science are evidence of an outside influence. Matter cannot create matter. Energy cannot be destroyed or created. The universe is in motion, the Laws of Motion are evidence there had to be an outside influence. Physical nature cannot create itself, it's a paradox. Physical nature is part of a physical reality which exists in a space and time that physical nature could not have created. Biogenesis states that life comes from life, and this is confirmed in every living thing humans have ever known of. We cannot produce life with inorganic materials. Origination of life has no physical explanation, only theories which contradict biogenesis. 

I've already presented a list of physical constants which have to be precisely as they are or none of this exists. Had the gravitational constant been off by 1:10^120 the planets and stars could not have formed. Important chemical bonds in the gases wouldn't have been made. Certain compounds, such as H2O, wouldn't exist.


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


He is changing the subject. He was talking earlier about paranormal occurrences and other such things.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > There is no evidence of any outside influence. Until someone can show that outside evidence, it's not considered.
> ...



"The very laws of basic science are evidence of an outside influence."

What nonsense!


----------



## Hollie (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > - you are the one attributing a "finely tuned universe" to Spirituality, el pseudo ...
> ...


You rattle on repeatedly with the "finely tuned universe" meme. Like many  unsupported statements you make, there's always a lack of evidence appended to your bellicose pronouncements.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 17, 2015)

Inevitable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


He typically retreats into arguments that require belief in magic and supernaturalism. He tends to stumble when presented with objective reality.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 17, 2015)

Muslim75 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> ...


Horoscopes?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 17, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Why?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your "because I say so" arguments are tedious and time wasting.

You so desperately want to impose your invented gawds and your imagined spirit realms on others that you feverishly nod and smile at the putrid bile being barfed out by your fundamentalist ministries.

So explain to us, as you dodged the question on so many occasions, how such things as planetary bombardment by meteors, catastrophic explosions of stars, black holes gobbling up entire solar systems, the relative clusters of galaxies in the universe accompanied by huge swaths of emptiness, etc., how that equates to "finely tuned" by your invented gawds?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



When people stop believing in Jesus religion will move the goal post more towards your vague generic god that no one claims visited and wrote a book.

Although you've even said you talk with it and it responds. Write a new bible boss. Get crazy Emily to help you write it because it has to be real confusing and long so people have to interpret and debate what the fuck she says.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, natural phenomena we cannot explain are unexplained natural phenomena, not supernatural.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ...even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years.
> ...


Gods never been proven.

What I said was a theory. God doesn't even qualify as a theory. It is only a hypothesis.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And god doesn't exist.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


That isn't the least bit logical. It is logical that life conforms to the universe, not the universe conforms to life!


----------



## Boss (Feb 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> So explain to us, as you dodged the question on so many occasions, how such things as planetary bombardment by meteors, catastrophic explosions of stars, black holes gobbling up entire solar systems, the relative clusters of galaxies in the universe accompanied by huge swaths of emptiness, etc., how that equates to "finely tuned" by your invented gawds?



Well, we've discovered most of the emptiness is not empty space. It is dark matter. We call it dark matter because it's not visible or physical in presence like normal matter. We know very little about it other than it comprises 96% of the universe. 

The universe is so finely tuned, it has created planets with atmospheres which bombarding meteors can't penetrate because of other cosmological constants. In spite of all the catastrophic explosions and black hole gobbling, a planet like ours can exist and be a habitat for life. 

I've answered your question, but you somehow want to continue thinking that "fine tuned" means the same as "orderly and stable," and it doesn't.


----------



## Boss (Feb 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> And god doesn't exist.



Where is your evidence?


----------



## Boss (Feb 17, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> That isn't the least bit logical. It is logical that life conforms to the universe, not the universe conforms to life!



We're not discussing conformity.


----------



## Boss (Feb 17, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> _*Boss:* *The logical conclusion is, the universe exists in a finely tuned state which is conducive to life*. _
> That isn't the least bit logical.



Really?  

The universe exists.... LOGICAL. 
The universe is fine tuned... LOGICAL
The universe is conducive to life... LOGICAL

Looks like it's "every bit" logical. 
Can you explain your retarded remark?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > And god doesn't exist.
> ...


Do I have to prove the lochness monster is not real?

Can you make any unfalsifiable claim and its true until I prove it wrong? Or is your claim just as probable as it not being true?

What are the odds nessy is real boss? Do you think its 50 50? Hint. Its not.

Prove he is real!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > _*Boss:* *The logical conclusion is, the universe exists in a finely tuned state which is conducive to life*. _
> ...


B might be wrong


----------



## Hollie (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > So explain to us, as you dodged the question on so many occasions, how such things as planetary bombardment by meteors, catastrophic explosions of stars, black holes gobbling up entire solar systems, the relative clusters of galaxies in the universe accompanied by huge swaths of emptiness, etc., how that equates to "finely tuned" by your invented gawds?
> ...


I'm afraid you're simply parroting the mantras of your fundamentalist ministries. Nothing in your "finely tuned" mantra makes sense in light of a violent and chaotic universe. "Finely tuned" is not defined by clusters of galaxies and large, empty voids of space. You really should become familiar with the subject matter. You won't do that by sifting through the pages of the Institute for Creation Research. 

You want to press your gawds and spirit realms. You're free to do that. However, don't expect others to accept your reciting of religious fundamentalist blathering as fact.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > That isn't the least bit logical. It is logical that life conforms to the universe, not the universe conforms to life!
> ...


Yes we are, you are too stupid to know it.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > _*Boss:* *The logical conclusion is, the universe exists in a finely tuned state which is conducive to life*. _
> ...


The universe is not fine tuned to life, life is fine tuned by the universe, you have it ass backwards which is not logical no matter how you spin it.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> How pointless, as usual. Bossy made a completely bogus argument wherein he claimed all astrophysicists agree the universe is finely tuned. He failed to support that argument just as you have failed to support it.


all you needed to do to win the argument was find one who disagreed......you couldn't.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


what realm of science studies the unobservable?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 17, 2015)

Steven_R said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


the universe is finely tuned for the existence of a universe.....our part of it is finely tuned for our existence......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Why?


because the possible number of planets capable of supporting life that could orbit any star would be zero, one, or two (two would require planets in totally opposite and synchronized orbits that could never collide.....if you start with an average of five planets orbiting a star and 4 to 5 of them cannot support life and 0 to 1 can, simple math tells you that there is no life on most planets.........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> And god doesn't exist.


wouldn't "god doesn't exist" simply be an hypothesis?.....


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



If you are going to make the definitive statement, then you need evidence to support it. I'm fine with _"I don't *believe* God exists!"_ That's not definitive, it's an opinion. You don't need to present any evidence to support an opinion. It's when you make it definitive.. _"God *doesn't* exist!"_ You need to support that supposition with evidence and you haven't. This is how the most basic science works, so if you can't comprehend that, it speaks for how competent you are in science. 

*Or is your claim just as probable as it not being true?*

Yes. My claim that God exists is just as probable as your claim God doesn't exist. Neither of us can prove our statement true or prove the other statement invalid. You don't get extra points because you value your opinion more than mine, but that's how you apparently think science evaluates things.


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Nope. Sorry. Every astrophysicist agrees the universe is finely tuned. They can't deny the cosmological constant. They can't deny the gravitational constant. They can't deny the dozen or so parameters which are set precisely so that our universe can exist. They can attempt to explain how this is possible without God, but they can't deny the reality of a finely tuned universe. 

As for being wrong, anything can be wrong... even when we're sure it's right. We can't _*know*_ truth, we can only _*believe*_ we know truth. Reality could all be an illusion.


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> The universe is not fine tuned to life, life is fine tuned by the universe, you have it ass backwards which is not logical no matter how you spin it.



I've not said "fine tuned *TO* life." What is the problem with pinheads who can't comprehend the simplest statements? The universe is fine tuned *FOR* life, which does exist and conforms to the universe finely tuned to allow it. 

I don't have anything ass backwards, you have a reading comprehension problem.


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> The universe is not fine tuned to life, life is fine tuned by the universe.



First of all, you are adding "to life" onto the argument of a finely tuned universe. The things I have been arguing are the cosmological constant, gravitational constant, forces, weights and ratios which are set precisely so that a universe could exist in any material state.... with or without life. It's obvious to me, life as anything like we understand life to be, can't very well exist in a universe with no stars, planets or water. 

So let's stop trying to conflate the arguments by introducing new levels of criteria and the false evaluation of conformity. I didn't suggest the universe intended itself to be created for the purpose of life. Only that it does exist in a finely tuned state where life is possible.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Why?
> ...



Ah I see. OK so then for every star there's 1 or zero planets that harbor life. So there's life on billions of planets.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


They do argue. This is just a theory not a scientific theory. But at least you're starting to talk theories and not hypothesis like god


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your just ignorant.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The universe is not fine tuned to life, life is fine tuned by the universe, you have it ass backwards which is not logical no matter how you spin it.
> ...


It's pretty silly to claim that: "The universe is fine tuned *FOR* life" when the fact is that the universe is a place generally hostile to life.

Your configuration and invention of a particular set of gawds seem to have misunderstood their job assignment when "designing" the universe.

Maybe you need some new gawds who can get the job done?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



True. .000000000000009% of universe has life and 99.9999999 doesn't.

And this is why they don't get how big the universe is. Even though life is rare on our scale the universe is so big that life is probably plentiful.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > How pointless, as usual. Bossy made a completely bogus argument wherein he claimed all astrophysicists agree the universe is finely tuned. He failed to support that argument just as you have failed to support it.
> ...


You have latched onto a ridiculous argument presented by bossy. As ridiculous arguments go, that's not surprising coming from those who typically further ridiculous arguments. 

All you had to do was supply the list of all astrophysicists who believe the Universe is "finely tuned" for life. You, nor bossy supplied that list.

You, and he are making the positive assertion. You, and he share the burden of proof.


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Your just ignorant.



Maybe, but at least I don't demonstrate it proudly for the world to see like you. I'm not afraid to ask questions, to explore possibilities, to try and understand new ideas.  I am here trying to engage you in a meaningful intelligent conversation, but I am having to fight your banal juvenile tendencies in order to do so. 

You only seem to want to use the USMB forum to politically masturbate. To come here, state your opinions as facts, be as rude and obnoxious as you please to those you don't like, refuse to be objective or reasonable, and blow your load of leftist lunacy all over our pretty faces. I don't let you get away with it, I'm the one pointing out how goofy and pathetic you look. I'm your Mistress Helga and you're my bitch boy.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nope. We're once again presented with a pointless, bossy inspired "because I say so" argument.

We will need a list of every astrophysicist and their specific statement that "the universe is finely tuned" to accept your statement.

Where is that list?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Why?
> ...


It's laughable when you goofy YEC'ists rattle on with juvenile "math" that you steal from the Institute for Creation Research.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Your just ignorant.
> ...



You're right I'm sorry


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Your just ignorant.
> ...



Just keep in mind hollie and I aren't being close minded. You theists just don't realize you aren't presenting any good evidence for the existence of god. The same arguments you're making were the arguments men made 10,000 years ago. 

Just be honest you believe because you can't imagine otherwise or you want to believe or you've been brainwashed and don't want to go to hell.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Your just ignorant.
> ...


It's so cute when you religious zealots fall off the wagon and launch into these saliva slinging tirades.


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Oh, you and Hollie are extremely closed minded. You have created your own reality of certainty with regard to questions unanswered. Your mind is closed to any other possibility. 

There was no good evidence of quarks before we observed them.  We had to develop the capability to be able to do this, it hasn't just always been. There was no good evidence for Jupiter before some old guy looked in a contraption he called a telescope and saw it. So the fact there isn't good evidence for something, especially something that is purported to not be physical in nature, is no big deal. But you seem to think this answers all doubts... we don't have physical evidence of a spiritual being, therefore one doesn't exist. The flaw of that argument is obvious. 

Oh... THE ARGUMENT has been made for 100k+ years, however long there has been homo sapiens walking upright. Humans have always believed in some power greater than self, something beyond the physical. It's an intrinsic and unique characteristic of human beings and our most defining attribute as a species.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


okay....multiply billions of planets times zero......what do you get?......you cannot base "probability" on that type of math.....it is possible there are billions.....it is also possible there is only one.....coming to a conclusion either way is not science........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 18, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I can see where you might find it easier to laugh than to actually read my posts......after all, laughing doesn't require any intelligent thought, and you obviously find that challenging.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


lol....you two are the poster children of close mindedness.....


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The universe is not fine tuned to life, life is fine tuned by the universe.
> ...





Boss said:


> The above values are precise and constant.* If ANY of these values were off by just a hair, there could be no interacting life of any kind, anywhere*.



You always do this, when you have to eat YOUR words, you deny ever saying them. YOU introduced "life" into the argument, and now you attribute your actions to me.

The fact remains, life conforms to the universe, the universe does not conform to life. If the universe was different, life would also be different. It is much more logical that the universe "tunes" itself than some undefined "spirit" tunes the universe. IOW, it is the basic NATURE of energy to form a universe with the constants that exist in this universe, not the work of some spiritual entity.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> okay....multiply billions of planets times zero......what do you get?......you cannot base "probability" on that type of math.....it is possible there are billions.....it is also possible there is only one.....coming to a conclusion either way is not science........


Possibility and probability are not the same. While it is possible that the Earth is the only life bearing object in the universe, it is not probable given the tenacious nature of life. There are bacteria that live under the most inhospitable conditions here on Earth, deep underground with no O2 and eating rock for food, to bacteria deep in the ocean eating sulfur from volcanic heat vents. The Earth may be the only place with "human" life, but the PROBABILITY is there is life in some form elsewhere in the universe.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



We don't have physical evidence and that bothered theists so they lied and said he visited.

Listen. Humans a long time ago came up with "must be a god" for everything they didn't know. They decided they were special and so must be this gods chosen animal.  

I know fully what you believe. None of it is convincing me. Not cause I'm close minded but because its not evidence and it can all be explained.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Your just ignorant.
> ...



No,  you are unwilling to accept the right answers.  You ask a lot of questions but don't like the answers.  You even think you are smarter than this guy:

_The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all species are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”_ – Richard Dawkins


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It's not being closed minded to challenge your specious claims to magical spirit realms and supernatural gawds you have created in your mind.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Laughter is often the only available response to your silly tripe.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > okay....multiply billions of planets times zero......what do you get?......you cannot base "probability" on that type of math.....it is possible there are billions.....it is also possible there is only one.....coming to a conclusion either way is not science........
> ...


you are arguing the wrong issue.....sillybobo did not argue the probability there is life in some form elsewhere in the universe....he argued the probability that life in the universe is not a rare occurance.....that is a possibility, but not a probability.....and yes, there is a difference.....


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well, I am not having to eat my words. I am having to argue with a juvenile about the words I used and what order they were in. Yesterday, I argued with a juvenile who makes up his own arbitrary meaning for words as he goes because he thinks dictionaries are mere suggestions. Another juvenile here thinks words like "suggest" mean "proved conclusively" in science and that his opinions are facts. And yet another juvenile thinks calling me a religious fanatic over and over is getting under my skin. 

I*f the universe was different, life would also be different.*

You have offered NO evidence for this statement. Since we are unable to observe and evaluate a different universe, it is impossible to know this. While I respect your wild speculation, it is not a fact... far from it. 

Now let's go back to my original statement. The universe is fine tuned. Forget about the "for life" part because it's causing you to miss the greater point. The universe is fine tuned to exist in the state we observe it to exist. If any of over a dozen variables were off by a fraction, there would be no physical material universe as we know it. That means there is no stars or planets... therefore, no life. Or, at least not planetary life as we know it. 

Obviously life has conformed to the universe it was given to exist in but this does not automatically mean life would have conformed to any old universe. Again... life as we understand it, can't exist in a universe with no stars, planets, chemistry or water. 

It is also obvious that I have never claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist. That changes none of the following facts: The universe exists. It exists in a finely tuned state. The finely tuned state permits life to emerge. 

Now Eddy.... You can accept those facts and acknowledge them, or you can continue trying to be cute and misleading about things I've said, pretending that I've said something crazy you can attack and ridicule, while yucking it up with your anti-religious buddies. That actually suits me fine because I can continue to expose your dishonesty and make a total fool of you.


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> We don't have physical evidence and that bothered theists so they lied and said he visited.



Again, you are stating your opinion as if it is some sort of documented fact. 

I don't accept your opinion for one primary reason. Lies can't withstand 100k years of human evolution and scrutiny. If there were nothing to human spirituality, it would have died out long ago in man.... like Milli Vinilli!   

Now... Whether something "visited" or whether God manifest Himself in human form as Jesus Christ.... Those are philosophical and theological questions and are subject to faith-based beliefs. I'm not a Religious person, I don't have a favorite legend or dogma from antiquity. I think all religions are merely symbols of human spiritual expression. 

I can actually see where a time will come that we don't have religions anymore. We'll still be spiritual and believe in God, it just won't be through religious avenues. The majority of us will share a universal spiritualism which doesn't need religion, or the bad parts of religion... the judgment, retribution, guilt. But yet, maintains the good things about religion... hope, love and charity... art, beauty, teamwork. We'll still have spiritual-based organizations, but they will be non-denominational. 

The point is, human spirituality is not ever going to stop, no matter how mad you are at Christians and Jews. It's an intrinsic part of our nature as human beings and it's not going anywhere.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


As you have been instructed, there is nothing to suggest the universe is "finely tuned". That's just so silly when we know for a fact that the universe is a violent and chaotic place. 

Take a look at photos of the surface of the moon. What do you think that cratering is all about?


----------



## Steven_R (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



That's not how it works. A scientist sees something he can't explain, says to himself "that's weird" and then looks for a natural explanation to explain that which already exists. He doesn't start with a conclusion, in this case that there is some supernatural cause for the universe, and go from there. We figured out quarks because we saw something new. Galileo figured out Jupiter had moons because we saw some strange lights orbiting Jupiter. There is simply no evidence for the supernatural and scientists are happy to say "we don't know right now and we're looking for an answer."

Get in a lab and say "I can't figure this out, therefore God/Odin/The Force/[Insert Supernatural Entity Here]" or "I believe in X and I'm going to cherry pick the evidence to prove it" and you'll be out of a job.


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

Hollie said:


> As you have been instructed, there is nothing to suggest the universe is "finely tuned". That's just so silly when we know for a fact that the universe is a violent and chaotic place.
> 
> Take a look at photos of the surface of the moon. What do you think that cratering is all about?



As you have been instructed... you don't get to instruct me or make up your own facts. 

"Finely tuned" does not mean the universe is docile, orderly, stable, non-chaotic. You are quite literally misinterpreting the meaning of "finely tuned" whether unintentionally or on purpose. 

"Finely tuned" describes the various constants, ratios, weights and forces. 

We've discovered at least 40 of these so far. Here is a list if you want to review them all. There are also a number of credible physicists and cosmologists who have written books on the subject of a finely tuned universe. 

I'll give you a sample, since you were whining for one yesterday:

*Freeman John Dyson* FRS is a British-American theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering (_Disturbing the Universe_): *“The more I examine  the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe  in some sense must have known that we were coming.”*

*Sir Fred Hoyle, Cambridge Astrophysicist* (“The Universe: Past and Present Reflections”): “From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of Carbon 12 to the 7.12 Mev level in Oxygen 16. if you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? Following the above argument, I am inclined to think so.  A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

*Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose* (_The Nature of Space and Time_) “Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again  and expanding indefinitely? In order to be as close as we are now, the rate of expansion early on had to be chosen fantastically accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been less by one part in 10 to the power of 10, the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 10 to the power of 10, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find the physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is.”

*George Ellis *_(British Astrophysicist)_: “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

*Paul Davies* (Physicist and Philosopher, Professor at Arizona State University): “Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth – the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient “coincidences” and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs (of which there are 40) must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile. Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn’t exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleus and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life.”

*Alister McGrath* Specialist in Science & Theology (_A Fine-Tuned Universe. p. 141-2_): “Our attention focuses on one critical aspect of the biochemical processes that are thought to have led to life. The fundamental properties of the chemical elements, which are exploited _but not created_ by biological processes, have to be such that these metabolic pathways are possible in the first place. Equally, if Darwinian evolution is to take place and to be regarded as essential to a definition of life, the chemistry of nature must be such that replication is possible–in other words, such that DNA or its functional equivalent can exist…. The origins of life are thus unquestionably anthropic…. On the basis of the know biochemical systems, biological evolution remains dependent upon chemical processes which were ultimately determined  in the primordial state of the universe.”

McGrath (_A Fine-Tuned Universe_, p. 164): “Chemical reality constrains evolution: these processes can occur only because the chemistry of certian metals, predetermined by quantum mechanical parameters, permits them to do so. If this were not the case, evolution could not have found its way to such solutions as photsynthesis, nitrogen fixing, or oxygen transport. Evolution can only fine-tune itself because of the predetermined properties of chemical elements. Had they been significantly different, this fine-tuning within nature could not take place.”


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> I have never claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist.


First of all, you can take your "juvenile" crap and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, but of course, you can't debate without insults.

I never said you "claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist" and you know that, it is just one of your typically necessary Straw Men, Your obvious contention is some unnamed and undefined invisible SPIRITUAL entity tuned the universe for life, otherwise you have no arguable relationship between spirituality and the universe.  Your argument holds water, if and only if, the universe was tuned for life and not life was tuned by the universe.


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

Steven_R said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I never said science starts with conclusions. In fact, I will tell you flat out, once you've determined a conclusion.... on anything... science hits the time clock and goes for a beer! It's done, the work is complete, there is nothing more science can ever do... a conclusion has taken it's place and all conclusion is faith-based. It might very well be faith based on great science work, but science can only ask questions and determine probability, it doesn't make conclusions, people do. 

YES... People eventually figured out MANY things that were previously unknown and had no scientific evidence to support. So the fact that we have no evidence to support something, doesn't mean it can't exist. We can't observe spiritual nature at this time, we don't have that kind of telescope or microscope, man hasn't evolved to the level of being able to examine spiritual nature.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

Hollie said:


> As you have been instructed, there is nothing to suggest the universe is "finely tuned". That's just so silly when we know for a fact that* the universe is a violent and chaotic place.*
> 
> Take a look at photos of the surface of the moon. What do you think that cratering is all about?


Exactly, I call the universe a "Perpetual Commotion Machine" with an entropy of zero.


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I have never claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist.
> ...



Life would not be possible in a universe not fine tuned for life. At least not planetary life forms as we know them. Again... the finely tuned universe must be the way it is or there is no platform for life.  

I've not presented any contention whatsoever. There are two possibilities for a finely tuned universe, chance and design.  I am willing to debate those two possibilities but we're stuck on accepting the reality that we have a finely tuned universe. 

Now I wouldn't have a problem with your contention that life was tuned by the universe, but it's just not the truth. Life may adapt to nature but nature exists as a result of the universe which exists because of the 40 finely-tuned constants, ratios, weights and forces which make it possible. AND... Life itself is completely dependent on these same constants of fine tuning which enabled the chemistry to make life. So both the universe and life could not exist if there were any deviation in any one of about 40 parameters which are finely tuned.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Life is much more adaptable than you give it credit for. As I pointed out there are bacteria that can live deep in the bowels of the Earth without O2 and break down rock for food, as well as bacteria that can live under the crushing pressure of the deep ocean and eat the sulfur from the vents of volcanos. Who are YOU to put YOUR limitations on life???


----------



## dblack (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



There's no denying, if things were different, things would be different.


----------



## Steven_R (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



We have nothing to support the spiritual world. Until someone invents a PKE Meter, carries an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back, and drives Ecto 1, science has zero reason to even consider the ghost world. There's simply nothing to support it and the more we learn about the physical universe, the less room the spiritual universe has to play in. It's the God of the Gaps problem with different name.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Let's give boss this so he moves on! A whole fucking day arguing if the universe is fine tuned?  If it is. If we give you this. What do you think it proves? Get to your fucking point already.


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Life is much more adaptable than you give it credit for. As I pointed out there are bacteria that can live deep in the bowels of the Earth without O2 and break down rock for food, as well as bacteria that can live under the crushing pressure of the deep ocean and eat the sulfur from the vents of volcanos. Who are YOU to put YOUR limitations on life???



It's not about adaptability just like it's not about conformity. You're missing the larger point. The chemical bonds and elements needed to form any carbon-based life are dependent upon this precisely fine tuned collection of variables. Atomic weights and ratios of the nucleus to electrons in atoms, constants which are essential in formation of material things like suns and planets. 

Without suns and planets, I hardly see how we can debate any possibility of life as we know it.  Where would it exist? How could it have formed without carbon, oxygen and light? Not to mention water. All of these things exist because the universe is finely tuned for them to exist.


----------



## Steven_R (Feb 18, 2015)

I'd still like to know if the universe is so finely tuned (presumably by Someone/Something) why is pretty much everything in the universe set up to wipe out life?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Life is much more adaptable than you give it credit for. As I pointed out there are bacteria that can live deep in the bowels of the Earth without O2 and break down rock for food, as well as bacteria that can live under the crushing pressure of the deep ocean and eat the sulfur from the vents of volcanos. Who are YOU to put YOUR limitations on life???
> ...


Science and many ppl here have explain why you're wrong but you argue so clearly you know more than science.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 18, 2015)

OZman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> ...


ASK ISIS. They seem to know everything.


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

Steven_R said:


> We have nothing to support the spiritual world.



Safe bet!  We'll never have anything physical to support the spiritual. It's a paradox of our linguistics, you see. For whenever we have found physical support, it ceases to be spiritual evermore. If science announced tomorrow that it had physical proof that God exists, God would no longer be spiritual. 

Now.... there ARE things outside the physical (and inside if you know where to look) which support spiritual nature and/or creative force. You simply reject those possibilities because it's not what you want to believe. But I wish you could see that this makes you say really stupid things and take foolish stances on science... like the idea that if science has no evidence for something, it isn't possible.  The truth is, Science is built upon not having evidence and our process of discovering it.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...





TheOldSchool said:


> Here let's see if I can break it down:
> 
> *Astral projection experiences - *hallucination of the mind
> *Near-death experiences - *hallucination of the mind
> ...


Does boss know you got 8 agrees? Love to see I'm not alone.


----------



## Steven_R (Feb 18, 2015)

Science isn't saying it isn't possible. Science says if you want us to take it in consideration, show us proof of it.

Until the spirit world can be shown, science has no choice but to discount it.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> ...


I'm pretty sure boss doesn't know anything about anything


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > We have nothing to support the spiritual world.
> ...


I thought god can be both? 

But you know what? I'm so skeptical if god came on every channel on every TV and radio and internet I'd think it was the north koreans fucking with us. 

I wonder what he'd have to do to convince me. If he's god I'll not only see it I'll feel it right? But even then my mind or someone could be playing tricks on me. Or it could be an alien who's playing us because its been studying us so it know we're a gullible race.

Could it move a mountain or grow every amputees appendages back? This proof I would accept. Or spell god in the stars where the big dipper was.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> The chemical bonds and elements needed to form any carbon-based life are dependent upon this precisely fine tuned collection of variables.


No they are not. They are dependent on one variable, the number of electrons in their outer shell.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > We have nothing to support the spiritual world.
> ...


Paradox of the linguistics? You mean a hypothesis that hasn't even graduated into a theory? And I'm not talking about a scientific theory I'm just talking about a general theory where you have even one bit of evidence. The bible isn't evidence. You even know that. 

So all this stuff about order and the stuff about how primitive uneducated unscientific superstitious ancient man believed and its still here so must be something to it or even that you feel it. Add all that up and its not even enough to call it a theory. Youre just hypothesising.

Us humans have only been around for a blink of an eye. We know nothing. And you're holding onto something that's holding us all back as a species. Its a lie and we don't need it anymore. Its almost no it is offensive to common sense.

I feel like a child and you're trying to convince me for one more year that Santa is real. Lol


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The chemical bonds and elements needed to form any carbon-based life are dependent upon this precisely fine tuned collection of variables.
> ...



And so what? Let's find out if he's right what does he think that proves? We've spent all day on point a. What does it prove anyways. 

But I don't think we should continue because that's what theists do. You explain why one thing isn't true or might not be true but they assume those events are true so why let them even try to make another point if they are wrong here.

But I would like to know what he thinks a fine tune proves. Probably the clock maker intelligent design argument.

So fuck it. If boss is wrong here don't stop till he admits it.

They don't care I'd 99 of their arguments are wrong. Only one point has to be true and that proves god exists.


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

Steven_R said:


> I'd still like to know if the universe is so finely tuned (presumably by Someone/Something) why is pretty much everything in the universe set up to wipe out life?



Do you remember the old tube-type televisions with the rabbit ear antennas? Well... there was a modern marvel... a finely tuned instrument which could pick up wave signals we can't see, feel, hear or anything... magic! Now... If you were curious as a kid like I was, you may have tinkered around with an old TV. Stick your screwdriver in the wrong place, and they'd  be having your funeral that weekend. Fine tuned instrument of wonder... but it could kill you dead. 

There is no correlation between "fine tuned" and "potential for catastrophe" that I am aware of. Some of the most finely tuned things we've created have had catastrophes. Fine tuned  does not mean orderly and pristine. Yep, the universe can certainly kill us many different ways, but it has allowed life to evolve to the point of questioning these things, questioning existence itself. I don't think that is a fluke.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


He's a formidable foe


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > I'd still like to know if the universe is so finely tuned (presumably by Someone/Something) why is pretty much everything in the universe set up to wipe out life?
> ...


I knew it! The watch maker argument. If something intelligent must have designed all this something intelligent must have designed him.

Heres the truth. God is not eternal. Nothing is. Every star you see is dying. Seems like over google number of years stars are born and die. We don't know what black holes are. But from the looks of it our universe might not be the only universe and we don't know if our universe will one day die and be reborn again. We just don't have all the answers.

And does it matter if we believe?


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Paradox of the linguistics? You mean a hypothesis that hasn't even graduated into a theory?



Yeah, I figured that would go right over your simple little head. 

Paradox of our linguistics.  When a "spiritual" thing is evidenced by "physical" science, it is no longer defined as something "spiritual" in nature. The occurrence of rain, for example. Once science provides a physical explanation, it is no longer something spiritual, it will never again be spiritual. 

Therefore, it is a relatively safe bet that you can't lose when you hold to the line: There is no scientific proof for God (spiritual nature). If there ever is any, God will no longer be spiritual.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Actually the universe is eternal. No god necessary or require.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 18, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Take a look at photos of the surface of the moon. What do you think that cratering is all about?


the moon shielding the earth from meteorites?.....


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Well no, this isn't the watchmaker argument, although I don't have a problem with that argument either. In fact, what we have discovered regarding these 40-some-odd variables which are finely tuned, sort of reinforces Paley's analogy. 

I liked my casino analogy better.  Before you is the Ultimate wager... 40 roulette wheels, each one has 10 to the 60th power or more, numbers for the ball to land on.  Hey, these are some really huge wheels. Now pick your 40 best numbers and let's spin the wheels! If ALL 40 wheels land on the number you picked, then your universe can be one like ours. If ANY of the wheels are off by just one number, then the universe we know of cannot exist. And quite possibly, NO universe could exist.

This has caused secular scientists to scratch their heads and try to drum up some kind of semi-rational explanation. The prevailing hypothesis is, that we are but one of MANY universes... YES.... Somewhere outside our cosmos, is a giant universe producing machine, churning out billions of universes constantly.... and we are one of them who just so happened to get the winning combination. Yep... it's OUT THERE!


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Actually the universe is eternal. No god necessary or require.



Oooo... ETERNAL.... Now there is a word seculars don't often use! 

I wonder if Silly Boob will enlighten us with HIS definition of eternal?


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Heres the truth. God is not eternal. Nothing is.





sealybobo said:


> Actually the universe is eternal.



He is SO confusing sometimes.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Actually the universe is eternal. No god necessary or require.
> ...


Its all that is all that was and all that will ever be. But not just our universe. Beyond our cosmic horizon is an infinite cosmos.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 18, 2015)

CultureLab Why the universe wasn t fine-tuned for life

_In _The Fallacy of Fine-tuning_, Victor Stenger dismantles arguments that the laws of physics in our universe were ""fine-tuned" to foster life_

IF THE force of gravity were a few per cent weaker, it would not squeeze and heat the centre of the sun enough to ignite the nuclear reactions that generate the sunlight necessary for life on Earth. But if it were a few per cent stronger, the temperature of the solar core would have been boosted so much the sun would have burned out in less than a billion years - not enough time for the evolution of complex life like us.

In recent years many such examples of how the laws of physics have been "fine-tuned" for us to be here have been reported. Some religious people claim these "cosmic coincidences" are evidence of a grand design by a Supreme Being. In _The Fallacy of Fine-tuning_, physicist Victor Stenger makes a devastating demolition of such arguments.

*A general mistake made in search of fine-tuning, he points out, is to vary just one physical parameter while keeping all the others constant.* Yet a "theory of everything" - which alas we do not yet have - is bound to reveal intimate links between physical parameters. *A change in one may be compensated by a change in another, says Stenger.*





In addition to general mistakes, Stenger deals with specifics. For instance, British astronomer Fred Hoyle discovered that vital heavy elements can be built inside stars only because a carbon-12 nucleus can be made from the fusion of three helium nuclei. For the reaction to proceed, carbon-12 must have an energy level equal to the combined energy of the three helium nuclei, at the typical temperature inside a red giant. This has been touted as an example of fine-tuning. But, as Stenger points out, in 1989, astrophysicist Mario Livio showed that the carbon-12 energy level could actually have been significantly different and still resulted in a universe with the heavy elements needed for life.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

There has never been a beginning and there will never be an end. Why can't you believe that but you can an invible all powerful god? How is that even credible? Maybe 100 years ago but we're at a stage in history where god is just not believable. And does it matter if we believe? If yes fu and if no then cool we just disagree.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> CultureLab Why the universe wasn t fine-tuned for life
> 
> _In _The Fallacy of Fine-tuning_, Victor Stenger dismantles arguments that the laws of physics in our universe were ""fine-tuned" to foster life_
> 
> ...



So theists are making both general and specific mistakes?

I read this the other day and told boss this guy who's an expert says he's wrong but he's probably on some creation science site getting spin.


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Ah, now we have "infinite" being introduced. Do tell more! 

Also... What is your primary scientific basis for this argument?  I'm just curious.


----------



## Boss (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> There has never been a beginning and there will never be an end. Why can't you believe that but you can an invible all powerful god?



I didn't say I didn't believe it, I just find it odd that you believe this. Infinity and Eternity sound like very spiritual concepts. I am very interested in the science you've supported this idea with, if you would be so kind as to share?


----------



## cnm (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> We do understand them, that's the thing. [...]


Yeah? We understand precisely the origin of the universe and the beginning of life?

You must have a few Nobels lined up on your mantelpiece. Perhaps you could let the rest of of us in on the info.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Its an alternate hypothesis to your god hypothesis. 

Are you saying you are 100% sure god exists?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > There has never been a beginning and there will never be an end. Why can't you believe that but you can an invible all powerful god?
> ...


Watch the old and new cosmos but not on TV. Rent it you cheap sob. Or rent it from the library. I promise with your mind you will love it. Get a pen and notepad and take notes. But they are long so watch an episode or two at a time. I watched them while really contemplating this shit. It didn't happen over night but watching the new cosmos is when I went full blown atheist. Then I watched the old cosmos.

It is just a superstitious primitive ancient belief you can't let go of.

And if you still believe after watching the cosmos then you just arent ready. You may never be. I have lots of friends who don't even want to hear it! Ignorance is bliss.

I think you are convertable. Lol


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And its not like youre a christian trying to save or convince us because you want to convert us or don't want us to go to hell.

And you think an awful lot about it. I think you're trying to convince yourself. I remember being like you. Its not your fault. Lol

But serious you seem ready to wake up. Its awesome after you finally accept it and let go your imaginary friend cause he ain't there.


----------



## cnm (Feb 18, 2015)

Muslim75 said:


> I speak of the taditional knowledge in Islam.


Unfortunately the traditional knowledge read like made up stuff contradicted by current knowledge.


----------



## OZman (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Its all that is all that was and all that will ever be. But not just our universe. Beyond our cosmic horizon is an infinite cosmos.



Alan Guth - How Vast is the Cosmos?:


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 18, 2015)

OZman said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Its all that is all that was and all that will ever be. But not just our universe. Beyond our cosmic horizon is an infinite cosmos.
> ...



Even he doesn't get what infinite means. His ten to the quadrillion means there is an end. I say there is no end.  How can there be? And there is no beginning. Maybe a beginning and end of our universe but that isnt the end of the cosmos. It may be just black space but its still here. Here will always be here even if the earth is gone.


----------



## OZman (Feb 18, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> OZman said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Alan Guth does state that the theory predicts the pocket universes are infinite, but this is still an inflation theory of the big bang. Science cannot precede the big bang model, therefore he cannot claim that the universe is eternal.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I'm interested in those same questions relative to your particular, peculiar invention of gawds vs. all the other inventions of gawds.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > I'd still like to know if the universe is so finely tuned (presumably by Someone/Something) why is pretty much everything in the universe set up to wipe out life?
> ...


That would suggest your gawds are really incompetent "designers"


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



See now, this is where we're totally different, silly boob. I don't rely on a television program to tell me what to think. I specifically asked you for the science to back up your claim of an infinite and eternal universe. You presented a TV show. 

It's kind of creepy how you're telling me to become a brainwashed zombie. How long do I have to watch Cosmos before I abandon my God and become atheist? A month? Six months? What if I don't want to become a full blown atheist like you, but just enough atheist to scare little kids?


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

Hollie said:


> That would suggest your gawds are really incompetent "designers"



Better than anything you've ever created... as miraculous as that yeast infection was.


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Even he doesn't get what infinite means. His ten to the quadrillion means there is an end. I say there is no end. *How can there be?*



Oh let's see... Math and physics would be one reason. We've calculated the approximate age (and size) of the universe. Infinite and eternal are the same as immortal and everlasting. How can you rationalize no possibility for an eternal/infinite controlling force but yet that is your definition of the actual universe? Seems like finely tuned cosmological constants working for all of eternity is not any different than God.

It's okay Boob.. lots of people consider the universe God.


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



No, an infinite and eternal universe cannot be a scientific hypothesis. You're presenting a philosophical concept that science cannot measure. This doesn't mean it isn't true, you may be absolutely correct, but it's not based on science.

Yes, personally I am  100% sure God exists. If not, I couldn't believe in God. However, my basis is not scientific because you can't observe it.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> No, an infinite and eternal universe cannot be a scientific hypothesis. You're presenting a philosophical concept that *science cannot measure*.


Universe *Measured *With Near-Perfect Accuracy Scientists Say It s Probably Infinite Flat And Eternal - International Science Times

"We've done the analysis now because we have 90 percent of [the experiment's] final data, and we're tremendously excited by the results," says Martin White, chair of the survey team and physicist at the University of California, Berkeley. They announced the findings Thursday and have submitted their paper for publication with the journal _Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society_. The team has good reason to be excited: no one has ever mapped the universe so accurately. As team leader David Schlegel put it, "I now know the size of the universe better than I know the size of my house."

They did it using a high-powered telescope at the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico, which, for almost five years, has been hunting deep space for galaxies. Some of them are more than 6 billion light-years away and, therefore, at least as many years old (FYI, a light-year is a distance, equal to about 5.9 trillion miles). They say it may be the largest collection of redshift galaxies (galaxies moving away from us) ever compiled. By comparison, the new Hubble photo of deep space, said to capture the farthest reaches yet, only shows galaxies 3.5 billion light-years from earth.

With that information, the physicists looked for clusters of galaxies called Baryon acoustic oscillations, or baryons, which arrange themselves in circles around a central cluster. They're basically caused by pressure ripples from when the universe was formed about 13.4 billion years ago, which cooled and froze. In this case, they proved useful because the radius of each cluster is always the same. In effect, they are a 500-million-light-years-long measuring tape.

The scientists translated the data into a 3-D map of the universe. What they discovered is that the universe is "flat" — not in the two-dimensional sense, but in the physicist jargon sense. That is, its shape adheres to principles of basic fourth-grade geometry: A triangle's angles add up to 180 degrees, and that kind of thing. Here's the cool part about that: "One of the reasons we care is that a flat universe has implications for whether the universe is infinite," Schlegel says in the news release. "That means — while we can't say with certainty that it will never come to an end — it's likely the universe extends forever in space and will go on forever in time. Our results are consistent with an infinite universe."


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> As team leader David Schlegel put it, "I now know the size of the universe better than I know the size of my house."



Too funny... Do you idiots even listen to yourselves? 

How can you fucking know the size... but it's infinite?  Then I read toward the end where it says... (paraphrasing) _We almost certainly think that we nearly believe it might just be possible that the universe could be something like *infinite man!* _Oh yes! Science has now fucking spoken on this so we can put away the speculations and chisel this into the stone cold book of facts. 

People who adopt Science as their Theology are dangerous.


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> They're basically caused by pressure ripples from when the universe was formed about 13.4 billion years ago.....



What? The universe was formed 13.4 billion years ago?  Doesn't sound eternal to me.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > As team leader David Schlegel put it, "I now know the size of the universe better than I know the size of my house."
> ...


Why am I not surprised you had to change what was said, which you dishonestly try to pass off as "paraphrasing," to ignore how the accurate measurements were taken.


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Tell me something, Einstein... What is the calculation for measuring infinity?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > As team leader David Schlegel put it, "I now know the size of the universe better than I know the size of my house."
> ...


It figures that an idiot too stupid to understand anything thinks others are idiots.
The universe is infinite because MEASUREMENTS show it will EXPAND from its present SIZE for eternity.
You are the stupidest "know-it-all" I've ever encountered!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your infinite stupidity, of course!


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> It figures that an idiot too stupid to understand anything thinks others are idiots.
> The universe is infinite because MEASUREMENTS show it will EXPAND from its present SIZE for eternity.



Huh? How do the measurements show that? 

I'm really very interested in the mathematical formula for measuring infinity. I have a theory that you are infinitely stupid and I'd like to be able to confirm that.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > It figures that an idiot too stupid to understand anything thinks others are idiots.
> ...


Still playing dumb so you can continue your bullshit.
They MEASURE the EXPANSION, you stupid moron!


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Still playing dumb so you can continue your bullshit.
> They MEASURE the EXPANSION, you stupid moron!



Well, yes, they've been measuring the expansion for the past 40 years or more. Your article says they measured the universe and found it was flat. Guy says he knows the size of the universe as well as he knows the size of his own bedroom. So if there is a known size value, then it's not infinite.... by definition. Also, if it started 13.9 billion years ago, it's not eternal... by definition. 

So you can bow up and call me stupid all you like, until you present a mathematical formula for calculating infinity, you have no scientific support for such concepts.


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> "That means — while we can't say with certainty that it will never come to an end — it's likely the universe extends forever in space and will go on forever in time. Our results are consistent with an infinite universe."



Any tax dollars going to fund this person's research should have ceased the moment he made this boneheaded statement. There is no math or physics to support it whatsoever. It is a speculation based on faith and nothing more. ZERO Science!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Still playing dumb so you can continue your bullshit.
> ...


You admit they measured the expansion, and you admit they measured the flatness, what you dishonestly misdirect by your stating that they have been measuring the expansion for 40 years is that they found a MUCH MORE ACCURATE way of measuring it from the way it had been measured over those 40 years. You expose the weakness of your argument by your dishonest deceptions.
Thank you.
By definition you are a dishonest idiot!

From my link that you dishonestly and deceptively left out:

"They did it using a high-powered telescope at the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico, which, for almost five years, has been hunting deep space for galaxies. *Some of them are more than 6 billion light-years away* and, therefore, at least as many years old (FYI, a light-year is a distance, equal to about 5.9 trillion miles). They say it may be the largest collection of redshift galaxies (galaxies moving away from us) ever compiled. *By comparison, the new Hubble photo of deep space, said to capture the farthest reaches yet, only shows galaxies 3.5 billion light-years from earth."*


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > "That means — while we can't say with certainty that it will never come to an end — it's likely the universe extends forever in space and will go on forever in time. Our results are consistent with an infinite universe."
> ...


And we have the word of a dishonest liar on that.
Thank you.


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 19, 2015)

"Astral projection experiences.
Near-death experiences. 
Transcendental meditation. 
ESP and telepathy. 
Ghost stories and paranormal experiences.
Other unexplained supernatural phenomenon. 
Spells, curses and black magic. 
Edgar Cayce.
Nostradamus.
Prophecy in general. 

Is every single bit of it a bunch of hooey caused by our fears and imagination?"

Yes.


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Look... 6 billion light years and 3.5 billion light years are still *finite* distances. Neither of these are *"infinite"* by any common usage of the word. So what the fuck are you talking about here? I am certain that mathematicians worldwide would LOVE to know about this magical formula to calculate and measure infinity.


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

HUGGY said:


> Is every single bit of it a bunch of hooey caused by our fears and imagination?"
> 
> Yes.



Then it contradicts every scientific law of probability. Not to mention, natural selection, Darwinian evolution or any other behavioral observation in nature. There is no other unexplained behavioral phenomenon that happens to the level and degree of human spiritualism. I've presented a long list of categories and you are saying that in 100% of the accounts, in all the cases, for all the years and across all the categories, there is nothing to it at all.... it's simple fear and imagination. 

I say the chances of a fundamental species behavior exemplified in so many different ways, existing for all of the species history, is very highly unlikely to be absolutely 100% meaningless. In fact, it's the smallest infinitesimal increment from being impossible that it's meaningless or that you are 100% correct.


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> You admit they measured the expansion, and you admit they measured the flatness, what you dishonestly misdirect by your stating that they have been measuring the expansion for 40 years is that they found a MUCH MORE ACCURATE way of measuring it from the way it had been measured over those 40 years.



Still... Doesn't matter how accurate your measurement is, you cannot measure infinity. 

This somehow reminds me of the now-debunked "Singularity" theory... which some of you are still floating around. You try to explain how Something came from Nothing, but in every instance you must define "Nothing" as some tiniest bit of "Something."  

Perhaps this is why Hawking so boldly rejected Singularity theory?


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> The universe is *infinite* because MEASUREMENTS show it will EXPAND from its present SIZE for *eternity*.



Essentially, what this is saying is: The universe IS God.  So if you believe in an infinite and eternal universe, you believe in God. You simply *define* it in another way. 

Infinity and Eternity are not physical concepts in science because we can't evaluate or measure them. One of the biggest problems posed to such a concept applied to the universe is Entropy. This is a major physical principle in the Laws of Thermodynamics, and it poses a devastating problem for an "eternal" universe.  The next biggest problem I see is Newton's Laws of Motion. If the universe is in motion, something acted to set it into motion. Now... you can pipe up and explain that it was _"energy!"_ But... that means it *has* a starting point which means it *can't* be _eternal_.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > You admit they measured the expansion, and you admit they measured the flatness, what you dishonestly misdirect by your stating that they have been measuring the expansion for 40 years is that they found a MUCH MORE ACCURATE way of measuring it from the way it had been measured over those 40 years.
> ...


Listen Dumb ass, they measure expansion and flatness and from those measurements derive infinite expansion.
You are easily the stupidest know-it-all in the entire infinitely expanding universe.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> One of the biggest problems posed to such a concept applied to the universe is Entropy. This is a major physical principle in the Laws of Thermodynamics, and it poses a devastating problem for an "eternal" universe.


Oh BULLSHIT!
We went over entropy in another thread and you know less about entropy than you do about energy, and you know absolutely nothing about energy.


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Listen Dumb ass, how can they derive a value that is infinite?


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Oh BULLSHIT!
> We went over entropy in another thread and you know less about entropy than you do about energy, and you know absolutely nothing about energy.



I'm sure Entropy has been discussed numerous times on USMB, but in the context of an "eternal universe" it poses a serious rational problem. As does the accelerating expansion of the universe which we've confirmed. These things do not denote a physically eternal and infinite universe. You've not presented any formula for the calculation of infinity or eternity, they are unknown variables not supported by math or physics. All you posted was some guy who calls himself a scientist, claiming he thinks the universe might be eternal and infinite. I classify this as 'anecdotal opinion' until you can post some valid physics to prove it.


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

I thought this was pretty good.


----------



## dblack (Feb 19, 2015)

This is what really sums it up for me...


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> I thought this was pretty good.


lmao:


Boss said:


> See now, this is where we're totally different, silly boob. *I don't rely on a television program* to tell me what to think.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 19, 2015)

dblack said:


> This is what really sums it up for me...





Boss said:


> See now, this is where we're totally different, silly boob.* I don't rely on a television program* to tell me what to think.


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

dblack said:


> This is what really sums it up for me...



Is this Silly Boob and EdtheCynic?


----------



## Boss (Feb 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I can't really tell much about your ping image, can you explain the purpose of this formula and how it applies to anything? Anyone can devise a mathematical problem which results in an infinite calculation. In base 10 math, 1 divided by 3 produces an 'infinite' remainder. Does the infinity hold a value? No, it can't or math doesn't work and infinite is not infinite. 

The claim that someone has measured the universe and calculated the size precisely to "infinite," doesn't really impress me. It makes me think that person might not comprehend things well.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> The claim that someone has measured the universe and calculated the size precisely to "infinite," doesn't really impress me. *It makes me think that person might not comprehend things well*.


Yeah, that must be it. Your obvious complete failure to accurately paraphrase the article I linked to couldn't possibly indicate a lack of comprehension on YOUR part, after all you are a know-it-all, so it must be everyone else who lacks comprehension.


----------



## Boss (Feb 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The claim that someone has measured the universe and calculated the size precisely to "infinite," doesn't really impress me. *It makes me think that person might not comprehend things well*.
> ...



I saw nothing in your article supported by math. physics or science regarding this supposed "infinite and eternal" universe.  I see the guy making the comment that "we believe" something, but that is his speculation and it's not based on science. What "we believe" is fundamentally rooted in faith. 

I pointed out, the guy contradicts his own statement when he says they measured the universe and he know it's size as well as his own bedroom. If the universe has been measured and he knows the size, then it simply is not infinite.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> *I saw nothing* in your article supported by math. physics or science regarding this supposed "infinite and eternal" universe. * I see the guy making the comment that "we believe" something,* but that is his speculation and it's not based on science. *What "we believe" is fundamentally rooted in faith*.


Of course you "see" and "don't see" only what you want. He never said "we believe." That is just another one of your endless lies.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I think your error might become clear to you if you realize you are not talking about measuring the universe, but instead are talking about measuring the visible matter which is within our universe......the universe includes that infinite space which that measurable matter is expanding into......


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It is Bossy who keeps claiming he measured the universe. He actually measured the expansion and flatness of the universe creating the most accurate map of the universe to date, that is consistent with an infinite and eternal universe.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> It is Bossy who keeps claiming he measured the universe. He actually measured the expansion and flatness of the universe creating the most accurate map of the universe to date, that is consistent with an infinite and eternal universe.


I am sorry, but having read both your posts it is obvious that you are the one saying the universe can be measured and he is saying you are wrong, that it cannot be....given that I can read both your comments for myself it is rather foolish for you to pretend you are not saying what anyone who can read can see you saying........


----------



## Boss (Feb 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> It is Bossy who keeps claiming he measured the universe. He actually measured the expansion and flatness of the universe creating the most accurate map of the universe to date, that is consistent with an infinite and eternal universe.



The quote I posted earlier was _"I now know the size of the universe as well as my own house."_  That is from your source, his words, not mine. After all the explanations of what they observed and sub-explanations to explain the explanations, he declares this is consistent with an infinite universe.

So basically, he is saying he has measured the universe and it's size is infinite. My question... _and I don't know if the universe is infinite or not..._ is how did he mathematically or physically measure the value of infinity?

600 million light years... is that infinity? ...Does 1 Infinity = 1 Universe?

We've not touched on "eternal" universe because he really didn't say that. You and Silly Boob have been arguing that.  Again, I don't know if the universe is eternal or not.  I am a curious bystander trying to learn from science. That's why I am very intrigued with this curious "eternity" and "infinity" you've introduced into science as if we can define it. There is no science theory on this, only religious theories when it comes to everlasting and immortal things that have no end.


----------



## Boss (Feb 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *I saw nothing* in your article supported by math. physics or science regarding this supposed "infinite and eternal" universe. * I see the guy making the comment that "we believe" something,* but that is his speculation and it's not based on science. *What "we believe" is fundamentally rooted in faith*.
> ...



Let's clarify exactly what he said: 

As team leader David Schlegel put it, *"I now know the size of the universe better than I know the size of my house."*
*
"That means — while we can't say with certainty that it will never come to an end — it's likely (we believe)the universe extends forever in space and will go on forever in time. Our results are consistent with an infinite universe."
*
Now... YOU introduced this on USMB in response to my comment about the universe being "eternal and infinite" from Silly Boob. I am not arguing that the universe is infinite or eternal, or whether it can be accurately measured. I don't know the answer but I can give you my opinions. However, my opinions are based on my spiritual beliefs as well, so they probably will conflict with yours. The only argument from Science I have presented is the Entropy problem and the Laws of Motion problem, which seem to physically indicate a universe that isn't infinite or eternal. 

Make no mistake, if you and Silly Boob believe in an eternal and immortal, infinite and everlasting universe, I think that is a HUGE step up for the both of you from  a Spiritual perspective. You simply need to learn the three-letter word for Universe!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Let's clarify *exactly what he said*:
> 
> As team leader David Schlegel put it, *"I now know the size of the universe better than I know the size of my house."*
> 
> "That means — while we can't say with certainty that it will never come to an end — it's likely *(we believe)* the universe extends forever in space and will go on forever in time. Our results are consistent with an infinite universe."


This is a perfect example of your complete and total dishonesty. After lying about him saying "we believe" rather than admit he never said those words, you take a snippet completely out of context and then insert YOUR words which have nothing to do with the context of the article and then falsely claim it is EXACTLY what he said. You are absolutely despicable, or should I say the spiritual entity that made you the way you are is despicable.

If you wanted to insert honest words related to what he actually said in the article, you could have used words like "we measured," or "we mapped," or "we calculated" because everything he said in the article was based on the measurements and mapping his team did.

Here are some snippets that give the real context of his words none of which can be interpreted as "we believe":

BBC News - Universe measured to 1 accuracy

Astronomers have *measured the distances between galaxies in the universe to an accuracy of just 1%.*

This *staggeringly precise survey* - across six billion light-years - is key to mapping the cosmos and determining the nature of dark energy.

The new gold standard was set by BOSS (the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey) using the Sloan Foundation Telescope in New Mexico, US.


"There are not many things in our daily lives that we know to 1% accuracy," said Prof David Schlegel, a physicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the principal investigator of BOSS.

"I now know the size of the universe better than I know the size of my house.

"Twenty years ago astronomers were arguing about estimates that differed by up to 50%. Five years ago, we'd refined that uncertainty to 5%; a year ago it was 2%.


The BOSS team *used baryon acoustic oscillations (BAOs) as a "standard ruler" to measure *intergalactic distances.


*"Nature has given us a beautiful ruler,"* said Ashley Ross, an astronomer from the University of Portsmouth.

"*The ruler* happens to be half a billion light years long, so * we can use it to measure* distances precisely, even from very far away."

Determining distance is a fundamental challenge of astronomy: * "Once you know how far away it is, learning everything else about it is suddenly much easier,"* said Daniel Eisenstein, director of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey III.

*The BOSS distances will help calibrate fundamental cosmological properties* - such as how "dark energy" accelerates the expansion of the universe.

*The latest results indicate* dark energy is a cosmological constant whose strength does not vary in space or time.

*They also provide* an excellent estimate of the curvature of space.

"The answer is, it's not curved much. The universe is extraordinarily flat," said Prof Schlegel.

"While we can't say with certainty, it's likely the universe extends forever in space and will go on forever in time. *Our results* are consistent with an infinite universe," he said.


----------



## Boss (Feb 20, 2015)

BLAAH BLAAH BLAAH.... *We Believe!*


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> My question... _and I don't know if the universe is infinite or not..._ is how did he mathematically or physically measure the value of infinity?
> 
> 600 million light years... is that infinity? ...Does 1 Infinity = 1 Universe?
> 
> We've not touched on "eternal" universe because he really didn't say that. You and Silly Boob have been arguing that.  Again, I don't know if the universe is eternal or not.  I am a curious bystander trying to learn from science. That's why I am very intrigued with this curious "eternity" and "infinity" you've introduced into science as if we can define it. There is no science theory on this, only religious theories when it comes to everlasting and immortal things that have no end.





Boss said:


> BLAAH BLAAH BLAAH.... *We Believe!*


Liars gotta lie, keep lying, liar.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




There have been quite a few Bigfoot sightings, and at least 30% (I'm guessing) of our population thinks Fox News is a credible source of news.  I rest my case.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...





So, you're saying you have herd mentality?


----------



## Boss (Feb 21, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> There have been quite a few Bigfoot sightings, and at least 30% (I'm guessing) of our population thinks Fox News is a credible source of news.  I rest my case.



If we take the number of people who have claimed Bigfoot sightings, add the number of people who believe Bigfoot is real, throw in the number who believe in the Loch Ness Monster and alien abduction, spread them out across human history and they represent less than 2% of the total.  Human spirituality has maintained around a 95% average for all of human existence... So, no comparison whatsoever.

As for 30% thinking Fox News is credible... might be fairly low, since Fox beats out all other competition in terms of news viewers. I would come closer to believing this stat for MSNBC, in fact that may be a little high.


----------



## Boss (Feb 21, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> So, you're saying you have herd mentality?



No, that sounds like what you are saying, sweetie.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > There have been quite a few Bigfoot sightings, and at least 30% (I'm guessing) of our population thinks Fox News is a credible source of news.  I rest my case.
> ...


Actually, it's a valid comparison. Bigfoot believers, Nessie believers, alien abduction believers, etc., share a common theme: a need and sometimes willingness to _believe_. Tales and fables surrounding those entities above carry with them a history of storytelling that children pick up and can accept as truth, exactly like stories of gawds, demons, bogeymen and other human inventions. The gawds, demons, "Nessie's and Bigfoots' tend to vary by culture, just as gawds do, but the theme of fear and superstition is consistent among cultures.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > So, you're saying you have herd mentality?
> ...


Actually, you spend a great del of time flailing your Pom Poms in support of your herd mentality.


----------



## Boss (Feb 21, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Actually, it's a valid comparison. Bigfoot believers, Nessie believers, alien abduction believers, etc., share a common theme: a need and sometimes willingness to _believe_. Tales and fables surrounding those entities above carry with them a history of storytelling that children pick up and can accept as truth, exactly like stories of gawds, demons, bogeymen and other human inventions. The gawds, demons, "Nessie's and Bigfoots' tend to vary by culture, just as gawds do, but the theme of fear and superstition is consistent among cultures.



I see you saying this but that doesn't make it so, unless this is a "because I say so" argument. Spirituality is NOT superstition or it would have taken the same declining path in cultural importance and it hasn't. Nine out of ten people still believe in something greater than self. Always have, always will.


----------



## Boss (Feb 21, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Nah.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it's a valid comparison. Bigfoot believers, Nessie believers, alien abduction believers, etc., share a common theme: a need and sometimes willingness to _believe_. Tales and fables surrounding those entities above carry with them a history of storytelling that children pick up and can accept as truth, exactly like stories of gawds, demons, bogeymen and other human inventions. The gawds, demons, "Nessie's and Bigfoots' tend to vary by culture, just as gawds do, but the theme of fear and superstition is consistent among cultures.
> ...


And you float your "spirituality" slogans as though others are supposed to accept them as true. 

You confuse fear and superstition with your alleged spirit realms. As all the gawds who were invented and later abandoned before your gawds, in time, your gawds will be discarded as mere myth and legend.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it's a valid comparison. Bigfoot believers, Nessie believers, alien abduction believers, etc., share a common theme: a need and sometimes willingness to _believe_. Tales and fables surrounding those entities above carry with them a history of storytelling that children pick up and can accept as truth, exactly like stories of gawds, demons, bogeymen and other human inventions. The gawds, demons, "Nessie's and Bigfoots' tend to vary by culture, just as gawds do, but the theme of fear and superstition is consistent among cultures.
> ...


I see you making many claims that are false. Your claims to "spirituality" are no more demonstrable than your claims to daily communications with your invented gawds. 

Your "because I say so" arguments for gawds are no more viable than all the other abandoned religions and abandoned gawds which preceded yours.


----------



## Boss (Feb 21, 2015)

Hollie said:


> You confuse fear and superstition with your alleged spirit realms.



No, that's what YOU are doing, in fact you call 'spirituality' superstition and fear. 

I've explained numerous times in this thread and others, how it's not possible that spirituality was conceived out of fear and is not superstition. It's not because I say so, it's because we can objectively evaluate the evidence. Well, some of us can, anyway.



Hollie said:


> in time, your gawds will be discarded as mere myth and legend.



That may be so but human spirituality in some form will always be around.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > So, you're saying you have herd mentality?
> ...


And how dare anyone put their words in YOUR mouth like you put words in other peoples' mouths.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You confuse fear and superstition with your alleged spirit realms.
> ...


You made only weak and ultimately failed attempts to disconnect "spirituality" from your fundamentalist religious beliefs. 

You have this self imposed presumption that your "because I say so" admonitions are to be accepted as fact when your imposition of fear and superstition, under the guise of religion, is anything but a hack maneuver.


----------



## Boss (Feb 21, 2015)

Hollie said:


> You made only weak and ultimately failed attempts to disconnect "spirituality" from your fundamentalist religious beliefs.
> 
> You have this self imposed presumption that your "because I say so" admonitions are to be accepted as fact when your imposition of fear and superstition, under the guise of religion, is anything but a hack maneuver.



Again.... I do not have a "religious" dog in the hunt.  I am not a Religious person. I cannot disconnect religion from spirituality because religion is a direct byproduct of spirituality. It is the clear evidence that human spirituality does exist, whether or not spiritual nature actually exists. Accept that, reject that, I don't really care. 

Religion has done good things and bad for mankind, I will not throw religion under the bus or disrespect people because they hold a religious viewpoint. I am a tolerant person, I can accept that others believe differently than myself. That said, if we are going to have a scientific debate, we're not going to use science to disprove God. That is a perversion of science and it's dangerous on many levels. 

So I am going to hold your feet to the fire on things Science has not and cannot prove. These so-called "explanations" you present for human spirituality and God are nothing but your faith-based opinions. I am more than tolerant of that, it's fine for you to believe as you do, but you're just not going to use Science to back this faith.


----------



## Boss (Feb 21, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



I've not put words in anyone's mouth, dipwad. 

Are you now going to bogart the thread for 3 days on something superfluous and unrelated to the topic? Is that the tactic being rolled out of your troll arsenal? Can't engage in meaningful intelligent conversation so let me dilly-dab with childish remarks and butt hurt?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You made only weak and ultimately failed attempts to disconnect "spirituality" from your fundamentalist religious beliefs.
> ...


On the contrary, your attempts at argument are drenched in religious dogma. The dogma is just a religion of your own making. 

I have no "faith-based" arguments for your gawds or anyone else's gawds. I simply point out that your gawds and everyone else's gawds share common traits: 

1) they tend to not be in existence
2) they are of human invention, and
3) they fade into obscurity over time as they are replaced by less powerful gawds.


----------



## Boss (Feb 21, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Your claims to "spirituality" are no more demonstrable than your claims to daily communications with your invented gawds.



I've covered this topic more than any other at USMB. All my claims are consistent. I have never stated there is physical proof of spiritual things. I think that concept is somewhat idiotic on it's face. 

I can demonstrate spiritual energy to you... BUT... You have to give me 90 days, mind, body and soul, and most importantly, faith. I guarantee you at the end of that 90 days, you will realize the evidence of spiritual energy for yourself.  

The problem is, you're not going to ever do this. Probably because you already know that spiritual nature is true and does exist. Your whole shtick is to destroy human spirituality because your heart is being guided by religious bigotry and hate. 

We have physical evidence (not proof) of human spirituality. This is a primary attribute of the species and has been our most defining attribute for all our discovered past. We're very spiritually rooted and grounded, our civilizations and cultures are all built upon spiritual foundations, our entire evolutionary process is attributed primarily by a word we invented with homage to spirituality... IN-*SPIR-*ATION! 

With the question of *existence*, we must first define what is meant and what is the perception of _"exist"_ in our minds. If you live in the universe where _"exist"_ can only mean physical and spiritual existence is impossible.... then no, spiritual nature doesn't exist for you, never will. However, if you live in the universe where _"exist"_ means physical *and metaphysical*, extending beyond what we can detect with our five senses, and includes the _possibility_ of spiritual nature and billions of other things science hasn't discovered yet, then you _may believe_ spiritual nature exists. 

Setting aside whether the existence of spiritual nature is true or false, there is no denying human beings have an inseparable and intrinsic connection to that belief. Sigmund Freud made one of my favorite observations on this, he said something to the effect of: _"The human psyche is such that, if God did not exist, man would have to invent him. "_  Some will argue that he is saying it's inevitable that man invented God, but not so fast... he is actually saying that humans are designed psychologically this way.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Your claims to "spirituality" are no more demonstrable than your claims to daily communications with your invented gawds.
> ...


I find it to be comedy gold that you claim you can demonstrate "spiritual energy", whatever that is. That sounds something like the reinvention of a 19th century snake oil salesman or possibly a L Ron Hubbard wannabe. 

But all seriousness aside, if you give me 90 days, I'm sure I can perform an intervention and separate you from your _cult of one_.

Setting aside your foolish insistence regarding your religious belief about human "spirituality", you continue to confuse your asserted spirit realms with human frailties relative to fear and superstition. 

If it's "quotes" you want:

If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
_-Anatole France_


----------



## Inevitable (Feb 21, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


Now he calls names and acts like a child. 

No real point in attempting to debate with the fellow, he just calls you names and attempting to insult people while repeating the same crap he said before.

If you want to debate with somebody pick somebody that is capable of it. In speak years I've not found many on religious forums. They take arguments as personal attacks against their faith. Now I know why online atheists are so belligerent.


----------



## Boss (Feb 21, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



*But all seriousness aside, if you give me 90 days, I'm sure I can perform an intervention and separate you from your cult of one.*

But here is the analogy... I am sitting at a smörgåsbord table full of everything my heart desires, and you can't see that table or acknowledge it is there... you are offering to take me into the wilderness and teach me to live off the land. 

 I used to be in the wilderness, living off the land, starving for something and never finding it. I remember those days well, they were sometimes very fun and exciting, I can't lie. But they were also full of discontent and yearning for something that wasn't there, something missing. I wasn't fulfilled as a person and I  knew it. I tried for years to deny this and cover it up with pills, booze, sex, you name it... nothing worked. 

I know this sounds like a religious testimony, but I tried religion as well, several times and several varieties... sometimes they were part of my denial process.  I found the solution and fulfillment I needed in Spirituality. It's not the same as Religion, and when I try to explain this to people like you, I get the eye-rolls. But my personal Spirituality is not a Religion, and you couldn't ever follow it even if you wanted to. It does not depend upon any action by you and it's not belonging to any organized religious dogma. 

*...your foolish insistence regarding your religious belief about human "spirituality", you continue to confuse your asserted spirit realms with human frailties relative to fear and superstition.*

Fear is natural in all life forms. Every species of life deals with fear by creating solutions which circumvent the fear in order to survive. It's hard for me to accept that humans, the most intelligent species of life, completely fooled nature and created a solution which was imaginary and held no physical bearing on consequence. A vine will grow around a brick to find a solution to the 'fear' of not being able to reach enough sunlight. The vine doesn't solve it's problem by creating imaginary sun in the shade. Some animals have an amazing ability to camouflage themselves out of a 'fear' of predators, they don't imagine some invisible entity is going to protect them. And IF a species ever did make such a conscious rationalization, they would have become extinct very quickly. 

So spirituality can only be "invention out of fear" if we are willing to accept it is naturally effective in mitigating that fear and fundamental to the species. In other words, it has to *work and be valid* if it was "devised out of fears" as you claim. 

Superstitions, we have a rich and imaginative collection of those throughout human history. Religion and superstition can certainly intermingle and often it does. But human spirituality is not Superstition. If it were, it would have never survived past the Dark Ages... IF it ever made it that far. 

It is the human heart, soul and spirit which drive human spirituality.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Like I said, liars gotta lie.



Boss said:


> That means — while we can't say with certainty that it will never come to an end — it's likely *(we believe)*the universe extends forever in space and will go on forever in time. Our results are consistent with an infinite universe."



The unaltered by a pathological liar quote below:

"That means — while we can't say with certainty that it will never come to an end — it's likely the universe extends forever in space and will go on forever in time. Our results are consistent with an infinite universe."


----------



## Hollie (Feb 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Well yeah, your testimony is rather boilerplate for those recovering from drug and alcohol abuse. Religion is often a crutch. 

I'm not surprised you grabbed on to those human inventions of "souls" and "spirits" to, as you describe it, drive something you call "spirituality". This supernatural realm you have so much invested in wont be discarded as it calms an emotional requirement to placate your fears and superstitions.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 21, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Fear and religion have always been closely related.


----------



## Boss (Feb 21, 2015)

Nope. Can't be fear unless the spiritual connection humans make is real and naturally works to console human fear. The only scientific way to make your theory valid, and it could be valid, automatically validates spiritual nature. If the species adopted this behavior to address fears and there is nothing to it, then whatever is feared remains a threat and the species has wasted energy and resources for something to no advantage in addressing the problem. Darwin explains how a species like this would fall victim to natural selection. 

The other point I'd like to make is, no one has EVER defined the point in human history where human spirituality was supposedly "invented." The oldest human civilizations show signs of human spiritual ritual. You can make the claims all day, you can't back it up with any evidence.


----------



## Boss (Feb 21, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Well yeah, your testimony is rather boilerplate for those recovering from drug and alcohol abuse. Religion is often a crutch.



So... Something that has effectively helped millions of people overcome addiction problems is now a "crutch?"  Is that in the same way a pacemaker is a "crutch" for someone with heart problems? Like insulin is a "crutch" for a diabetic? Like antibiotics are a "crutch" to fight infections? 

And... What "Religion" do any of these official self-help groups for addicts demand one follow? Catholicism? Buddhism? Harri Krishna? Or oooo.... Christianity and Judaism? You see.... I don't think any of them officially promote ANY "Religion" just a generally-accepted concept of God and Spiritual faith. And it *WORKS!*


----------



## Hollie (Feb 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Well yeah, your testimony is rather boilerplate for those recovering from drug and alcohol abuse. Religion is often a crutch.
> ...


So, for someone who claims not to be religious, you are as much a thumper as any Benny Hinn groupie. And just a thought, but please do let us know the generally accepted concept of gawd shared by Harri Krishna, Buddhism and Christians. 

What I would like you to do is identify how religion has ever cured a disease. That should be easy for you, right?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Nope. Can't be fear unless the spiritual connection humans make is real and naturally works to console human fear. The only scientific way to make your theory valid, and it could be valid, automatically validates spiritual nature. If the species adopted this behavior to address fears and there is nothing to it, then whatever is feared remains a threat and the species has wasted energy and resources for something to no advantage in addressing the problem. Darwin explains how a species like this would fall victim to natural selection.
> 
> The other point I'd like to make is, no one has EVER defined the point in human history where human spirituality was supposedly "invented." The oldest human civilizations show signs of human spiritual ritual. You can make the claims all day, you can't back it up with any evidence.


The problem you have is that your invention of something you call "spiritual nature" remains undefined and absent demonstration. Another problem you have is one of retroactively assigning your invented spirit realms to others. You hope to assign your invented term of "spiritual rituals" to cultures and societies when there is no indication that any of them had any notions of your spirit realms, gawds, demons or similar fears and superstitions. 

My guess is that you're looking for recruits to your new-fangled, designer religion and you're coming up short.


----------



## Boss (Feb 22, 2015)

Hollie said:


> And just a thought, but please do let us know the generally accepted concept of gawd shared by Harri Krishna, Buddhism and Christians.



The same one that endows Americans with inalienable rights.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > And just a thought, but please do let us know the generally accepted concept of gawd shared by Harri Krishna, Buddhism and Christians.
> ...


You do understand that the Harri Krishna and Buddhists don't pray at the altar of your _Gawds of _The_ Spirit Realms Invented by Bossy, _right_?_


----------



## Boss (Feb 22, 2015)

Hollie said:


> What I would like you to do is identify how religion has ever cured a disease. That should be easy for you, right?



You keep talking about Religion and I keep telling you *I'm not Religious!!* 

_*Human spiritualism*_ has been curing diseases for 100,000 years. Emily presented an impressive study on spiritual healing and this is something the medical community takes very seriously because of how effective it has been. 

Aside from that, the entire history of modern medicine is the work of humans *inspired* by something greater than self to find cures, create vaccines, save lives, etc.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > What I would like you to do is identify how religion has ever cured a disease. That should be easy for you, right?
> ...


Can you provide an example of a disease cured by the gawds of your spirit realms?


----------



## Boss (Feb 22, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



They may not, but they can certainly understand the concept. We were talking about a generally accepted concept, right? Because it looks like you're trying to trot off up the field with the goal posts and turn this into an argument of generally accepted religious beliefs and we'll probably never have that. 

Again, for the hard headed... We are a nation of 350 million who have persevered for 250 years. Most of us have no problem comprehending "We are endowed by our Creator, certain inalienable rights..." We don't have to all worship at the same altar or have the same incarnation of God... We comprehend the concept of universal understanding. It's what makes us different from Chimps.


----------



## Boss (Feb 22, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Can you provide an example of a disease cured by the gawds of your spirit realms?



All of them.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Can you provide an example of a disease cured by the gawds of your spirit realms?
> ...


No, really. Identify just one disease that was cured by the gawds of your spirit realms.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What "creator" would that be?  I would suggest Amun Ra. Everyone agrees in the universal understanding of the Ra dude.


----------



## Boss (Feb 22, 2015)

Hollie said:


> The problem you have is that your invention of something you call "spiritual nature" remains undefined and absent demonstration. Another problem you have is one of retroactively assigning your invented spirit realms to others. You hope to assign your invented term of "spiritual rituals" to cultures and societies when there is no indication that any of them had any notions of your spirit realms, gawds, demons or similar fears and superstitions.



I don't hope to do anything. If I decide to do it it gets done, ain't no hoping. You don't perform ritual ceremonies without there being a spiritual component. There is no practical purpose for them otherwise. When we see any evidence of a ritual ceremony, we know beyond any doubt it was spiritually based. Every civilization we've ever unearthed, without exception, shows signs of ritual ceremony (aka: spiritualism). This goes all the way back to the oldest civilization we know of. 

I don't know about "Gauwwwwd!1!!" or whatever insulting, derogatory and spiteful name you want to call it.... but people have been worshiping something greater than self for their entire existence.


----------



## Boss (Feb 22, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Already told ya.... ALL OF THEM!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Can you provide an example of a disease cured by the gawds of your spirit realms?
> ...


So you admit none of them.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So you again admit none of them!


----------



## Hollie (Feb 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



This may come as a shock to you but your "because I say so" answer is weak. 

Just be honest - you can't identify a single, demonstrable case of a disease being cured by the methods of "spiritual"'ness".


----------



## Hollie (Feb 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The problem you have is that your invention of something you call "spiritual nature" remains undefined and absent demonstration. Another problem you have is one of retroactively assigning your invented spirit realms to others. You hope to assign your invented term of "spiritual rituals" to cultures and societies when there is no indication that any of them had any notions of your spirit realms, gawds, demons or similar fears and superstitions.
> ...


Actually, rituals (aka: rituals), clearly do not always have a connection to some "spiritual" (aka: religious) ceremony. 

You are confusing your asserted and invented religion of spirit realms as being disconnected from religion when clearly your _Religion of Bossy's Spirit Realms_ has all the trappings, dogma, gawds and icons as traditional religions.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > So, you're saying you have herd mentality?
> ...




Edgar Cayce was a quack with a 9th grade education.  He appealed to others with a 9th grade education.  A broken clock is right twice a day.

Has California slid into the ocean? And didn't Cayce predict that in 1958 the US would discover some weird death ray used on Atlantis?


----------



## Boss (Feb 22, 2015)

Hollie said:


> This may come as a shock to you but your "because I say so" answer is weak.
> 
> Just be honest - you can't identify a single, demonstrable case of a disease being cured by the methods of "spiritual"'ness".



This may come as a shock to you but your "because I say so" answer is weak.

Just be honest - you can't identify a single, demonstrable case of a disease *not* being cured by God.


----------



## Boss (Feb 22, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Actually, rituals (aka: rituals), clearly do not always have a connection to some "spiritual" (aka: religious) ceremony.



Ceremonial rituals can only be connected with spiritual beliefs. There is no physical reason for them and you can't explain one into existence because you want me to be wrong.


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > This may come as a shock to you but your "because I say so" answer is weak.
> ...



*Look who's talking.  How does this non existent god cure disease exactly?*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, rituals (aka: rituals), clearly do not always have a connection to some "spiritual" (aka: religious) ceremony.
> ...


Of course there's a physical reason: death. 

Religion, god/gods, superstition, ritualism, spiritualism – all nonsensical contrivances of man, all the consequence of man's fear of death and his being aware of his own mortality.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 22, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




*... and his being aware of his own mortality.*







not so by virtue, culminating beforehand at the passage to the Everlasting, accompanying the accomplished Apex of Knowledge before Death as the Justifiable pursuit of Spiritualism.

.


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Death is not the physical reason for the ritual unless the ritual physically prevents death or restores life and it doesn't. 

I've already addressed your arguments about contrivance of man to console fears of death. Seems like we go through this on every thread about this topic and you just continue not being able to support your argument or refute mine. 

What is so ironic about the "contrivance of man to console fears" argument is, it actually validates and legitimizes human spirituality, if you are correct. (You're not) What you are essentially saying is, man created an ingenious way to use imagination to overcome fear and it works. Next time you find yourself in fear, just remember that you can imagine yourself out of fear. Now give this man the Nobel prize for discovering how to cure every phobia known to man! 

We are aware of our own mortality because we are aware of immortality. What you are trying to claim as the reason man invented spirituality is the very thing that spirituality caused in the first place. It is the awareness of spirit which causes us to contemplate an afterlife.


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Same way it created the disease and caused the person to get it and then, us to be aware of it. The same way it inspired the person who believed in something greater than self and found a cure for the disease. God works in many mysterious (and not so mysterious) ways.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > This may come as a shock to you but your "because I say so" answer is weak.
> ...


Just be honest. That is your admission of a completely pointless argument.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, rituals (aka: rituals), clearly do not always have a connection to some "spiritual" (aka: religious) ceremony.
> ...


Why do you assume your silly "because I say so" claims are taken seriously?


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Just be honest. That is your admission of a completely pointless argument.



It is me illustrating a completely pointless argument, that is true.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > This may come as a shock to you but your "because I say so" answer is weak.
> ...




Cancer. There's a disease not being cured by Gawd.


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Because you can't explain ceremonial rituals which have a physical purpose or reason. Ceremonial rituals have no physical benefits. Go ahead... try to come up with any ceremonial ritual and define the physical benefits of the actual ritual and ceremony. 

It's like... If we found evidence of ancient civilizations praying and meditating and you tried to deny that was "spiritual" because maybe they were doing yoga... err.. palates... err... aerobics! Whew, had to struggle to find a non-spiritual ritual there! Ceremonial ritual burials using red ocher, burying artifacts with the dead, sending them off into the afterlife... these are spiritual practices. They have no physical purpose or reason. 

What is so wonderfully ironclad is, even IF you could find a physically beneficial reason for ceremonial rituals, you will have proven human spirituality valid in the process. Quite the conundrum.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





What is there to explain? People also used to do Bloodletting to drain illnesses. 

A ritual is nothing more than tradition.


----------



## dblack (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You seem to be equating "spiritual" with non-physical.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 23, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


the disease of atheism.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 23, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you really have difficulty understanding the concept of a choice of faith, don't you......


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 23, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Atheism is growing.  Is that the cure?


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> You seem to be equating "spiritual" with non-physical.



If spiritual is not physical, what else could you call it?


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> A ritual is nothing more than tradition.



A ritual can BE MADE a tradition, but what is the practical physical purpose of a tradition? Haven't you ever heard the phrase "in the spirit of tradition?" A tradition still has a spiritually-rooted foundation and not a physical one, unless it is directly a physical tradition. Ritual burials with red ocher are not physical traditions. Sorry!


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > A ritual is nothing more than tradition.
> ...




What is your point? I'm an atheist who still enjoys Christmas tradition with my family. I don't believe Santa is real, although I may decorate with Santa and his reindeer's.


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> What is your point? I'm an atheist who still enjoys Christmas tradition with my family. I don't believe Santa is real, although I may decorate with Santa and his reindeer's.



You're the one who said ceremonial rituals are just traditions. I am fully aware that we can have all kinds of non-spiritual traditions. However, tradition itself is rooted in spirit. You decorate to convey a spirit. There is a certain "feel" you want to have at Christmas. 'Tis the Season... all that jazz... it's purely spiritual. You may not recognize it as such but that's because you've brainwashed yourself into rejecting human spirituality.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > This may come as a shock to you but your "because I say so" answer is weak.
> ...


So you admit that there is not a single case of a disease that was NOT being CAUSED by your sadistic God.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > What is your point? I'm an atheist who still enjoys Christmas tradition with my family. I don't believe Santa is real, although I may decorate with Santa and his reindeer's.
> ...




And just because people are doing it, doesn't mean they're getting any results from some of these bizarre rituals.

Do you eat dead people?


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And HERE we have a small slice in what is wrong with human beings.  They are stupid fear driven dweebs for the most part.  Lies built on lies built on lies... til the lies are institutionalized and then down right part of the fabric of whole communities and on and on.  It is so much easier to play it safe and just not buck up against the tide of ignorance isn't it.  

Read my lips....  There is no god.  It was all made up by superstitious goat herders.  People didn't have much going on back when all this nonsense got started..I get it.  Life of what little there was was hard...death could happen at any time.. sickness..injury...infection.. a million ways to cash your ticket.  It was scary stuff no doubt.  BUT we are mostly past all that.  We usually get to hang around more than 60 years.  

Oh nevermind..  This is just SOOOoo...stupid.  I'm getting too old to waste my time on this stupid argument.


----------



## dblack (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to be equating "spiritual" with non-physical.
> ...



The issue is the reverse. You seem to be saying that everything non-physical is "spiritual". Is that accurate?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > What is your point? I'm an atheist who still enjoys Christmas tradition with my family. I don't believe Santa is real, although I may decorate with Santa and his reindeer's.
> ...


I think the issue is that like many religious extremists, you are unyielding in your attempts to force your dogma on others.

For a great many people, there is nothing "spiritual" about Christmas decorations, Easter eggs, St. Patrick's day, etc.  These are largely just traditions. 

Leave people alone with you your spirits, spirit realms and gawds.


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No, that's what YOU are saying... 

I am saying that ALL spiritual things are non-physical and cannot be physical. Before your oblivious and obtuse OCD kicks in, that's not to say that some physical things can't also have a spiritual component. 

So we have things that are either physical or non-physical, there is no other option. Spiritual things are non-physical things. Physical things, of course, are not non-physical. Some physical things can have a spiritual component but are physical and can't be actual spiritual things. Some non-physical things can be spiritual and all things spiritual are non-physical.  We clear?


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

Hollie said:


> For a great many people, there is nothing "spiritual" about Christmas decorations, Easter eggs, St. Patrick's day, etc. These are largely just traditions.



Most non-retards understand that Christmas, Easter and St. Patty's Day are all rituals with a spiritual root. If we need to break out the coloring books to draw you a simple picture of how these holidays are based on spiritual beliefs, we can do that. Most of us are aware of this. 

As I stated before, you clearly understand "the spirit of Christmas" ...this is why you decorate with icons associated with Christmas. You long for the spirit of Christmas. It can be a tradition you don't personally associate with spirituality, but that doesn't change what it is or why it exists.


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

HUGGY said:


> Read my lips.... There is no god.



All you have to do is offer up the evidence to prove your claim.  If you can't do that, it means you have no basis for this belief and it is merely a matter of your personal faith and opinion. You can make up all the stories you like about spirituality but until you start posting some hard evidence, it's all your opinion. We've not discovered this ancient civilization of goat herders who invented God, that doesn't exist in reality. Every ancient civilization we've unearthed shows signs of spiritual belief, all the way back to the oldest one. 

I don't care how angry you are at Christians and Jews, it doesn't turn your biased opinions into facts. You are just as bad (if not worse) than any bible-thumper ever known. You've made this definitive statement about something on the sole basis of your beliefs (or non beliefs). You don't have any evidence to back it up and you just want to cram this down everyone's throat to accept on your commandment. 

I don't respect your dogma any more than I respect religious dogma.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Read my lips.... There is no god.
> ...




Irony...


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

HUGGY said:


> It was scary stuff no doubt. BUT we are mostly past all that.



And yet... miraculously defying your theory-- an overwhelming majority of humans (95%) still believe in something greater than self. 

If we invented something FAKE to deal with these irrational fears found nowhere else in nature (because other living things don't contemplate immortality), then we should see a rapid and steady decline of spiritual belief in humans as these scary things subsided. Instead, we see a persistent trend of about 95% of the species continuing to exhibit the behavior. 

So, once again, you are wrong about your opinion and you can't support it with science. It's just another aspect to a faith-based opinion you've adopted.


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Indeed!


----------



## Hollie (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > For a great many people, there is nothing "spiritual" about Christmas decorations, Easter eggs, St. Patrick's day, etc. These are largely just traditions.
> ...


You're trying to make some connection to something you call "spiritual" and you're failing to make that case. 

You can assign any and all magical / mystical / supernatural connotations to traditions if you like but you should be aware that you represent yourself as the most dogmatic of religious zealots with insistence that rituals must have a religious connection.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > It was scary stuff no doubt. BUT we are mostly past all that.
> ...




So what.  The majority of this country once thought Iraq had something to do with 9-11. A lot people believe that fossils were put here to mislead us.

Can the majority of the population be wrong? YES! Yes they can!


----------



## Hollie (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Read my lips.... There is no god.
> ...


You have made no demonstration that "Every ancient civilization we've unearthed shows signs of spiritual belief..."

You recite that mantra as a religious invocation yet you consistently fail to substantiate that claim.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > It was scary stuff no doubt. BUT we are mostly past all that.
> ...



Something "greater than self" is not necessarily connected to your "spiritual" slogan. You should be a bit more discriminating in your assignment of spirit realms to those who have no belief in your spirit realms or anyone else's spirits, gawds or supernatural entities.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > What is your point? I'm an atheist who still enjoys Christmas tradition with my family. I don't believe Santa is real, although I may decorate with Santa and his reindeer's.
> ...


"Tradition is rooted in spirit"?

No, it's not.  Where do get this nonsense?


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> So what. The majority of this country once thought Iraq had something to do with 9-11. A lot people believe that fossils were put here to mislead us.



*The majority of this country once thought Iraq had something to do with 9-11.*

No one that I am aware of ever thought that. I seriously doubt a majority ever did. But I am certain 95% of the human species didn't believe that. 

*A lot people believe that fossils were put here to mislead us.*

And "a lot of people" is not 95% of the human species for all it's existence.


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



The Spirit of Tradition.  

That's where I get it.


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Something "greater than self" is not necessarily connected to your "spiritual" slogan.



Well sure it is, that's exactly what spiritualism is.  Are you huffing glue or something?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I wouldn't let mere slogans so easily corrupt your attempt at argument.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > So what. The majority of this country once thought Iraq had something to do with 9-11. A lot people believe that fossils were put here to mislead us.
> ...




Is 95 the magic number?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Something "greater than self" is not necessarily connected to your "spiritual" slogan.
> ...



Actually, it's not. You spend a great deal of time belching slogans. You might consider providing something other than failed slogans to promote your religious beliefs.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



The second line in this post, "the WHIMSICAL DISMISAL OF GOD"  begs a response. It's the other 'way round. The WHIMSICAL BLIND TOTAL ACCEPTANCE  THAT THERE HAS TO BE A GOD. Blind intolerance like this is what Isis is all about.  Prove GOD exist.  Prove there is an ALLAH. You can't, I have been there. And there isn't any proof. God is like Santa Clause for adults.


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

Hollie said:


> You have made no demonstration that "Every ancient civilization we've unearthed shows signs of spiritual belief..."
> 
> You recite that mantra as a religious invocation yet you consistently fail to substantiate that claim.



Feel free to prove me wrong. I'm betting you can't. I'm not reciting any religious invocation, that's simply your way of trying to insult and denigrate your way to victory and I've tried to tell you that doesn't work on me, I am not religious so you can't hurt my feelings or offend me by attacking religion. 

Our archaeological discoveries are very meticulously documented, most are available on-line, so you are blessed with an Internet full of resources... go out there and find me a discovered human civilization which was devoid of any spirituality. If such a thing exists, it should be very easy to prove. In fact... if there were such a civilization, don't you imagine the Anti-God Army would be using it regularly in any argument about God? We'd certainly know the name of this Godless civilization, you fucktards would be making movies about it, cramming it down Christian throats every chance you got. 

So no such thing exists and my statement remains valid and accurate.


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

MaryL said:


> The second line in this post, "the WHIMSICAL DISMISAL OF GOD"  begs a response. It's the other 'way round. The WHIMSICAL BLIND TOTAL ACCEPTANCE  THAT THERE HAS TO BE A GOD. Blind intolerance like this is what Isis is all about.  Prove GOD exist.  Prove there is an ALLAH. You can't, I have been there. And there isn't any proof. God is like Santa Clause for adults.



I don't think I've ever seen a retard claim blind intolerance is whimsical. Quite a stretch! 

I'm not much for man-made incarnations of God. I believe it is something beyond our ability as humans to comprehend, although we have an intrinsic awareness of it. Attempting to apply man-made attributes is pointless to me. 

Your demanding some sort of physical evidence to prove the spiritual is beyond ignorant. Not to mention, nothing can ever be proven... even reality. If you ever believe that science has "proved" something, you have officially abandoned scientific method for a faith-based belief. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You have made no demonstration that "Every ancient civilization we've unearthed shows signs of spiritual belief..."
> ...


Feel free to make a first attempt to support your arguments. For all your reciting of slogans and cliches, there's a real absence of facts and evidence in your comments.

And I agree that most chaeological discoveries are very meticulously documented. That should enable you to sometime, eventually, any time now provide some evidence that you _95% _slogan Is something more than just another of your silly religious contrivances.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > The second line in this post, "the WHIMSICAL DISMISAL OF GOD"  begs a response. It's the other 'way round. The WHIMSICAL BLIND TOTAL ACCEPTANCE  THAT THERE HAS TO BE A GOD. Blind intolerance like this is what Isis is all about.  Prove GOD exist.  Prove there is an ALLAH. You can't, I have been there. And there isn't any proof. God is like Santa Clause for adults.
> ...


Really bossy. Your attempts at argument are couched in terms of appeals to your particular incarnations of gawds and magical spirit realms.


----------



## dblack (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No, I'm saying the opposite, that there are plenty of non-physical things that aren't considered "spiritual". 



> I am saying that ALL spiritual things are non-physical and cannot be physical. Before your oblivious and obtuse OCD kicks in, that's not to say that some physical things can't also have a spiritual component.



Listen, you're going into dickhead mode, which seems to be your preferred style of interaction, but there's really no call for it. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm just pointing that you guys are arm-wrestling over an equivocation. And getting nowhere because of it. 

When an atheist hears "spiritual" they think you're talking strictly about the supernatural. But you seem be characterizing a much wider array of phenomena as "spiritual". The experience and value of religious practices - ritual, prayer, meditation, etc.. - are certainly real, non-physical, things. But it IS an open question whether these are purely psychological experiences, or whether they represent evidence of the supernatural.


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > So what. The majority of this country once thought Iraq had something to do with 9-11. A lot people believe that fossils were put here to mislead us.
> ...



Are you suggesting that god works at FOX news?


----------



## Boss (Feb 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> When an atheist hears "spiritual" they think you're talking strictly about the supernatural.



Well of course, because they have deemed spiritual to be supernatural. I don't believe spiritual is supernatural, I believe it is a fundamental part of nature. I believe it is a very strong force we can tap into as humans and do so on a regular basis. I am the recipient of all the evidence I need to support my belief, so my mind is open to these things. I don't have a religious ax to grind or dog in the hunt, I am not a religious fanatic, I am a dedicated believer in the principles of science. 

I'm not going to sit here and let a bunch of atheists pervert science and try to use is as a means to disprove God.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > When an atheist hears "spiritual" they think you're talking strictly about the supernatural.
> ...



What if eventually 80% of us in america were Muslims? Would you be OK with sharia law? So I guess you're OK with Christianity because you don't mind how it imposes its will on America? You don't care it slowed stem cell research or discriminates against gays. What about back when christian america owned slaves? Maybe you think christianity is harmless now but its not. It controls the masses. It gets people thinking with their hearts instead of their brains.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > When an atheist hears "spiritual" they think you're talking strictly about the supernatural.
> ...





From your list in the OP...

Astral projection experiences.
Near-death experiences. 
Transcendental meditation. 
ESP and telepathy. 
Ghost stories and paranormal experiences.
Other unexplained supernatural phenomenon. 
Spells, curses and black magic. 
Edgar Cayce.
Nostradamus.
Prophecy in general. 

Do you believe in all of the above?  And how exactly do you apply science to this list?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 23, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I'm trying to make people realize how wrong it is for people to believe all this stuff from ghosts to angels to all the crazy stuff Mormons and Muslims believe. Even the virgin birth story.  It can't be good intellectually or as far as us advancing our species with people believing this crap.

Look how many of them doubt the big bang evolution and global warming. Makes people dumb or is keeping people dumb.


----------



## dblack (Feb 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> I'm not going to sit here and let a bunch of atheists pervert science and try to use is as a means to disprove God.



Yet you're goading them into exactly that.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > When an atheist hears "spiritual" they think you're talking strictly about the supernatural.
> ...


It's more than just a little silly to suggest your belief in gawds and spirit realms is not connected to the supernatural. 

Cheer up, Bunky. L Ron Hubbard didn't get it right on his first try at invention of a new fangled religion.


----------



## dblack (Feb 24, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I don't see how there's any denying that gods are real things. The only thing debatable is their true nature. And that's something that most people, atheist and religious alike, aren't interested in discussing.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 24, 2015)

dblack said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I have no reason to accept the existence of any of the asserted gawds.


----------



## dblack (Feb 24, 2015)

Hollie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What do you mean "accept"? Surely you recognize their existence, at a bare a minimum, as ideas communally shared by followers, no?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Physical things, of course, are not non-physical.


What a retard!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > For a great many people, there is nothing "spiritual" about Christmas decorations, Easter eggs, St. Patrick's day, etc. These are largely just traditions.
> ...


So you admit "spiritual" is PC for "superstition."


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> an overwhelming majority of humans (95%) still believe in something greater than self.


Fallacy of Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> The Spirit of Tradition.
> 
> That's where I get it.


Fallacy of Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Your demanding some sort of physical evidence to prove the spiritual is beyond ignorant.


Fallacy of Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 24, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


no....its contagion.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 24, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Your demanding some sort of physical evidence to prove the spiritual is beyond ignorant.
> ...


that overlooks the fact that your argument may appear ridiculous all on its own........


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 24, 2015)

dblack said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




How do you recognize the existence of the invisible?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 24, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > an overwhelming majority of humans (95%) still believe in something greater than self.
> ...




If that's not "herd mentality" I don't know what is.


----------



## dblack (Feb 24, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Are you kidding? We do it all the time. 

Do you recognize the existence of thoughts? ideas? stories? emotions? numbers? physical law?


----------



## Boss (Feb 24, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> What if eventually 80% of us in america were Muslims? Would you be OK with sharia law? So I guess you're OK with Christianity because you don't mind how it imposes its will on America? You don't care it slowed stem cell research or discriminates against gays. What about back when christian america owned slaves? Maybe you think christianity is harmless now but its not. It controls the masses. It gets people thinking with their hearts instead of their brains.



Such an emotional little girl, aren't you? No sir, I couldn't support Sharia law because it rapes the constitution in the ass six ways from Sunday. I am okay with Christians, Muslims or even Atheists having the constitutional rights to petition for redress, politically speak, vote on and create legislation based on their religious influences or lack thereof. I will stand for, fight for, and if necessary, die for their right to do so.


----------



## Boss (Feb 24, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> From your list in the OP...
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



Believe is a strong word. I seldom believe in anything I can't confirm myself. I can accept the possibility of things, I am open minded and willing to look at the facts. It doesn't have to conform to science for me to believe it because there is so much science simply doesn't understand. If man never pushed the boundaries of understanding past what science can confirm, virtually nothing would have ever been discovered and science would be as useless as tits on a boar. 

How do I apply science to my list of over a dozen assorted phenomenon science can't explain? Law of averages and probabilities. The list represents untold billions of accounts spanning many thousands of years. I doubt that 100% are absolutely and certainly invalid, just because science can't explain them. I leave the door of possibility open that a certain percentage may be valid and legitimate and we've simply not discovered the scientific explanation.


----------



## Boss (Feb 24, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Physical things, of course, are not non-physical.
> ...



Yes, for me to have to make this obvious point, someone certainly is a retard. 



edthecynic said:


> So you admit "spiritual" is PC for "superstition."



Nope. Never said anything remotely close to this. 

As for your spree of "Fallacy of Whateverums" ...this is just you exhibiting butt hurt because you can't really argue the points intellectually. In situations such as this, where you find yourself completely over your head on an intellectual basis, you morph into a delinquent smart-ass punk and start denigrating and lying. 

It's really a shame because I believe in people and I know you're better than this. If your mind was not being controlled by your emotions, I am sure you could probably articulate some thought-provoking and stimulating debate.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > From your list in the OP...
> ...


Your list of assorted phenomenon can be accounted for with a bit of common sense acknowledgement of hucksters, charlatans, scam artists, and assorted snake oil salesmen types.

Really bossy, why do you feel a need to make yourself an accomplice to fraud?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > From your list in the OP...
> ...





Have you ever seen a ghost?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > What if eventually 80% of us in america were Muslims? Would you be OK with sharia law? So I guess you're OK with Christianity because you don't mind how it imposes its will on America? You don't care it slowed stem cell research or discriminates against gays. What about back when christian america owned slaves? Maybe you think christianity is harmless now but its not. It controls the masses. It gets people thinking with their hearts instead of their brains.
> ...



Then I'm a Muslim. Let's see how you feel when 51% of us are Muslims.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > From your list in the OP...
> ...


But if it must be god and you think that's the answer why keep looking? Apparently you have the answer. Must be god. Thunder use to be god.


----------



## Boss (Feb 24, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> But if it must be god and you think that's the answer why keep looking? Apparently you have the answer. Must be god. Thunder use to be god.



"Must be God" doesn't answer any questions for me. Science is about finding answers to questions, not drawing conclusions. As a believer in God, "must be god" is kinda dumb because it so obviously can apply to everything. Everything must be god if you believe in a God who created everything. So why would I use the understanding that God most certainly did something to short-circuit my quest for the answers of how God did it? 

We can explain how thunder happens. Long detailed explanations of how lighting creates sound, etc. This is a scientific explanation for how something happens, what makes it happen.   Can you explain for me, WHY this happens? Why does lightning exist? Why does gravity exist? I don't want to know what causes them but why they exist? Bottom line is, science has no explanation... but I do.


----------



## Boss (Feb 24, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Then I'm a Muslim. Let's see how you feel when 51% of us are Muslims.



I'll feel the same way because my feelings are not based on what you are or how many Muslims there are. If it ever comes to the point where Sharia law trumps Constitutional law in America, I will leave for some place where they reject Sharia law... You're welcome to stay here and practice 5th Century barbarism and mutilation of women if that cranks your tractor.


----------



## Boss (Feb 24, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Have you ever seen a ghost?



I feel that I have been in the presence of a ghost or spirit but I've never seen one.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > But if it must be god and you think that's the answer why keep looking? Apparently you have the answer. Must be god. Thunder use to be god.
> ...



Every person who ever lived died asking or wondering that question. We don't like not knowing so we came up with a purpose. You could be right. But I'll take my chances that I don't need to be a christian Muslim Jew jehova Mormon to win its favor. I'll continue to be a good person and realize this is probably all there is. God or an afterlife arent necessary for me. I'm appreciative for the 44 years I got and hope I get 44. I hope you do too. And I hope christians Muslims and Jews make peace in our lifetime but you know that won't happen.

Think about it. You and I want there to be peace more than anything. Supposedly so do most Americans. No hunger or wars or murders. We all say we want it but don't have faith it will ever go away. Yet you have so much faith a god created such an imperfect world? And cares about you but not the bunny rabbits or turtles and birds? How can you not see your wishful thinking?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 24, 2015)

The original question is baffling. What created everything we see? There may not be a creator or reason but that seems so hard to believe. But the more I learn the less I believe the god hypothesis. Seems like nothing more than wishful thinking. Sorry theists. I call bullshit on your ancient stories. No offense and any talk of hell for not believing you or your church will only further convince me that religions are just big cults.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 24, 2015)

I'm probably a Buddhist. They don't believe in gods do they?The golden rule and live and let live. Secular.


----------



## Boss (Feb 24, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Yet you have so much faith a god created such an imperfect world? And cares about you but not the bunny rabbits or turtles and birds? How can you not see your wishful thinking?



But I don't believe in a God who cares about me. Remember, I am not a Christian. From my perspective, God is an energy force. Albeit, a special kind of energy which is not yet detectable by physical science. It doesn't have human attributes, it doesn't need them.  The same energy force which created this universe, reality, time, space, light, gravity and life, is constantly flowing within our dimensions and is available for us to utilize as spiritually-connected creatures. If people want to stick their heads in the sand and not acknowledge this force, it's not a problem for me or for it.


----------



## Boss (Feb 24, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> The original question is baffling. What created everything we see? There may not be a creator or reason but that seems so hard to believe.



It seems incredibly hard to believe. In fact, one has to ask himself, how can you possibly believe all of this is by random chance? It's not baffling when you have connected with spiritual nature and realize it exists. Suddenly it all becomes very clear and understandable.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The original question is baffling. What created everything we see? There may not be a creator or reason but that seems so hard to believe.
> ...


Or you could be wrong. You haven't convinced me but atheist scientists have. But don't worry. We aren't evil I promise.


----------



## Boss (Feb 25, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



But I'm not wrong, I am certain.  You see, it does not matter if you are convinced. That has no bearing on what I am absolutely positive exists. It also doesn't matter if you are evil. I don't get any points for talking you out of being evil or extra credits for you being good. How you behave and what you believe are entirely up to you. 

You are funny here sometimes because you type as you think, so you end up revealing your uncertainties;  "...._that seems so hard to believe."  _Then, you're right back up on your confidence pony with; _"...You haven't convinced me but atheist scientists have."
_
So we see the portrait of a conflicted Silly Boob.  It seems so hard for him to believe this is all without reason, purpose, intention and design... but atheists have convinced him anyway. That's very revealing, Boob! 

FAITH is the belief in something not in evidence. SCIENCE does not draw conclusions, it only suggests probabilities. You can use those suggestions to form your own conclusions but science simply can't do that... it only explores possibility and deals with probability. So when you say you are certain of something, that science has concluded something, that atheists have convinced you of something, then what you are really actually saying is, you've abandoned science for faith.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Yet you have so much faith a god created such an imperfect world? And cares about you but not the bunny rabbits or turtles and birds? How can you not see your wishful thinking?
> ...


"...God is an energy force. Albeit, a special kind of energy which is not yet detectable by physical science."

How convenient for those making claims to "special kinds" of gawds. This is the kind of argument not detectable during rational discourse because it relies on appeals to "because I say so" not taken seriously by grownups.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



"SCIENCE does not draw conclusions, it only suggests probabilities"

A classic _Boss'ism_.

Sorry, Bossy. You've been trolling at fundamentalist creation ministries for your science learnin' and that's always a disaster. Science leads to conclusions all the time. To conclude and publish for peer review is a process of the scientific method.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > So you admit "spiritual" is PC for "superstition."
> ...


BLAAH BLAAH BLAAH....superstition.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> As for your spree of "Fallacy of Whateverums" ...this is just you exhibiting butt hurt because you can't really argue the points intellectually.* In situations such as this, where you find yourself completely over your head on an intellectual basis, you morph into a delinquent smart-ass punk and start denigrating and lying.*


Oh the IRONY!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The original question is baffling. What created everything we see? There may not be a creator or reason but that seems so hard to believe.
> ...


BLAAH BLAAH BLAAH....superstition.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


He suggested that looking for god has led to scientific discovery.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Today the parents of the American Sniper thanked God for the guilty verdict. Apparently god wasn't paying attention on 9 11 or during the OJ or Trevon Martin trials but he decided to get involved in the superbowl academy awards and american sniper trial. But boss says theres no way it could just be in our heads.

Its even in my head. I win a big hand of poker what do I say? Thank god.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'll prove its all in our heads. What do people say when a surgery goes well? Thank god. Or when they win an academy award Oscar emmy or superbowl? Thank god. But trevon martins parents don't get to say that. The academy award losers just thank god they were nominated. People whos kids die in a plane crash. Where was god? I win a big hand of poker I say thank god. Is he involved in my poker hand?

Yet we all give god credit when no credit is due. He does not care if he exists at all.

I like the saying have a purpose for your life. Have a positive impact. Maybe if people worried more about here and now more than after we die we'd do much better.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




And, in case no one has mentioned the obvious - 

One does not have to believe in any of the various gods to be intensely and personally "spiritual".


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 25, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Conversely, when they don't get their "wish", they excuse god by saying "its god's will" or "god moves in mysterious ways". 

One of the reasons religion works so well is that one one hand, its one size fits all but OTOH, the believer can pick and choose what to believe in.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 25, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



But the question is, how do us non spiritualists explain it.  You just disqualified yourself by saying you are spiritual.  I guess I am too to a degree but I tend to think we might have come from nothing and the universe is just because it is and it is all that is, was and will ever be.  But not just our seeable universe of billions of galaxies.  Even that's just pathetically small.  We can't comprehend eternity.  Yet theists think they will live for eternity.  I tell you how I explain that.  Easy.  It's wishful thinking.  Our most primitive ancestors without any evidence at all decided there must be a god.  And no proof yet of his existence to this day.  Any good scientific mind would have given up looking a long time ago.  If you are spiritual it means you believe it matters if you are a good person or not.  I agree and/or hope/believe that is true too.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 25, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



sealybobo

I agree completely with every word you just wrote.

Thanks.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.  Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 25, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Hmmm ... I'm going amend my previous post to say that I believe our planet, the galaxy, other galaxies and other universes are as they are because, given the givens, there is no other way they can be. 

When I lived in Tucson, I would hear people say how amazing it was that, in such an inhospitable climate, giant saguaro cactus would grow for a couple of hundred years and weigh several tons. 

The answer to that is they belong there. Given the givens, there is no other place they can live and in fact, saguaros do not occur anyplace else on earth besides the Sonora desert. IOW, thart climate is not inhospitable to all life forms. 

Given the givens of our planet, the natural make up of our atmosphere, our degree of gravity, etc, etc, there is no other way we could have evolved.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Alright guys quit arguing and get back on track.  You ask how the non spiritual explain it.  We're trying to explain it to you.  Sometimes we get frustrated because you still don't get it.

*Science can’t explain X, therefore god/theism.*
*God of the gaps [2]. Argument from Ignorance.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

See also: The God of the Gaps – Neil deGrasse Tyson (a must watch), Open-Mindedness (a must watch), Skewed views of science, The faith cake (a must watch),Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch), Critical Thinking,Magical Thinking, Self-Deception Open-Mindedness (a must watch).

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins*


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 25, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



And if the planet heats up or cools off a couple degrees we might not be here anymore but Tardigrades will continue on.  How special are we?

_Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Read my lips.... There is no god.
> ...



And we explained to you how our ancient primitive ancestors came up with this god concept without any hard evidence.  We understand why they were frightened and didn't know so they thought there must be a purpose and they must be special.  That doesn't mean they were right just because every society came up with some kind of spiritual explanation.  Its what humans do.  We are not that smart.  Not yet anyways.  But we are much smarter today than back then.  Well, some of us.  Anyways, back to explaining it to you:


*Phenomenon X has a non-physical component.*
Baseless assertion. Unfalsifiable. How can you prove it?

There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.

See also: Critical Thinking (a must watch), Open-Mindedness (a must watch), Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch), Delusion,Magical Thinking, Superstition, Self-Deception.

_“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”_ – Christopher Hitchens

_“I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, I think it’s much more interesting that way … I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything. I might think about it a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go to something else. It doesn’t frighten me.”_ – Richard Feynman


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 25, 2015)

This is just so much CRAP!  WE don't HAVE to explain ANYTHING!

EVERY superstitious theory has been debunked.  Nothing unexplained cannot be explained.  It just might take more time out of your life than you care to expend to unravel it.

How about we just look forward with as much intelligence as we can muster and do what we can to survive individually and as a species?


----------



## Boss (Feb 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



But I never said "special kind of God" ...those are your words. And yes, I'm sorry but my personal spiritual faith relies on a "because I say so" argument and that is good enough for me. You're not obligated to accept my argument.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your gawds are special in that they are a creation of yours. I just find it comical that you claim not to be religious yet you invent gawds that rule over your invented spirit realms.


----------



## Boss (Feb 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



And the Airhead totally missed the point! 

You admitted the same thing I stated, you just seem to believe Science wields powers it doesn't have. You will NEVER find a "conclusion" made by Science. All it can ever do is provide you data and information. From there, *YOUUUUuuuuuuuuu....* are the one who draws conclusion, not Science.

And nope.... Conclusions, peer reviews and publications, have little to do with the scientific method. Conclusions are faith-based decisions, although in science the conclusions are supported by suggested probability provided by science. Such conclusions have often been disproved or found to be incomplete.


----------



## Boss (Feb 25, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



What you are trying to do is project God in human form and then hold God accountable for not doing what any decent human would do. It's funny on so many levels... First, that you would even imagine that your little perverted pea-size brain could ever rationally comprehend what God has planned. 

I already told you, I don't believe in a God who CARES! Caring is compassion by a human being. It can be our way of expressing love or empathy emotions as humans. God has no need for this because God is omnipotent and omniscient.


----------



## Boss (Feb 25, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> But the question is, how do us non spiritualists explain it.  You just disqualified yourself by saying you are spiritual.  I guess I am too to a degree but I tend to think we might have come from nothing and the universe is just because it is and it is all that is, was and will ever be.  But not just our seeable universe of billions of galaxies.  Even that's just pathetically small.  We can't comprehend eternity.  Yet theists think they will live for eternity.  I tell you how I explain that.  Easy.  It's wishful thinking.  Our most primitive ancestors without any evidence at all decided there must be a god.  And no proof yet of his existence to this day.  Any good scientific mind would have given up looking a long time ago.  If you are spiritual it means you believe it matters if you are a good person or not.  I agree and/or hope/believe that is true too.



Aww... Look at conflicted Boob.... One second he is non-spiritual, next second, he guesses he is spiritual to a degree. He believes that something came from nothing... True Magic! Totally in defiant contradiction of all known physics and science... something came from nothing! And for NO reason! 

*Yet theists think they will live for eternity.*

Some do believe that our spirits live for eternity. I believe that "live" is a word we use to define the state in which we exist within the physical reality of our universe. After this state is complete, I believe something more profound than life awaits.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I can understand your lack of a science vocabulary leaves you befuddled when confronted with such references as the scientific method, but you should take some time to actually understand why you were contradicted.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > But the question is, how do us non spiritualists explain it.  You just disqualified yourself by saying you are spiritual.  I guess I am too to a degree but I tend to think we might have come from nothing and the universe is just because it is and it is all that is, was and will ever be.  But not just our seeable universe of billions of galaxies.  Even that's just pathetically small.  We can't comprehend eternity.  Yet theists think they will live for eternity.  I tell you how I explain that.  Easy.  It's wishful thinking.  Our most primitive ancestors without any evidence at all decided there must be a god.  And no proof yet of his existence to this day.  Any good scientific mind would have given up looking a long time ago.  If you are spiritual it means you believe it matters if you are a good person or not.  I agree and/or hope/believe that is true too.
> ...


It's comical to read your rattling on about magical spirits and your spirit realms inhabited by the gawds you have invented.


----------



## Boss (Feb 25, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Hmmm ... I'm going amend my previous post to say that I believe our planet, the galaxy, other galaxies and other universes are as they are because, given the givens, there is no other way they can be.
> 
> When I lived in Tucson, I would hear people say how amazing it was that, in such an inhospitable climate, giant saguaro cactus would grow for a couple of hundred years and weigh several tons.
> 
> ...



You're not really answering a scientific question here. It's more like circular reasoning. Let's use an analogy... We have the presence of a glorious and delicious chocolate cake... We find evidence of an oven at 350 degrees, some mixing bowls and measuring cups, cake pans and utensils, flour and sugar, recipe book, etc. We're trying to figure out how the cake came to be, but we're not sure.. some say it was designed, some argue it is the result of sheer coincidence and chance. Your reasoning is, the chocolate cake exists because there is an oven at 350 degrees, and all these other things that are essential for the cake to exist...therefore, it must exist.


----------



## Boss (Feb 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> I can understand your lack of a science vocabulary leaves you befuddled when confronted with such references as the scientific method, but you should take some time to actually understand why you were contradicted.



Well, I do have a science degree, albeit in Psychology. 
The scientific method describes our system of hypothesis, evidence gathering, testing and observing results, finding probability of possibility. Conclusions are reached from this and published then peer reviewed. The conclusions do not come from Science. All Science can ever do is evaluate probability of possibility, it's up to people to conclude. 

Regardless of how much faith man has in his conclusions, or how solid they believe their science is to support their faith-based conclusions... Sometimes, they are wrong. Science isn't wrong, it can't be wrong or right, it is simply providing information to you and you are making the conclusions.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I can understand your lack of a science vocabulary leaves you befuddled when confronted with such references as the scientific method, but you should take some time to actually understand why you were contradicted.
> ...


You should avoid getting your science from fundamentalist creation ministries. Science is a process of discovery. There is no faith requirement in science. The process of peer review will assiduously test and refute. That process is, undeniably, absent regarding your religious claims involving gawds, spirit realms and other such appeals to supernaturalism.

You're simply reciting the dogma you read at the Institute for Creation Research.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever seen a ghost?
> ...




Okay, so no, you've never seen one. I've never seen one either. I've never known anyone who's actually seen a ghost.  With all the millions of ghost stories out there, you'd think we would have seen one by now.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I really don't care if people believe in god. If it makes them feel better. I think its a scam and harmful but who am i to ruin their ignorant bliss?  Its believing non believers go to hell or should die that bothers me. Its why I hate religion and some religious people. And they can't help it they're brainwashed and really believe it. They aren't saying it just to be mean. They dont even realize theyre using a tactic.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Yea but a scientific theory is the highest honor an idea can get. Like a gold medal or Oscar or Grammy.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


He's saying that if indians in america came up with gods and Greeks thought up gods and Jews and every other culture came up with "there must be a god" that there must be something to it.

How could native americans just come up with god and half way around the world those people came up with gods and Africans. 

I just realized something. Since every god is different for every culture maybe there are as many gods as there are races. A Chinese god a German god a Greek god Hawaiian god etc. This is what I believe. How many different languages are there? That's how many gods there are.


----------



## Boss (Feb 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> You should avoid getting your science from fundamentalist creation ministries. Science is a process of discovery. There is no faith requirement in science. The process of peer review will assiduously test and refute. That process is, undeniably, absent regarding your religious claims involving gawds, spirit realms and other such appeals to supernaturalism.
> 
> You're simply reciting the dogma you read at the Institute for Creation Research.



*Science is a process of discovery. There is no faith requirement in science.*

Absolutely! That's what I am telling you. Once you've determined a conclusion, Science clocks out, it's work is done. It's down at the local pub having a beer while you parade around and pontificate your conclusions. 

*The process of peer review will assiduously test and refute.*

Then there isn't a conclusion. If testing and refuting continues, the science is still at work and nothing is concluded. 

Now what you are trying to do is have it both ways... Science continues testing and refuting while being conclusive, and that contradicts logic. A conclusion means there is no more to be said, the argument and debate are over, all the science evidence is in, we have tested it and observed it repeatedly and there is no denying the results. Science is not needed at this point, it can't do anything with a conclusion. From the very second you made the conclusion, you stopped practicing Science and began practicing a faith-based belief. Congratulations!


----------



## Boss (Feb 25, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Okay, so no, you've never seen one. I've never seen one either. I've never known anyone who's actually seen a ghost.  With all the millions of ghost stories out there, you'd think we would have seen one by now.



Have you ever seen Keplar 186f?  It's supposedly an earth-like planet in a solar system 500 light years from Earth. If you get the chance, google it and have a look.. the Internet is full of renderings of what the planet supposedly looks like, but we can't see it actually. We've only detected it's presence with very powerful telescopes. We know nothing of it's atmosphere or resources, just that it is similar in size to Earth with a similar size Sun, and in the "Goldilocks zone." Still... there are people on the Internet who honestly believe we've found the Twin Earth. The rendering depict a lush green and blue planet like our own, it looks to be a duplicate... but we have absolutely NO idea if this rendering is true or not. It's only an artist's depiction of a possibility.  

Have you ever seen dark energy or dark matter? You should be able to, it's passing through your body as you read this post. It makes up 96% of our universe... seems like we would see it. Science has discovered this, it's not just me making up nonsense. There are things we can't see in the universe. 

And that 's not all too surprising.  A common hawk can see a field mouse from 300 yards away... a snake needs no light to see, it can see heat. Bats see by radar.  So our rather limited and scrawny ability to visually see things is not the most profound thing in the world in which we know of, much less the cosmos.


----------



## Boss (Feb 25, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> He's saying that if indians in america came up with gods and Greeks thought up gods and Jews and every other culture came up with "there must be a god" that there must be something to it.
> 
> How could native americans just come up with god and half way around the world those people came up with gods and Africans.
> 
> I just realized something. Since every god is different for every culture maybe there are as many gods as there are races. A Chinese god a German god a Greek god Hawaiian god etc. This is what I believe. How many different languages are there? That's how many gods there are.



In the wise word of the great philosopher, Jewel...  _"So we pray to as many different God's as there are flowers, we call religion our friend... We're so worried about saving our souls, afraid God will take His toll that we forget to begin..."_ 

We are all the same human race. We are designed and created with spiritual awareness built in. Whether "_something is to it_" is not relative to that fact. I believe a rational mind realizes there must be something to it. Especially since science continues opening new doors which all seem to lead to that ultimate conclusion.  And yes... Conclusion is still a faith-based concept. We can only *believe* we know truth.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You should avoid getting your science from fundamentalist creation ministries. Science is a process of discovery. There is no faith requirement in science. The process of peer review will assiduously test and refute. That process is, undeniably, absent regarding your religious claims involving gawds, spirit realms and other such appeals to supernaturalism.
> ...


You've given science zero evidence just words. At this point your imaginary friend is just a hypothesis.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, so no, you've never seen one. I've never seen one either. I've never known anyone who's actually seen a ghost.  With all the millions of ghost stories out there, you'd think we would have seen one by now.
> ...


There are things called nutinos and they cut through the earth as they travel through the cosmos. Science found them and not while pontificating about god.

Do you realize we are looking 500 years into the past when we see that planet that is 500 light years away? Even if we see people waving to us those are just 500 year old ghosts. Long since died. Who knows if that planet even exists anymore. Itll take 500 years to figure that out.


----------



## Boss (Feb 25, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What is Science? The physical study of physical nature of the physical universe. It can't have evidence of spiritual nature without making the spiritual nature physical, therefore a paradox exists that can't be overcome. If I can ever give you physical evidence of something spiritual, it is not spiritual any more. 

It's not my imagination when I realize blessings from a spiritual source. If these did not happen rather routinely in my life, I would probably abandon spirituality as unimportant to me as a person, as you have. But I dig the bennies too much man! It helps me to cope with all kinds of things in my life and resolve many conflicts. I just feel a whole lot more complete and content as a person, my mind is not wrought with overwhelming frustration and need for validation. It gives me a confidence to resolve problems without fear of failure and inspires me to broaden my horizons. To see the Big Picture better than I ever have in my life. My worst day with Spirituality is greater than my best day without it. But you are here trying to talk me into "not believing in it" as if that's going to happen somehow... it's really cute to me.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> What is Science? The physical study of physical nature of the physical universe. It can't have evidence of spiritual nature without making the spiritual nature physical, therefore a paradox exists that can't be overcome. *If I can ever give you physical evidence of something spiritual, it is not spiritual any more*.


Yet you claimed physical healing was evidence of the spiritual.

If the spiritual could truly effect the physical, then Science would be able to measure it.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You should avoid getting your science from fundamentalist creation ministries. Science is a process of discovery. There is no faith requirement in science. The process of peer review will assiduously test and refute. That process is, undeniably, absent regarding your religious claims involving gawds, spirit realms and other such appeals to supernaturalism.
> ...


You really expose your appalling lack of understanding regarding the sciences with your comments. Science doesn't "clock out". The process of science is to explore and discover. That process of discovery is exampled by the work being untaken at CERN for one example.

Like many religious fundamentalists, your revulsion for science derives from your insistence that the gawds and spirit realms you have created are immutable and never-changing.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > What is Science? The physical study of physical nature of the physical universe. It can't have evidence of spiritual nature without making the spiritual nature physical, therefore a paradox exists that can't be overcome. *If I can ever give you physical evidence of something spiritual, it is not spiritual any more*.
> ...



When did I claim that, Ed? Physical healing is the evidence of physical healing. Are you meaning to say spiritual healing? Still, not my argument, I only mentioned that Emily had posted about this and I know that studies have been done. 

For the record, there are things that effect other things which science cannot measure. So it is never a foregone conclusion that science would be able to measure it if it were happening. It must be nice having so much arrogant hubris as to make Science into your God.


----------



## amrchaos (Feb 26, 2015)

I guess the same way we explain alien abductions and the loch ness monster?

I mean, don't you find it bizarre when an abductee talk about anal probes?  I do.  In fact, I think that he/she should keep that part of the  "experience"  confidential.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> There are things called nutinos and they cut through the earth as they travel through the cosmos. Science found them and not while pontificating about god.
> 
> Do you realize we are looking 500 years into the past when we see that planet that is 500 light years away? Even if we see people waving to us those are just 500 year old ghosts. Long since died. Who knows if that planet even exists anymore. Itll take 500 years to figure that out.



Wow... things that are invisible and able to pass through solid objects like the Earth? Sounds like 'magic' or 'spiritual energy' to me! Definitely something "supernatural" there! But science discovered it and stuck a label on it! Do you have any idea why neutrinos exist in this universe? 

Do you realize that EVERYTHING we look at is in the past? Yep... It is humanly impossible to see the present! Wait...whut? Did Boss flip his lid? Nope... think about it. What we see is a reflection of light which bounced off something in the past. The light traveled to our eyes, the eyes sent an optical signal to the brain and the brain then realized an image of something now and forever in the past. Freaky shit, right?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Just more of your double speak. If "spiritualism" could cure a disease then it can be measured. What you call a spiritual is just superstitious coincidence!


Boss said:


> _*Human spiritualism*_ has been curing diseases for 100,000 years.





Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

Hollie said:


> You really expose your appalling lack of understanding regarding the sciences with your comments. Science doesn't "clock out". The process of science is to explore and discover.



I understand what science does. It doesn't draw conclusions. Once you've drawn conclusion, what are you to explore and discover? The conclusion was your answer, the exploration and discovery are complete... science is done. 

As I said before, what you want is to have this both ways... Science is conclusive but continues to explore and discover, and those two concepts are contradictory. If exploration and discovery are still happening, the work of science is not complete and there has been no conclusion. 

*The process of science is to explore and discover.*

This has been MY argument all along, but you're insisting that science has made conclusions. A conclusion is NOT exploration or discovery.


----------



## amrchaos (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > There are things called nutinos and they cut through the earth as they travel through the cosmos. Science found them and not while pontificating about god.
> ...



A new take of the saying
"The past is in 20/20"


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Wow... things that are invisible and able to pass through solid objects like the Earth? *Sounds like 'magic' or 'spiritual energy' to me! Definitely something "supernatural" there!* But science discovered it and stuck a label on it!


Only because you are completely ignorant of science!!!
Science did more than "stuck a label on it," science MEASURED it!!!!!
Nothing spiritual or supernatural about neutrinos, they are purely physical, you are just superstitious to call then spiritual and supernatural.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Just more of your double speak. If "spiritualism" could cure a disease then it can be measured. What you call a spiritual is just superstitious coincidence!



Nah... Emily posted about this numerous times, go look up "spiritual medicine." Studies have been done and we have measured the results. We found that spirituality is beneficial in treating illnesses. You can claim this is superstitious coincidence but the science has been done and the results are undeniable. Humans are free to draw whatever conclusions they wish from the science.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Only because you are completely ignorant of science!!!
> Science did more than "stuck a label on it," science MEASURED it!!!!!



Really? How did we measure something we can't see, touch, hear, taste or smell? How do I know this for certain? Are you asking me to have FAITH?


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Nothing spiritual or supernatural about neutrinos, they are purely physical, you are just superstitious to call then spiritual and supernatural.



I didn't call them spiritual and supernatural, I said it sounds like they are. This thread is inundated with closed-minded little morons such as yourself, who keep mocking spiritual energy because you can't detect it with your physical senses or measure it with your instruments. Before we were able to detect neutrinos, you'd have said the same about them. Yet, science has confirmed their existence. 

Again... It's ALWAYS a safe bet to say that Spiritual things can't be proven Physically. Anything thought to be spiritual, if confirmed physically, no longer remains spiritual... like the neutrino, it becomes something physical and evidenced by physical science.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Only because you are completely ignorant of science!!!
> ...


Idiot! Scientists are not as stupid as YOU!

IceCube Neutrino Observatory

IceCube is a particle detector at the South Pole that records the interactions of a nearly massless subatomic particle called the neutrino. IceCube searches for neutrinos from the most violent astrophysical sources: events like exploding stars, gamma-ray bursts, and cataclysmic phenomena involving black holes and neutron stars. The IceCube telescope is a powerful tool to search for dark matter and could reveal the new physical processes associated with the enigmatic origin of the highest energy particles in nature. In addition, exploring the background of neutrinos produced in the atmosphere, IceCube studies the neutrinos themselves; their energies far exceed those produced by accelerator beams. IceCube is the world’s largest neutrino detector, encompassing a cubic kilometer of ice.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing spiritual or supernatural about neutrinos, they are purely physical, you are just superstitious to call then spiritual and supernatural.
> ...


Just more of your superstitious double speak.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


*IceCube studies the neutrinos themselves......*


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> IceCube is a particle detector at the South Pole that records the interactions of a nearly massless subatomic particle called the neutrino.



Ahh... So we are to have FAITH in a piece of equipment invented by man to tell us something exists that we can't detect with our physical senses, which can pass through solid objects including the Earth? But... there can be absolutely nothing to the reported spirituality of humans across 95% of the species for all our existence?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IceCube is a particle detector at the South Pole that records the interactions of a nearly massless subatomic particle called the neutrino.
> ...


Our man made non spiritual INSTRUMENTS expand our natural senses, no faith required, only knowledge which you superstitious fools deny yourselves so you can to cling to your mindless superstitions.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Our man made non spiritual INSTRUMENTS expand our natural senses, no faith required, only knowledge which you superstitious fools deny yourselves so you can to cling to your mindless superstitions.



So you admit that we were able to expand our senses to discover things we never dreamed existed before? I just want the record to be clear, you are definitely acknowledging this has happened and we have evidence of it. True?


----------



## amrchaos (Feb 26, 2015)

I really have to read this thread, but I am questioning the approach of answering Boss question with a plea to (natural)science.

First, there is no need to
 second, there is a danger in using natural sciences when there are so many inexplicable things in the sciences.

But you don't really need to go that far.  This is a question of perception, others people perceptions and determiningg if a given explaination of someone elses experiences is true or not(a highly subjective issue, by the way)

That is Philosophy 101--not Relativistic Physics. Maybe I should give some example of a "non-spiritual" explaination of a "spiritual" occurance(i.e. miracle).

For instance, let use the "miracle" of Simon walking on water   

Example 1:  They lied.  It was fabricated to exalt Jesus as christ

Example 2: They were mistake.  Jesus and the disciples were ancient middle eastern hippies that hallucinated alot due to alcohol abuse and and hashish smoking.

Example 3: The area of the Lake that Simon and Jesus walked on was only 3mm deep.  When you come to realize this, you would know you have walked on water yourself, and therefore it is not such a big a deal as the NT makes it out to be.

Example 4: Aliens destablized the Earth gravitational field in the area just above the lake where Simon was and that is how he was able to "walk on water" .  


Now think, Will a spiritualists accept any of the above as a more plausible explanation  than "because Simon had faith in Jesus"  


That depends on your spiritualists.
A  Christian would agree with the faith explaination while A Jewish one may agree with example 1!

See, explanations for the inexplicable are all over the place-this include spiritual ones-and it is possible that no* given *explanation is true.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Our man made non spiritual INSTRUMENTS expand our natural senses, no faith required, only knowledge which you superstitious fools deny yourselves so you can to cling to your mindless superstitions.
> ...


With our physical equipment.
You have already admitted that there is no physical equipment that can detect the superstitious.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 26, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> I really have to read this thread, but I am questioning the approach of answering Boss question with a plea to (natural)science.
> 
> First, there is no need to
> second, there is a danger in using natural sciences when there are so many inexplicable things in the sciences.
> ...


The physics of WALKING on water is much more difficult than just standing on water, which most would say is impossible.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



.


> *bossy:* It gives me a confidence to resolve problems without fear of failure and inspires me to broaden my horizons. To see the Big Picture better than I ever have in my life. My worst day with Spirituality is greater than my best day without it ... But you are here trying to talk me into "not believing in it" as if that's going to happen somehow.


.
*... not believing in it*

as long as (it) remains politically correct by its interpreter ? ... but not the inexplicable Spirituality necessary for all living beings that distinguishes them from all other matter - sorry bossy, being a right wing Foxist does not make you a Spiritualist.

.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yes, with our physical equipment which we had to first invent before we could detect. Were neutrinos "superstitious" before we invented equipment to observe them?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


They were just as physical then as now.
DUH!


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> The physics of WALKING on water is much more difficult than just standing on water, which most would say is impossible.



Most would say it's impossible for particles to travel through the earth.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



How so? They couldn't be confirmed by physical science until we built machines to observe them, you said so yourself. How could they be physical but not supported by physics or observable physically?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


They were obviously observable physically whether we had the instruments or not. Their physical characteristics didn't change when the tools were designed. You are just being typically stupid, as always.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Ahh.... okay, now I get why you are coming across so incendiary toward me. This is about me being a conservative! Has nothing to do with our personal spiritual views and everything to do with our politics. That's nice to know, Breeze!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No one believed in neutrinos until we detected them


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> This is about me being a conservative!


Gee, why am I not surprised you are on the Right!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No they are scientifically detectable and explainable. Not supernatural at all. Sorry.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There are Ayn rand conservative atheists. In fact most conservatives worship capitalism first then country and god is 3rd.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



*They were obviously observable physically whether we had the instruments or not.*

Correct! And this is for subatomic neutrinos which we are totally unaware of. Why can't the same thing apply to something our species is intrinsically connected to? How do you KNOW that spiritual energy isn't some force that  we've yet been able to physically quantify and observe? As neutrinos once were.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Christians don't really worship god. They worship the idea one day they will be gods and live forever in a heaven.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Before they were scientifically detectable and explainable, were they supernatural?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Talk about the ultimate Commy commune and hierarchy in heaven. God will always be god. Angels be angels. You'll never move up. Only place you can go is down and you don't want an eternal demotion you can never recover from. Haleluya.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nope


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Then neither is Spirituality. Thanks!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There could be more to it than what we know. Yes.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'm OK with people being "spiritual" its when they turn into organized religions that claim everyone else is going to hell or when they kidnap 200 christians did you hear?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Only religious people strap on suicide vests. How do we know 48 virgins arent waiting for him in heaven? Yet he feels it is true. He too is spiritually connected to god.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The "spiritual" you believe in to you exists independent of the physical.
So far the only spiritual that can be demonstrated exists only only as a result of the physical. For example music. The spiritual is a creation of the physical. You can give no example of the spiritual existing independent of the physical.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


That's quite a leap you're making. Your spirit realms and the gawds you have invented who inhabit those spirit realms are of your own invention.

There is no reason to accept that science will be able to investigate the magical, supernatural realms that exist only in your imagitation.

You're welcome.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Baloney, the have always been natural.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Yes. I see nature I feel good. Spiritual because its so beautiful. God must have made Niagra falls oh wait that was glasiers.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

How did that big rock get here? Must be a god did it. Oh wait it was a glacier.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> I'm OK with people being "spiritual" its when they turn into organized religions that claim everyone else is going to hell or when they kidnap 200 christians did you hear?



And that's where we somewhat agree. I am not a big fan of organized religions. I think they are inherently flawed because they are creations of man. What is far more important is your internal connection of spirit. This has nothing to do with Religion, it is in your heart. It is often pointed out how many scientists are atheists, but curiously, most theoretical physicists are devoutly spiritual. Some have gone from being atheist or agnostic to spiritual based on their scientific discoveries. 

I am a little more tolerant of religion than you. I can appreciate the contributions religion makes in society, the things that we would miss if they weren't there to do them. Mormons are a wacky little cult group, but their _Helping Hands_ ministries all around the world are there when disaster strikes. _The Salvation Army._ How many homeless have been provided shelter through their generosity? Good Samaritan Organization... Sacred Heart... St. Jude Children's Hospital... I mean, the list is endless. These are things that are beneficial to society and I don't have any problem with them. 

Radical Jihadist Muslims are in a holy war. I don't know.... maybe you are just now waking up to this... a certain president tried to warn you of it 10 years ago and you hooted him down and ruined him politically over it.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> The "spiritual" you believe in to you exists independent of the physical.
> So far the only spiritual that can be demonstrated exists only only as a result of the physical. For example music. The spiritual is a creation of the physical. You can give no example of the spiritual existing independent of the physical.



You've presented this argument before and I agreed it is a bit of a challenge. You are asking for a physical demonstration of something spiritual. You are assuming the music which you admit is spiritual, is created physically. This is true, however... this doesn't explain where the inspiration for the music came from. Yes, neurons fired and a process took place in the composer's brain, but where did it come from? 

*Inspiration.* 

Love this word! Of all the words humans have ever created to define their spiritual connection, this one is at the top. Human inspiration is derived directly from spiritual nature.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I'm OK with people being "spiritual" its when they turn into organized religions that claim everyone else is going to hell or when they kidnap 200 christians did you hear?
> ...


There's nothing that separates your religion of spirit realms from organized religions except headcount.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> How did that big rock get here? Must be a god did it. Oh wait it was a glacier.





sealybobo said:


> Yes. I see nature I feel good. Spiritual because its so beautiful. God must have made Niagra falls oh wait that was glasiers.



I see what you're saying but you don't seem to see that "god must've done it" isn't any kind of valid scientific answer that can be considered. If God did it, HOW did He do it? That's what science is there to explore and evaluate, and in this case it was caused by glaciers. Well, what caused the glaciers? And then, what caused that? Ultimately you come down to God as the First Cause. So, if you do believe in God, then "god did it" is obvious already, the purpose of science is to explore what isn't obvious.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Just heard a great like on game of throwns. Reminds me of theists. The guy says do you believe he saw god? The guy said no. So he was lying the other man asked and his reply was "a mad man sees what he sees". Lol


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > How did that big rock get here? Must be a god did it. Oh wait it was a glacier.
> ...


Who caused god? Why can't the universe or cosmos be eternal and leave god out of the equasion. Its an unnecessary step in your math.  Like 1+1-2+2. You don't need the -2+2. Either way you get 2 as the answer.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I believe we live inside one of gods eyes. His eyes are blue or at least the eye we live in is blue. The other eye is green so the creatures in that eye see a green sky. 

Each night is when he blinks. One blink to god is a night time for us.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


.
no, you shape your "spiritual" views to suit your lifestyle rather than retaining collective, mutual fundamentals of Spiritualism.

"greater than self" is a Red Herring as your choice of exclusivity from all other living beings what is naturally possessed whether not demonstrative (to your) satisfaction or not.

at any rate whether greater or not is as well physical not simply a mental state and provable by your response or lack of to a hungry Lion when left with only your own "superior" prowess as defense against the beasts simplest of pleasures - good luck bossy.

.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I'm imagining you to sound like w.c. fields saying whatever you just said. Should have ended it with my little chickadee.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The "spiritual" you believe in to you exists independent of the physical.
> ...


What's amazing is how fast we got smart enough to come up with math art music religions inventions. We went from very primitive creatures to living in air conditioning in a blink of an eye. We are so far away from the nearest star and the universe is so big and there is so much we don't know. Who came up with languages? If we were born on an island together how long would it take for us to come up with a language in which we can communicate? How many words would be in it? Then to come up with an alphabet? Now for someone to learn how topbuild tune and play a guitar? How is this all possible? Mind blowing. You think a god that cares about us is involved? Really boss?


----------



## Muhammed (Feb 26, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> *Transcendental meditation *- just smoke weed. It's easier.


I disagree. Smoking dope does not make it easier.

I've been practicing TM for over 30 years.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > *Transcendental meditation *- just smoke weed. It's easier.
> ...


Why do you guys put your middle fingers to your thumbs while meditating? I try meditating in the steam room and sauna at the gym and I'm more comfortable with my hands relaxed. Is there a reason for doing that with your thumbs and fingers? What's that all about?


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Who caused god? Why can't the universe or cosmos be eternal and leave god out of the equasion.



Nothing "caused" God... this has been explained to you a thousand times. Does it make you feel better to ask it again and again? God is spiritual, not physical... there is nothing to cause. Physical was caused by Spiritual, it's the only way Physical can exist. Physical didn't start itself, matter can't create matter, energy can't create itself. 

The universe cannot be eternal unless Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion are incorrect. The universe is in motion. According to Newton, something acted to set it into motion. If it's in motion and something set it into motion, it had a beginning. Then, if this isn't clear enough evidence... we have the law of thermodynamic entropy. This totally contradicts an eternal universe. 

Now you can certainly BELIEVE the universe is eternal and God can't exist because something would have to create an omnipotent spiritual energy... but these are FAITH-BASED opinions.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You mean someone actually comprehended what he said?


----------



## Muhammed (Feb 26, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...


It's sort of a Pavlov's dog type of reaction. My theory is that if your body gets used to meditating while in a certain position, then it will be faster and easier to enter a deep level of meditation while you are in that position. Your body simply expects it.

If you are uncomfortable in that position, then try something else.  Personally, I usually meditate while lying flat on my back with my hands on my chest.

What matters the most when you are a beginner is that you are very comfortable and have your body in a consistent position every time.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> You think a god that cares about us is involved? Really boss?



I've already said I don't believe in a "caring" God. Why in the hell would an omnipotent spiritual energy have the human emotions of compassion, sympathy or empathy? It makes no sense... if it wanted something to be a certain way, it would be that way and there wouldn't be any other way possible. Why would it "get angry" that we're not doing what it wants? It's an omnipotent force, right? If God required us to worship it, this would be like breathing, eating and shitting... unavoidable and required.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


I'll put my hands palm down on my knees legs crossed. What should I be thinking? Nothing? About something? Help!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Who caused god? Why can't the universe or cosmos be eternal and leave god out of the equasion.
> ...


You confuse the universe with our seeable universe. Think bigger.
So spiritual creates physical like the mind created language math music etc?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Not me.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Jeeesh... I am the one thinking bigger, dumbass! You're the one thinking small. 

"The mind" is not something physical, is it? Where does it come from? The brain? The oxygenated blood cells in the brain? Electricity firing between neurons? No denying the mind exists, it's just not a 'physical' thing. It's like the Internet. 

Again-- The spiritual had to create the physical because the physical cannot create itself. The spiritual doesn't need creating, it's not physical.


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> You confuse the universe with our seeable universe.



We can't argue from a scientific perspective about things unknown. Science can't evaluate that which science can't observe. We can speculate, we can hypothesize, but when we start adopting faith in conclusions about things science doesn't know, that's ignorance of science. 

Infinite is not a value. It means the value is unlimited. The only problem with declaring the universe infinite is, you can't prove this with science. The value of infinite is unknown, so if the value of the universe is infinite, it is also unknown. See the paradox? It's almost the same as the "god did it" argument, it assumes conclusions that aren't scientifically supported and does nothing to advance science.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 26, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > *Transcendental meditation *- just smoke weed. It's easier.
> ...




I can't meditate to save my life. I've tried. For some reason, a grocery list pops in my head, or a to-do list....maybe even an old SNL re-run.


----------



## Esmeralda (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...


Human imagination and creativity.  Nothing more.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Feb 26, 2015)

I'm pretty sure that god created himself. After all, the dude has absolutely no limitations, so why not?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You confuse the universe with our seeable universe.
> ...


What's beyond the finite universe?


----------



## Boss (Feb 26, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> What's beyond the finite universe?



What is finite? You remember earlier, things we see 500 years ago? The fact that humans can't see the present? What IS finite? 

Many theories about what lies beyond our cosmos... universe... whatever you want to call it. We are not ever going to find those answers definitively. There will always be speculations, doubts, counter-arguments, contradicting or competing theories... This is not an easy question to answer. So what we have to ultimately admit is, this all depends on your faith. Do you have faith that the scientific physical understanding of the universe is everything there can possibly be? Do you have faith there is a higher spiritual power? Either opinion is faith-based. I have no problem sharing my faith-based opinions with others, or listening to theirs. What bugs me are those who try to camouflage their faith-based beliefs as Science.


----------



## Muhammed (Feb 27, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


There is no beyond. If it exists, then by definition it is a part of the universe.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> we have the law of thermodynamic entropy. This totally contradicts an eternal universe.


How many times are you going to repeat that lie?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> *The universe cannot be eternal* unless Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion are incorrect. *The universe is in motion.*


At what temperature will all motion in the universe stop?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Physical was caused by Spiritual, it's the only way Physical can exist.


Wrong, the "spiritual" was created by the physical, it is the only proven way the spiritual has existed, music is an example of the spiritual created by the physical. There is no example of the spiritual creating the physical.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> "The mind" is not something physical, is it? Where does it come from? The brain? The oxygenated blood cells in the brain? Electricity firing between neurons? No denying the mind exists, it's just not a 'physical' thing.


The mind cannot exist without those physical things. The brain, oxygenated blood, neurons all had to exist FIRAT before the mind could exist. You are ass backwards!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Infinite is not a value. It means *the value is unlimited*.


Idiot!


----------



## dblack (Feb 27, 2015)

Esmeralda said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> ...



And nothing less.


----------



## Muhammed (Feb 27, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Concentrate on nothing, or a mantra or your breathing until you suddenly feel a falling sensation. 

It's scary because it's scary to be falling. So you probably will not get to a deep state of meditation right away.


----------



## Boss (Feb 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Infinite is not a value. It means *the value is unlimited*.
> ...



I don't understand why you think that is idiotic. Infinite is not a value!



edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *The universe cannot be eternal* unless Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion are incorrect. *The universe is in motion.*
> ...



Newton says the universe will remain in motion until some opposing force acts upon it. 



edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > we have the law of thermodynamic entropy. This totally contradicts an eternal universe.
> ...



It's not a lie. I'm going to repeat this scientific principle as long as I need to. You can't have an eternal universe until you resolve the entropy problem.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There is NO entropy problem, if you actually understood entropy rather than mindlessly parrot some dishonest creationist.
We went over this in other threads, so you can't pretend to be too stupid to know you are lying.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 27, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Given the givens


yet you continue to deny there is a giver.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 27, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> I'm OK with people being "spiritual" its when they turn into organized religions that claim everyone else is going to hell



imagine you find yourself trapped behind a locked door......you are okay with people knowing where the key is, but you are not okay with them telling you where to find it.......


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 27, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I'm OK with people being "spiritual" its when they turn into organized religions that claim everyone else is going to hell
> ...



But they keep telling me its right in front of my face and I don't see it. See that's your problem. You think you know where the key is but it really isnt there. You want me to believe YOU? As if you know anything. Don't show me your 1600 year old book I'm not buying it. 

Or I found the key you are referring to but its not the real key. A Muslim told me to grab another key and it too doesn't work.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 27, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


but that isn't true.....you see the key, you just don't like it......instead of being shaped like a B for belief, you want it to be shaped like a W for works....the long and short of it is this, you are free to choose whichever key you want.....but stop getting all pissy just because the lock doesn't change to comply with your choice.......


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 27, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



What do you want from me the key you give me doesnt work. If your god wants me to believe help me. You don't think I want to get out of the closet?

I guess you'd have to understand what its like to not be gullable wishful thinking irrational or brainwashed to understand what I'm saying.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 27, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


First, I didn't make the key or give it to you.....I just told you where it was......second, you don't know if it works or not.....all you know is that you don't like it......you want a different key, one you made for yourself......and no....I don't think you want to get out of the closet.....not if you can't get out under your own terms instead of God's.....which probably explains why he doesn't think you'd make very good company for eternity......


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 27, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...






You don't know where the key is located, or if there is even a key.

Do you know how I know this?

Because I don't know where the key is, or if there is even a key.

You do not possess any magical key seeing abilities that I don't have.

All you have is an ancient book, full of weird, bizarre, and even creepy stories, passed down from one generation to the next.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 27, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> .....Because I don't know where the key is......
> All you have is an ancient book, full of weird, bizarre, and even creepy stories, passed down from one generation to the next.


it's not that creepy.....John3:18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God......hardly registers a single blip on the creep-o-meter.......


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 27, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > .....Because I don't know where the key is......
> ...




Have you read the book of Revelation, better known as Apocalypse Now?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 27, 2015)




----------



## amrchaos (Feb 27, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > .....Because I don't know where the key is......
> ...



Not to you because you think God is presenting this.

But to non-believers, we realize it is the author "John" who may not be the disciple John!

Your creep-meter--at zero
Our creep-meter--broken.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 27, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


start a thread to discuss it if you wish....we were discussing a key to a locked door......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 27, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


look children, this isn't that complicated....Silly asked about the "key" of Christianity......I answered his question.....now you can all get in a line and tell us you don't want no fucking key, but nobody cares.....it doesn't change the answer to his question.....


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 27, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...





You don't have the key, and you have no magical key seeing abilities.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 27, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...


you are right....as I said before it isn't my key.......I just knew where to find it.....now you know where it is too......the next time you hear someone ask what the key to the Christian paradise is you will be able to tell them.....


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 27, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...




There's no key.


----------



## Boss (Feb 27, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> There's no key.



Because you lack faith in believing there is one.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 27, 2015)

/shrugs.....just because you don't want anything to do with it doesn't mean it isn't the key to the Christian paradise as Christianity understands it......


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > There's no key.
> ...




Faith in Bigfoot, doesn't produce a Bigfoot. Believing in fairy tales does not make them real.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 27, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


Saw God today. God was there before I had faith.


----------



## Boss (Feb 27, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> You don't know where the key is located, or if there is even a key.
> 
> Do you know *how I know this?
> Because I don't know* where the key is, or if there is even a key.
> ...



You see, Carla knows you don't know because she doesn't know. She thinks you must believe you have magical key seeing abilities and this seems preposterous. She sees the Bible as weird and bizarre stories and fables which have no meaning or value... just a bunch of kooky anecdotes that mean nothing to her. 

So Carla comes to the conclusion there is no key. Even though she just admitted she doesn't know. She is certain she is correct, that there is no key, because if there were a key, she believes she is smart enough to have found it by now. The problem is, she hasn't really been looking very hard for the key because she doesn't believe it is real. This is often called "being too smart for your own good."


----------



## Boss (Feb 27, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Faith takes many forms.  Faith is simply the belief in something not in evidence. So when you say that you do not believe in God... that is a faith-based belief because there is no evidence to prove God doesn't exist. When you say that you believe life originated through spontaneous natural occurrence and not some metaphysical force beyond our physical ability to observe through our sciences... that's a faith-based belief. 

It is fine to have faith-based beliefs. In fact, humans could not function if we weren't able to have faith.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > You don't know where the key is located, or if there is even a key.
> ...




Your assumptions about me are incorrect. I was raised in a very strict Christian fundie home. It wasn't until I hit 40 that I admitted to being agnostic. I sat and chewed on that for 8 years, and only recently decided that I no longer live my life, "looking for a key."

I have no special powers which allows me to find magic keys. You don't possess that power either.  I know this because we have access to the same information.

I don't mind saying that I'm not 100% certain, but Gawd is very improbable, and I live my life under the assumption that he/she is not there.

*"The invisible and nonexistent often look very much alike"*


----------



## Hollie (Feb 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > There's no key.
> ...


Because you're a rube who believes in magical "keys". 

I have a collection of golden plates I will sell you. Just PM your Mastercard number and I'll arrange to get you the plates. 

Really, just trust me.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 27, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> /shrugs.....just because you don't want anything to do with it doesn't mean it isn't the key to the Christian paradise as Christianity understands it......


It also doesn't mean you're not a gullible, superstitious rube who will believe anything about the religion he was given.


----------



## amrchaos (Feb 27, 2015)

This conversation has become a metaphoric.

Let see, there are people who claims to know that a key works.

So why not use the key--remember, if it does not work, then you are not using it correctly or you are not committed to using just that key.......
You want a special key when it is only this key that will work...

That reminds me of a simple problem: I have a sequence of numbers

1,2,3,4,......

tell me, what comes after 4?

That is the problem with ignorance plus intuition--you can convince yourself you are so right when you are actually so incredibly wrong!!


----------



## Boss (Feb 27, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> I have no special powers which allows me to find magic keys. You don't possess that power either. I know this *because we have access to the same information.*
> 
> I don't mind saying that I'm not 100% certain, but Gawd is very improbable, and I live my life under the assumption that he/she is not there.



What color dress do you see?
*...we have access to the same information.*


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > I have no special powers which allows me to find magic keys. You don't possess that power either. I know this *because we have access to the same information.*
> ...




That depends on the shadow and the lighting.  We both have access to the same information. Some say blue and black, some say gold and white.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > "The mind" is not something physical, is it? Where does it come from? The brain? The oxygenated blood cells in the brain? Electricity firing between neurons? No denying the mind exists, it's just not a 'physical' thing.
> ...


.
you are both wrong






Flora has no physio-neurological process and is both mentally and Spiritually astute.
.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Feb 27, 2015)

...which brings us to the next level of discussion. If god is a woman, does she dress like Queen Elizabeth, or like Lady Gaga?


----------



## Boss (Feb 27, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Correct, and we know the dress can't be both. It is either one or the other, and it is also possibly neither. There is only one truth. We have the same access to the same information but we see the information differently. 

This demonstrates that our having access to the same information doesn't lead to the same conclusions or even the same perception. It depends largely on what we want to see.


----------



## Boss (Feb 27, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> I don't mind saying that I'm not 100% certain, but *Gawd* is very improbable....



I admit, I don't really know what a *Gawd* is supposed to be. If you mean the incarnation of a bearded man sitting on a cloud with a Charlton Heston voice, who invisibly sits in judgment of man, meting out rewards and retributions based on religious dogma... I tend to agree such a concept is silly. 

However... When I look at the sheer beauty of the universe, the complexity in volumes, the 40-some-odd constants which have to be intricately precise for any material universe to exist, much less life... couple this with science continuing to reveal how our own physics break down at the subatomic level, inside black holes and at the moment of the big bang... if there was a big bang. Add the understanding that matter cannot create matter, things can only be in motion if something acts on them to cause motion and it is impossible that physical nature can create itself... How can anyone NOT believe in something greater that we don't yet understand? 

To me... it takes an enormous amount of faith to believe this is all random chance.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




No, that's not true. We both came to the same conclusion about the colors of the dress, both admitting we need more information due to shadows and lighting, both having access to the same information. (Google)

Now if you could do the same for the key....


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 27, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> ...which brings us to the next level of discussion. If god is a woman, does she dress like Queen Elizabeth, or like Lady Gaga?




LOL!  I'm going with Lady Gaga.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 27, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...




Are those the same golden plates from when Joseph Smith looked inside a magic hat and was able to translate Egyptian hieroglyphics into English?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > I have no special powers which allows me to find magic keys. You don't possess that power either. I know this *because we have access to the same information.*
> ...


Well you would really have to see the dress in person. As someone who is experienced in color correcting photos, the light part of the dress could easily have a blue cast from the type of lighting. One thing is obvious, there is no way the darker part of the dress is black as it is not even close in color to the black panels on the left and right!


----------



## Boss (Feb 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



There are all kinds of problems with objectively evaluating the evidence to reach a conclusion. I also have over 30 years experience with critical color and digital imaging, and when I first looked at the dress it appeared to be white and gold. After all the hoopla, I kept looking and finally saw where people were seeing blue and black. I also see lilac/olive and orchid/orange. The photo has very little background to gain any sort of reference point, and the image is back-lit and faded.  BUT.... You are missing the point! 

We do not know the truth. We all have the same information. We are all seeing the same dress. Some of us will swear it must be white and gold and anyone who sees black and blue is a moron. Some will swear it's black and blue, and can't imagine how it's possible someone sees white and gold. Our perceptions of what we see are different, even though we have the exact same information.


----------



## Boss (Feb 27, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> No, that's not true. We both came to the same conclusion about the colors of the dress...



No, we didn't. You didn't say what color dress you saw. That was my question. You didn't reach a conclusion. If you did this with God, or "the key" in the example we are discussing, I wouldn't have a problem with that. It's okay to say you don't know, you don't have enough information. 

My conclusion was, there is a true color of the dress and we don't know it. We can only have faith that we think we know. There are too many unknown and unknowable factors to draw a conclusion. Yet... our brain has already concluded. It has already concluded the dress is white/gold, blue/black, or something else, and that's what it is telling us is there. But what is the TRUTH?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > No, that's not true. We both came to the same conclusion about the colors of the dress...
> ...




I'd appreciate it if you not butcher or edit my quotes from now on.

Maybe you're a forgetful poster. You already stated that the dress can't be both sets of colors, it's one or the other, and possibly neither. Did you not say that? You have already admitted there's not enough info, so we both came to the same conclusion.  What you're unhappy about is the fact that I did not answer the question they way you wanted me to answer.

My quote..."*No, that's not true. We both came to the same conclusion about the colors of the dress, both admitting we need more information due to shadows and lighting, both having access to the same information. (Google)

Now if you could do the same for the key...."
*


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > No, that's not true. We both came to the same conclusion about the colors of the dress...
> ...



What is this faith crap?  Faith has nothing to do with the damn colors of a dress.  We both have access to the same info. We both know that due to the shade and lighting we cannot determine the color without more information.

Now that you're changing your story and admitting your brain has already come to a conclusion without knowing the facts, that's your problem.  It sounds like you're doing the same thing with the key, as you are with the dress.


----------



## theword (Feb 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...


God is the Creator of everything, including all the illusions He formed from His creation such as aliens and their space ships, ghosts, demon looking images, Jesus, angels, people, beasts, flies, worms, fish, birds, etc.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > I don't mind saying that I'm not 100% certain, but *Gawd* is very improbable....
> ...


How can anyone NOT believe that such slogans and cliches' came directly from one of your fundamentalist creation ministries?


----------



## Boss (Feb 28, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



The dress can't be both sets of colors, it doesn't matter that I stated this, it's an immutable truth. Another truth is, you and I, along with any other human with the ability of sight, look at the dress and see color. We don't see an outline of the dress in neutral gray with a question mark. Our brains are not inconclusive as to the color, they see clearly the dress is white and gold, or black and blue, or something else and that is what our eyes have told our brain. It is our mind which overrides what our brain tells us. 

You and I can both agree, there is not enough information to know the truth. Regardless, you see the dress as some color and so do I. Our opinion is based on what our eyes have told our brain. We have the same information, we both admit the truth is unknown, and our opinions can be different because our eyes see the evidence differently.  And even though "physical evidence" of what our eyes see and tell the brain, our minds have the ability to disregard this evidence and consider other possibility. 

Now, there is a big difference between the dress and the key. Most obviously, the key is a metaphor and not a physical dress we can all see. In order to draw an analogy between the dress and key, we have to imagine a viral internet image of a dress everyone is talking about, but some people see no dress at all. It's just an indiscernible image of muddled colors to you. The conclusion your brain has reached is, there is no dress and these people are delusional. Furthermore, you are devoutly determined not to let your mind override what your brain has told you to believe. You don't see a dress so you can't rationalize how someone else can.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 28, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > .....Because I don't know where the key is......
> ...


Well fuck it if we're condemned already. Lol

By the way yes whenever you quote the bible its creepy.


----------



## Boss (Feb 28, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> What is this faith crap? Faith has nothing to do with the damn colors of a dress. We both have access to the same info. We both know that due to the shade and lighting we cannot determine the color without more information.
> 
> Now that you're changing your story and admitting your brain has already come to a conclusion without knowing the facts, that's your problem. It sounds like you're doing the same thing with the key, as you are with the dress.



Your brain works the same as mine. When you looked at the dress, you saw it as some combination of colors, not question marks. You can refuse to divulge your perception and proclaim there is not enough information to conclude the truth, but we already agree on this. You still have a biased opinion (as do I) on what color the dress really is. This is based on our visual perception, even though we admit our perception can be wrong. 

The truth is, the dress exists and has some combination of colors. Our faith is based on our opinion which is based on the information available. If you read a story today about the person who started the dress debate and they claim the dress is really white and gold, your faith may lead you to believe this is truth. However, if you read tomorrow that someone else has claimed credit for the dress photo, and they claim it's blue and black, you may question your faith. 

I am sure that one of the great philosophers probably stated this much better than myself, but humans are unable to ever know truths. All we can aspire to do is have faith in what we believe are the truths.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




We both know that dresses exist.  We have scientific proof.  We could probably even trace the beginning of the dress to a sweat shop in the Philippines. We might disagree on the color of the dress, but there is no denying that dresses exist. We can see them, feel them, and even wear them.

Now this key to the magical gates of heaven is different, because no one has ever actually seen the key. There's no physical evidence that the key exists. You have faith that the key exists, but your faith doesn't trump reality.


----------



## RandomVariable (Feb 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > What is this faith crap? Faith has nothing to do with the damn colors of a dress. We both have access to the same info. We both know that due to the shade and lighting we cannot determine the color without more information.
> ...


Just buy a stupid spectrometer already!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > What is this faith crap? Faith has nothing to do with the damn colors of a dress. We both have access to the same info. We both know that due to the shade and lighting we cannot determine the color without more information.
> ...


I have faith that the Abraham religions are all made up. Before they were invented people like us debated if gods existed. We see now that the arguments theists make are sketchy and flawed but still good enough for you all and that's fine with us. No harm in believing something must have created everything we see.

It was theists who ruined the debate by claiming they met god. I have faith they are liars. But I don't mind your generic god. All he asks is that you be good.


----------



## Boss (Feb 28, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> There's no physical evidence that the key exists. You have faith that the key exists, but your faith doesn't trump reality.



As we learned from the dress, physical evidence is not always reliable and doesn't always reveal the truth. We've also learned our perceptions of the physical evidence can differ greatly and we can hold completely different opinions. 

You are absolutely correct, there is no physical evidence of spiritual things or those spiritual things would immediately become physical. No one has claimed that spiritual is physical. 

Faith does trump reality.  You can't see reality. It is impossible for humans to sense the present. Look at yourself in the mirror... that was you in the past. It took time for light to bounce off you, reflect in the mirror, go through your eyes, transmit signals from your optic nerve to brain and for your brain to register the signal and process the information. Everything you see is in the past, not a part of present reality. 

You have faith that reality is happening because you see the past evidence of it.


----------



## Boss (Feb 28, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



My God doesn't ask anything. Why would something omnipotent have to ask me for something? To me, God is a spiritual energy force. I have sometimes likened this to electricity... not because God=Electricity, but because electricity is an energy force most people can relate to. The electricity is there whether you can see it or not. If you need faith, you can stick a knife in the outlet and the evidence will be provided that electricity is there, even though you can't see it. The electricity doesn't "care" what you do. It's not demanding you use it properly or wisely... hell, you can strap someone into an electric chair and kill them for all it cares. Electricity has no feelings and emotions, it's not human. Now, it's not omnipotent so we've learned to tame it and control it, and you can utilize the electricity to your advantage, that's up to you. The electricity doesn't hate Mennonites and the Amish because they choose to live without it. It's not because the electricity became angry that it caused a fire and burned your house down, that was caused by you not respecting the power.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > There's no physical evidence that the key exists. You have faith that the key exists, but your faith doesn't trump reality.
> ...




That doesn't make a lick of sense.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Feb 28, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


that then would be your choice....


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



_“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent._
_Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent._
_Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?_
_Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_ – Epicurus

So God doesn't hate me because I choose to live without him?  And in your analogy, is god going to burn my house down figuratively speaking because I don't "respect" his power?


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> To me, God is a spiritual energy force.


.
being "spiritual" as an energy force described above would imply a discernible physical or tangible property, unlike non spiritual electricity that is incapable of alteration but simply exists, in fact if spiritual were not synonymous with being discernible (physical) like electricity it would be alien to living beings which it is not.

however, truth be told, throughout history no example of a Spiritual presence has ever been recorded ... or at least the "key" to its existence has not yet been correctly made available - so much for biblical renditions.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 28, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



There is general agreement among scholars that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) show a high level of cross-reference. The usual explanation, the Two-source hypothesis, is that Mark was written first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and the hypothetical Q document. 

Early Christian tradition held that the Gospel of Matthew was written in "Hebrew" (Aramaic, the language of Judea) by the apostle Matthew, the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus, but according to the majority of modern scholars it is unlikely that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness. Modern scholars interpret the tradition to mean that Papias, its source, writing about 125–150 CE, believed that Matthew had made a collection of the sayings of Jesus. Papias's description does not correspond well with what is known of the gospel: it was most probably written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, it depends on the Greek Gospels of Mark and on the hypothetical Q document, and it is not a collection of sayings. Although the identity of the author is unknown, the internal evidence of the Gospel suggests that he was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria, and that he wrote between 70 and 100 CE using a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




False Equivalence! Yes, if you stick a knife in an electrical socket you'll find scientific proof of electricity....NO FAITH REQUIRED!

Your entire post falls under "Fallacy of misplaced concreteness."


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I found this and thought of you:  Wishful seeing is the phenomenon in which a person's internal state influences their visual perception. People have the tendency to believe that they perceive the world for what it is, but research suggests otherwise. 

Didn't you say you've seen or felt god?  Wishful seeing or wishful feeling is what that is.


----------



## Boss (Feb 28, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> So God doesn't hate me because I choose to live without him? And in your analogy, is god going to burn my house down figuratively speaking because I don't "respect" his power?



I have no way of knowing what fate is going to befall someone who doesn't have a strong spiritual connection. As with any force or power in nature, I assume it should be respected. But the thing is, you can't really abuse or disrespect an energy you don't believe in. 

No, the biggest thing is you'll just never realize the benefits of spiritual connection.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > So God doesn't hate me because I choose to live without him? And in your analogy, is god going to burn my house down figuratively speaking because I don't "respect" his power?
> ...


I'm afraid that as the Grand Poobah and Head Mucky Muck of your _Religion of Spiritual Connection_s, you're just typical in your use of not-so-subtle and implied threats for not buying in to the dogma.


----------



## Boss (Feb 28, 2015)

Hollie said:


> I'm afraid that as the Grand Poobah and Head Mucky Muck of your _Religion of Spiritual Connection_s, you're just typical in your use of not-so-subtle and implied threats for not buying in to the dogma.



I think you must be delusional.  ...Threats?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 28, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



He doesnt seem to be saying non believers are punished.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm afraid that as the Grand Poobah and Head Mucky Muck of your _Religion of Spiritual Connection_s, you're just typical in your use of not-so-subtle and implied threats for not buying in to the dogma.
> ...


I think you must be suffering from the affects of your _Religion of Spiritual Connection_s.

What you wrote was: 
"I have no way of knowing what fate is going to befall someone who doesn't have a strong spiritual connection."

Why is there a "fate" imposed for not believing in your _Religion of Spiritual Connection_s?

Who will impose such "fate"?

Is your _Religion of Spiritual Connection_s run by a syndicate of gawds named Guido and Nunzio who will make non-believers an offer they can't refuse?

Really, boss. Your _Religion of Spiritual Connection_s is nothing more than a knock-off of other religions that claim to impose a supernatural spanking for not trembling in fear at the altar of the various gawds who manage the affairs of the dogma and doctrine.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 28, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


He admitted this supernatural force doesn't care. That's a start. I don't even think he believes there is a punishment for not believing other than miising out on a big plate of ignorant bliss.

Today I had a blind date with a christian. I didn't dare tell her her god is not real. I didn't have the heart to do it.  The way she talked about god I couldn't speak my mind on the subject. See us atheists aren't total assholes. Maybe when I get to know her better but I don't think you can tell a person who believes this crap the truth without hurting their feelings. Imagine not wanting to be friends with someone just because they dont share your delusion. I'm sure lots of men don't tell their wives they don't believe they just shut up and go to church because when in Rome...

Anyways she's a real sweet romanian woman. The date went well. She's real easy to talk to and made me feel relaxed and we are going to see each other again. Is it wrong to not tell her I'm an atheist? I think it isnt worth it. Just go along and pretend. Lol

I know! I'll become an atheist later. I'll even try to get her to realize its all made up as im realizing it. I'll watch the cosmos with her and ask her how it all makes sense to her. If she's devout and a good catch I'm going to keep my thoughts to myself at least at first.


----------



## Boss (Feb 28, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I never said a fate was imposed. I assume you have a fate which lies ahead like the rest of us. Unless you plan on not having a fate? 

I never said any particular fate was going to befall you for not believing, I said I had no way of knowing. 



> Is your _Religion of Spiritual Connection_s run by a syndicate of gawds named Guido and Nunzio who will make non-believers an offer they can't refuse?
> 
> Really, boss. Your _Religion of Spiritual Connection_s is nothing more than a knock-off of other religions that claim to impose a supernatural spanking for not trembling in fear at the altar of the various gawds who manage the affairs of the dogma and doctrine.



No, spiritual nature isn't run by a syndicate or person, there is no dogma or doctrine guiding it. I've not argued for a religion, I've not claimed you need to adhere to my beliefs, I have not attacked you for what you believe. But repeatedly in this thread and others, you continue to show your ass, be a totally obnoxious bitch, spew absolute lies and hate with every post, and offer nothing to the debate.


----------



## Boss (Feb 28, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yep.. It's always wise to build a foundation for your relationship on lies and deception. That's a winning plan right there, Boob!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You theists do it to us. You make us crazy! Hard not to lump you all together. Lol

To me it seems the universe is a living thing. Suns beat like a heart. So do planets. Aren't planets just wanna be stars not hot enough to burn bright but hot in the core? Its all amazing.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Is it so important that I have to tell her my every belief and see what are deal breakers? I like anal. Should I tell her on the first date? Maybe I will tactfully ask her how religious she is and let her know I have my doubt's. Just not on the first date. 

Do I care if she believes in UFOs ghosts and the lochness monster? So why should I care if she believes in gods?

I'm sure though I'll eventually tell her. Not until after I've been balls deep of course.


----------



## rdean (Mar 1, 2015)

I had a spell once.  Actually, it was a spelling bee.  And I won.


----------



## Boss (Mar 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> You theists do it to us. You make us crazy! Hard not to lump you all together. Lol
> 
> To me it seems the universe is a living thing. Suns beat like a heart. So do planets. Aren't planets just wanna be stars not hot enough to burn bright but hot in the core? Its all amazing.



Uhm, you were crazier than a loon the first time I ever talked to you here. Don't blame that on me! Besides, how many times do I need to tell you that I am not a religious person? Closed-minded bigots lump people all together. 

It is interesting how you can see the universe is amazing and seems to have a life of it's own. Fascinating that you are aware of something greater, though you can't define it so you've decided to rebuke and reject it. You exhibit all the classic signs of someone in complete denial. 

No, planets are nothing like stars, in fact, planets aren't even like each other. Some are gas giants, some have molten cores, some have atmospheres and magnetic fields. Ours has an abundance of water, unlike any other planet in our solar system, or any other planet we've seen, for that matter. 

Suns are like giant nuclear reactors made of mostly helium and hydrogen. They range is size and intensity, our sun is relatively small. Now again, I take you back to the origin of the universe, however you believe that happened... IF certain constants had been different by just a hair, suns and planets couldn't have formed. To me, this is a very important observation. 

We shoot off fireworks and marvel at the beauty of the pattern of design... do we believe fireworks just so happen to do this? Bunch of Chinese stuff some gunpowder in a tube and viola! Beautiful fireworks! Of course not! The firework is carefully constructed in a certain way. It has to be built that way to get the desired effect. If there is any deviation in how the firework is constructed, it doesn't work. Now, I have no idea how to build a firework to make it do certain things... don't have a clue. But somebody does! I have enough sense to know it's not magic or random chance, even though I can't explain it or identify who did it.


----------



## Boss (Mar 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Yep.. It's always wise to build a foundation for your relationship on lies and deception. That's a winning plan right there, Boob!
> ...



Wow.. It's amazing to see how brazenly proud you are about being a sleaze with such low character as to deceive people in order to get sex. My experience has been, people with such little sense of ethics can't ever be trusted. 

I guess I can be relieved this girl isn't one of my daughters. They are way too smart for someone like you. They would have culled you long before any first date. Not much gets by their bullshit meters.


----------



## Boss (Mar 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Didn't you say you've seen or felt god? Wishful seeing or wishful feeling is what that is.



You can't see God any more than you can see Gravity. Feel God? Well, we exist.. therefore any feeling we have is caused by God. I guess I don't get the question. 

"Wishful" means that I am doing something with the wish that it will bring about something else. If I were spiritually connected merely in hopes of some realization yet to happen, I would abandon it. I don't get this. I've tried to explain to you numerous times now, that I get a benefit from being spiritually connected and having a strong sense of spirituality. How else can I state that so you might comprehend? There is nothing 'wishful' about it.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You theists do it to us. You make us crazy! Hard not to lump you all together. Lol
> ...


If you can't explain it why assume a god designed it? Maybe a god did I it but maybe not. I use to think god existed now I just seriously doubt it. It just seems made up based on all the arguments you make. And although you make some interesting arguments the jury is still out in fact  I lean towards disbelief. Luckily for me people don't go to hell for not believing in your invisible friend.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I'd just tell them I was born Greek orthodox but I'm "not very religious".

And I'm a great guy! I'll be good to her! Just like god is a lie but you guys think believing in him is good for people, I may lie but I'm good for her.

What if she's afraid of black cats? Should I end the date because shes superstitious? That's stupid and superstitious.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You theists do it to us. You make us crazy! Hard not to lump you all together. Lol
> ...


You're the one trying to define our amazing universe as god. Everything you can't explain or understand must be god. Your arguments are the same weak arguments theists made before the Abraham religions were made up. Your arguments werent winning any debates so Abraham said god talked to him and now you theists finally had proof your creator existed! Now go write your book.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You theists do it to us. You make us crazy! Hard not to lump you all together. Lol
> ...


Planets are a lot like stars in fact they were born from stars. So were you. Everything you see is made of star stuff.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You theists do it to us. You make us crazy! Hard not to lump you all together. Lol
> ...


I make a camp fire and marvel at the beauty and design of the logs as they burn.  It all boils down to you can't believe we are here if no one put us here. You believe something must have intelligently put us here on purpose for a reason and by design. Maybe.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Are you kidding me? You have no idea how many people you know think you're full of shit because they just listen and nod politely as you ramble on about your bastardized version of god.

Atheists Muslims Jews Mormons and christians all think you are fos. How did you find a woman who believes like you do? Did you tell her before you had sex with her that you aren't a christian?


----------



## Boss (Mar 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> You're the one trying to define our amazing universe as god. Everything you can't explain or understand must be god. Your arguments are the same weak arguments theists made before the Abraham religions were made up.



We've already established that human spirituality dates back to the origin of human civilization. This attribute is not an argument, it's an undeniable trait found in 95% of the species for all it's existence. You are trying to dismiss it as a failed argument, but this defies science. The attribute would simply not exist in the species if it weren't fundamental. 

I've already addressed your meme about "god did it" and nothing has changed, people who believe in God already believe God did everything. They assume this whether they can explain how or not. Science is exploring the *unknown* to find answers, so how is "God did it" any sort of logical approach? It doesn't answer any question for someone who already believes God did it. Science is about discovering _*HOW*_ God did it.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> We've already established that human spirituality dates back to the origin of human civilization.


No YOU didn't, YOU simply pontificated.


----------



## Boss (Mar 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You totally missed the point on the fireworks analogy. Let's get it straight on what I believe specifically... I believe our intricately fine-tuned universe was created by some guiding intuitive force which we are unable to understand. I do not believe there is a possibility for physical nature and life to be created otherwise. I am comfortable calling this force spiritual nature or God. I'm fine with admitting I don't have proof of this entity and only faith. I don't expect physical science to ever explain it and that isn't required for me to accept it. 

Whether there is some ultimate purpose or reason, I have to assume there probably is. I base this on the logic that most things do happen for a reason. We are drawn to light, away from darkness... time moves in one direction... we are compelled spiritually to better ourselves and do "good" as opposed to "bad" so all these things seem to indicate a clear path or course... a purpose and reason. What is it? Don't know! Don't claim to know!


----------



## Boss (Mar 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We've already established that human spirituality dates back to the origin of human civilization.
> ...



It's established in archeology as well as it can be established from a scientific perspective. (Sans the idiot morons who want to argue ritual burial ceremonies aren't spirituality.)


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Burial rites may be superstitious, but that doesn't in any way establish as a fact that 95% of Neanderthals practiced the superstition.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one trying to define our amazing universe as god. Everything you can't explain or understand must be god. Your arguments are the same weak arguments theists made before the Abraham religions were made up.
> ...


Science explains the benefits of religion and why people believe. I've explained it to you. And we are still a very young unevolved primitive uneducated superstitious species. We are very young. Babies need god. We won't always be babies. Even you have evolved to be smart enough not to buy any organized religions bullshit. But you actually just took a step back because your arguments were the arguments made before the organized religions were made up. Why were they made up? Because your arguments werent enough. Next!


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So I guess I probably will get around to telling that girl I have my doubt's but I don't think it needs to be a deal breaker if shes nice. Hell I'll even go back in the closet if she's nice enough. Christian girls are wild in bed. 

Trust me bro yod be lucky to have me as a son in law. I'd treat your daughter right and teach your grandkids how to be good people and why. Not so one day they can make it into the pearly gates.

Funny theists worry about their souls living for eternity and atheists seem to be more worried that our species lives forever. So who do you think care more about the planet? Fuck it right you'll be in heaven when it all ends. In fact didn't the martin Luther's believe the end days were soon them? Didn't Jesus followers believe the second coming would be in their lifetime? You keep thinking this way because the fools back then were superstitious. You're a fool.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 1, 2015)

Hey boss. Imagine me as your son in law at thanksgiving arguing with you about this shit. Lol. Dont worry pops I'd let you win.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Great point. It was simply a tradition that caught on. So the buzzards wouldn't get them or to kill or bury the deseased. Or burn them.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I'm sorry, but it simply isn't true that a "majority of modern scholars" believe that......it would be more accurate to state that a whole lot of atheists with a total disregard for scholastic research believe that.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> To me it seems the universe is a living thing. Suns beat like a heart. So do planets. Aren't planets just wanna be stars not hot enough to burn bright but hot in the core? Its all amazing.


????.....but why?....according to your beliefs it only exists because some other universe had a bad case of diarrhea......


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 1, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > To me it seems the universe is a living thing. Suns beat like a heart. So do planets. Aren't planets just wanna be stars not hot enough to burn bright but hot in the core? Its all amazing.
> ...


Ever look at what a cut looks like under a microscope? The blood rushes in and then a clot seals it. That's our universe.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Hey boss. Imagine me as your son in law at thanksgiving arguing with you about this shit. Lol. Dont worry pops I'd let you win.


silly, if you were my son in law you wouldn't be invited over for Thanksgiving......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


God's designs are in truth, wonderful......


----------



## Boss (Mar 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Great point. It was simply a tradition that caught on. So the buzzards wouldn't get them or to kill or bury the deseased. Or burn them.



Sorry... Warding off buzzards does not explain ritual ceremonies with red ocher. 

No, they were practicing spirituality. And eddy, spirituality is not superstition.


----------



## Boss (Mar 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Science explains the benefits of religion and why people believe. I've explained it to you.



No, you gave me a bunch of atheist opinion masquerading as science and I didn't let you get away with that. Yes, we can see benefits from religion, but we can't justify the existence of religion on this basis because history is full of examples where it wasn't beneficial to be religious. That got you dead. So we understand that religion has existed when it was beneficial and also when it wasn't. This is because Religion is driven by intrinsic human spirituality. 

Science has not pinpointed when man supposedly "invented" spirituality. You can claim that as an opinion, you can't claim it's a scientific fact. It's just not.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 1, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Yep. Your gawds blueprint for the cancer cell is in truth, wonderful.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Science explains the benefits of religion and why people believe. I've explained it to you.
> ...


There is no such thing as your religion of "intrinsic human spirituality". 

Your reciting of slogans and cliches' is a propensity for cultists.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Great point. It was simply a tradition that caught on. So the buzzards wouldn't get them or to kill or bury the deseased. Or burn them.
> ...


That is exactly what it is, now prove your 95% claim.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Science has not pinpointed when man supposedly "invented" spirituality. You can claim that as an opinion, you can't claim it's a scientific fact. It's just not.


Well it was the Neanderthals who started the superstitious burial rituals you define as "spiritualism," so what is so unscientific about Neanderthals inventing burial superstitions/spiritualism?
And prove 95% of Neanderthals were superstitious.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


except a cancer cell is an abnormal cell......it has distorted God's blueprint, just as your brain has.......you were not intended to be so ignorant......it is the impact of atheism upon your thoughts that have caused that cancerous abnormality between your ears........


----------



## Hollie (Mar 1, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


How typical. You pick and choose the elements of your religion as though you were ordering Chinese food.

I guess we have to conclude your gawds were just inept and incompetent "designers" who couldn't get so many things right. 

Atheism is not an abnormality. Most of the planet is atheistic toward your polytheistic gawds.


----------



## Boss (Mar 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Science has not pinpointed when man supposedly "invented" spirituality. You can claim that as an opinion, you can't claim it's a scientific fact. It's just not.
> ...



Total rubbish. Only some isolated Neanderthal tribes in Europe ever practiced any form or spirituality. It is believed they were merely trying to copy their homo sapien counterparts as their species was dying out. The act of burial is not spiritual. The act of ritual ceremony is spiritual. 

As for the 95% of humans who have always been spiritual, I can't post the statistical data here, there is not enough room for over 100,000 years of human history. There have been civilizations where 100% were spiritual, there have some where maybe only 10% were spiritual. They didn't last long, but they tried. All told, about 95% of our species has always been spiritual. I don't care if you don't like that statistic.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What I don't like is YOUR pontification.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your _95%_ slogan is just that, a slogan. It's another of your "because I say so" arguments, totally void substantiation.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


We're also very young in the grand scheme of things. Just because we were superstitious the first 100,000 years doesnt mean we will be for the next million years. 95% of the people that lived the last 100,000 were also really stupid. You can't make a watch telescope engine eye glasses airplane lightbulb hell you probably don't even know how to make fire probably.

If it weren't for the 5% like Carl Sagan or Darwin where would we be? No coincidence a high number of intelligent scientists are athiests. 

Newton may have been religious but nothing ever came from his quest to find hidden messages in the bible.  

So in a way you're smarter than newton because you know the bibles a bunch of hooey.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Science has not pinpointed when man supposedly "invented" spirituality. You can claim that as an opinion, you can't claim it's a scientific fact. It's just not.
> ...


Boss says is if the native americans came up with gods and the Greeks came up with gods and because ancient primitive uneducated man always believed we are stuck with their invention. Because they couldn't imagine any other way and neither can boss there must be a creator. It it intelligent? Does it care? Is it eternal? Does it dedicate? Did it build a heaven for christians only? Did it talk to moses Noah or impregnate Mary? What do you think?

Its such a stupid thought. Like ghosts or angels or Satan.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


How many Persians in iran or Arabs in the middle east dont believe but stay silent? How many atheists in China india Japan Europe canada australia Africa South america and america? 

Bet we're more than 5%. And growing ever since the Enlightenment over the past few hundred years.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 1, 2015)

.
spirituality has nothing to do with religion, its origin is purely derived from within the Garden the beings inhabit.

humanities version is greatly corrupted by its artificial settlements, cities that are abstractions that for many cause them to lose their direction from the origin of life and a true spirituality.

.


----------



## Boss (Mar 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> How many Persians in iran or Arabs in the middle east dont believe but stay silent? How many atheists in China india Japan Europe canada australia Africa South america and america?
> 
> Bet we're more than 5%. And growing ever since the Enlightenment over the past few hundred years.



I don't know how man don't believe but stay silent... How many believe but claim they don't? Seems like if we get into what people feel instead of what they say, we can rationalize all kinds of statistics that aren't valid. 

Nihilism is the belief in absolute nothingness. No God, no possibility for one, no spiritual nature, no possibility for any, nothing greater than human minds, no possibility of anything else, ever, end of story. These people represent about 5% of the species and there has never been any civilization where this number was much higher.


----------



## Boss (Mar 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It's not an invention. You have to prove this in order to claim it. We've been through this already, so stop being stubborn and claiming this when you have no basis for the claim. 

Especially something that completely contradicts everything we know about animal behavior. Not a damn living thing has ever "invented" a fundamental attribute of it's species. Attributes are formed over time and develop, they aren't inventions. Attributes which have no beneficial purpose are forgotten and discarded in favor of attributes which help the species thrive. 

So all your "invented hocus pocus" claims are invalid. This is why you have zero evidence of a pinpoint in time where man "invented" spirituality. It has been with man all along as an intrinsic attribute.


----------



## Boss (Mar 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> We're also very young in the grand scheme of things. Just because we were superstitious the first 100,000 years doesnt mean we will be for the next million years.



Spirituality is not superstition.  You can believe that but it's not true. Like religion, superstitions are evidence of human spirituality at work inside a fertile imagination. It is unfortunately because we are spiritually aware and have such  a spiritually inspired mind, that we can imagine superstitious beliefs. 

A lot of religions are superstitious in nature, I won't argue that, but again... religions are also a byproduct of our human spirituality. Our spirituality is not superstition because that's where superstition comes from... do you see any signs of superstition anywhere else in nature? Superstitions without the spirituality basis makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... it defies nature.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > We're also very young in the grand scheme of things. Just because we were superstitious the first 100,000 years doesnt mean we will be for the next million years.
> ...


Your claims to spirit realms, magical gawds and supernatural entities certainly are superstitions. Superstitions are evidence of a child-like fear of the unknown. Those fears have been the basis for invention of uncounted gawds who were in control of natural forces not understood.

It's actually truly disturbing that you spend such enormous amounts of time promoting fear and superstition under the guise of your invented religion of _Boss's New Fangled Religion of Spirit Realms._


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > How many Persians in iran or Arabs in the middle east dont believe but stay silent? How many atheists in China india Japan Europe canada australia Africa South america and america?
> ...


This is just more of your endlessly recycled rattling of slogans and cliches'.

Your insistence on the promotion of the fear, ignorance and superstitions that haunt your existence has gone beyond creepy. At this point, just accept that you're not winning converts to _Boss's New Fangled Religion of Spirit Realms_.

Remember, L. Ron Hubbard failed in his first attempt at religion building until he found the "hook" he needed to rope people in which was the metaphysics of Dianetics. You need a hook there, Laddie, something more than silly slogans and cliches'.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Atheism is not an abnormality.  .


you have to admit it's irrational, however.....whether irrationality is abnormality doesn't really appear worth debating.......


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Atheism is not an abnormality.  .
> ...


I can admit you are an angry, self-loathing religious extremist who sets the stereotype for such behavior.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


just more evidence of an atheist being irrational......


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


It's not irrational to point out the hate that maintains your pathology.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 2, 2015)

????.....sure it is......


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> ????.....sure it is......


If your pathology calms an emotional requirement to maintain your self-loathing, your religion becomes a crutch.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > ????.....sure it is......
> ...


throwing words into the same sentence does not guarantee communication......

wouldn't any "loathing" require the inflaming of emotion rather than a calming?.....


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Do you find it a paradox that you find shelter for your insensate anger and self-loathing in an alleged "holy text"?


----------



## Boss (Mar 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Your claims to spirit realms, magical gawds and supernatural entities ...blah blah blah!



You're just a one trick pony, aren't you? In fact, when we read your posts, what we see is a shallow-minded person with little imagination. You can't even think up new insults, you just keep repeating the same ones over and over. And I guarantee you didn't come up with "gawds" ...no, that was created by someone much smarter than you, as were all your lines.  This primitive lack of any imagination is probably what did the Neanderthals in. I've noticed that people with little or no spirituality are also devoid of any creativity and imagination.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


that would require me to find your imagination a paradox (which I do), since I actually feel no self loathing........


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Your claims to spirit realms, magical gawds and supernatural entities ...blah blah blah!
> ...


That's odd. I've noticed that purveyors of religions which they have created in their own minds tend to recoil in shocked surprise when they're confronted with objective standards to support their religions. 

I'm afraid that you're a failed L Ron Hubbard wannabe and your _Religion of Magical Spirit Realms _fails the test of objective standards. Cheer up Bossy. Take solace in the fact that your religion fails the same test that other religions fail: the test of a standard of proof. For all your constant whining about why you demand others accept your specious claims to real and extant gawds, your gawds and your alleged daily communications with those gawds share the same logical errors, false premises and silly musings that accompany the claims of the man in the strait jacket who thinks himself to be Napoleon, and whose socks are being stolen on a nightly basis.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Of course you do. You parade it in these forums..........


----------



## Boss (Mar 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> That's odd. I've noticed that purveyors of religions which they have created in their own minds tend to recoil in shocked surprise when they're confronted with objective standards to support their religions.



Well that's even more odd because you don't have a clue what any of those words mean, you've never been objective and you don't have any standards.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 2, 2015)

I think some of you guys need to look up the word spirit and spiritual and see how Boss is using it.

The thing I would disagree with Boss on is that 95% of humans have a spiritual nature.  That suggest the other 5% of the population are like vegetables....I don't think we have that many human vegetables in the world.


However, when you talk about spiritualists that is when we start getting into the supernatural..


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > That's odd. I've noticed that purveyors of religions which they have created in their own minds tend to recoil in shocked surprise when they're confronted with objective standards to support their religions.
> ...


Wrong as usual, Bossy. This is the second thread you have opened with your continuing theme of hawking your _Religion of Magical Spirit Realms_. You got infuriated in that prior thread just as you are infuriated in this latest disaster of yours because you can't accept being held to a standard of demonstration. It's a simple matter, Bossy. Don't expect to post your silly musings regarding your spirit realms, gawds and "astral projection" nonsense and expect others to blithely proceed on as though they are under any obligation to accept your pointless "because I say so" claims.

Your laughable list of side show carnival attractions in the OP might well have included tarot card reading and 3 card Monty. Really Bossy, you shouldn't expect others to be so gullible as to mindlessly accept the fast-talking claims of the charlatans you are in thrall of.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> I think some of you guys need to look up the word spirit and spiritual and see how Boss is using it.
> 
> The thing I would disagree with Boss on is that 95% of humans have a spiritual nature.  That suggest the other 5% of the population are like vegetables....I don't think we have that many human vegetables in the world.
> 
> ...


If you look at the roll call of "adventures into the world of carnival freaks, scammers and crystal ball readers" that Bossy posted in the OP, he's apparently persuaded by the hawkers of magic and supernaturalism.

I suspect he spends a lot of time in his parents basement staring at forks and spoons and telling them "bend goddammit, bend".


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 2, 2015)

you want to hear something funny

There has been studies into ESP, telepathy, projection/remote viewing and some other kooky stuff.

However, most of the research has shown to be inconclusive.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > How many Persians in iran or Arabs in the middle east dont believe but stay silent? How many atheists in China india Japan Europe canada australia Africa South america and america?
> ...



Let me give you the perfect example of the average theist. They haven't given it much thought boss. They don't believe the stories of the bibles are ready. They admit they have their doubt but grew up catholic or Jewish or whatever boss. The point is they dont really believe. I'm a perfect example. Every Greek I know thinks I'm a Greek orthodox and they are too. I've talked to lots of guys who dont really believe but we all register on your radar as spiritual.

Bottom line is you believe because most dummies believe what they want to believe. Just because you all want it to be true is shit for evidence.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Before religions didn't people believe in astrology? Didn't Greeks go to the fortune tellers to find out what their fate would be? Kings only went to war if these mystics foretold a victory. Yea boss ignorant primitive men were spiritual and stupid just like you.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > We're also very young in the grand scheme of things. Just because we were superstitious the first 100,000 years doesnt mean we will be for the next million years.
> ...


There must be something to ghosts UFOs angels unicorns leprechauns Santa..


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Emily joined his little cult.


----------



## Boss (Mar 2, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> I think some of you guys need to look up the word spirit and spiritual and see how Boss is using it.
> 
> The thing I would disagree with Boss on is that 95% of humans have a spiritual nature.  That suggest the other 5% of the population are like vegetables....I don't think we have that many human vegetables in the world.
> 
> ...



I said 95% believe in something greater than self. This is based on the number of self-described Nihilists which is roughly 5%. I realize much of the 95% may not be very spiritually connected but 1.) that wasn't the claim, and 2.) the 95% seems to agitate Atheists immensely. 

I reject that spiritual is supernatural. The word 'supernatural' means outside of nature, and human spirituality is part of nature.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> *I said 95% believe in something greater than self.* This is based on the number of self-described Nihilists which is roughly 5%. I realize much of the 95% may not be very spiritually connected but 1.) that wasn't the claim, and 2.) the 95% seems to agitate Atheists immensely.
> 
> I reject that spiritual is supernatural. The word 'supernatural' means outside of nature, and human spirituality is part of nature.


As usual, that is not exactly what you said, which was quite a bit more expansive than that!


Boss said:


> We've already established* that human spirituality dates back to the origin of human civilization.* This attribute is not an argument, it's an undeniable trait* found in 95% of the species for all it's existence*.


----------



## Boss (Mar 2, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



It's getting old-- me totally destroying your arguments and making you look foolish, only to be met with yet another smart-ass retort that hasn't been well thought out. Before I address this latest post, do you understand how spirituality can't be superstition? How that completely defies all logic and reason? It's as dumb as trying to argue lightning is caused by the sound of thunder. 

Now to your latest nugget of stupidity... Unicorns, leprechauns and Santa are myths we constructed and have always been aware are myths. UFOs are unidentified flying objects and Project Blue Book should suffice in proving these phenomenon do exist, whether we can explain them or not. Note that I didn't say UFOs are flying saucers from another planet, just that UFOs do exist. Ghosts and angels fall into a category of their own which may have something to do with spiritual nature, we don't know. 

I have made no argument that "there must be something to it" based on a lot of people report it. A lot of people report being atheist and are certain God doesn't exist. The only something that must be to that is, people denying their human spirituality.


----------



## Boss (Mar 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *I said 95% believe in something greater than self.* This is based on the number of self-described Nihilists which is roughly 5%. I realize much of the 95% may not be very spiritually connected but 1.) that wasn't the claim, and 2.) the 95% seems to agitate Atheists immensely.
> ...



What-the-fuck-ever, dude! Did you run out of corn to pick from your poo?


----------



## Boss (Mar 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> You got infuriated in that prior thread just as you are infuriated in this latest disaster of yours...



Don't know how I am coming across as "infuriated" to you, but I am not in the least bit. I enjoy the hell out of picking off stupid atheist arguments. I do tend to get bored with morons like you who lack any imagination. It just seems to me a huge waste of time and energy to continue typing the same paragraph over and over for days, weeks, months on end. Doesn't that get old to you?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You got infuriated in that prior thread just as you are infuriated in this latest disaster of yours...
> ...


Read your own posts, Bossy. You're as angry and infuriated as you were in the previous thread you opened wherein you pressed your religion of _spirit realms_ and you convinced no one of your New Fangled gawds. 

It gets old, Bossy. You use the same goofy slogans and cliches' in this thread as the other. Speaking of no imagination. You couldn't sell your spirit realm nonsense in the prior thread, why would you think you could sell it here?

Consider shuffling back to Harun Yahya and plead for another chance to win converts. Maybe another message board will allow you to find the converts you so desperately want.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I'm not the only one trying to explain why you are wrong. And if all those Muslims Jews and christians all think youre going to hell there must be something to it.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You got infuriated in that prior thread just as you are infuriated in this latest disaster of yours...
> ...


That's what you have an imagination.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


interesting......can you give me an example of what it is you consider self-loathing?.....


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Interesting.... Are you so clueless you can't proof read your own comments?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 2, 2015)

I'm quite familiar with my own posts.....I see nothing in them that shows self-loathing....I am curious what it looks like.....


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> I'm quite familiar with my own posts.....I see nothing in them that shows self-loathing....I am curious what it looks like.....


You're clueless regarding your own scribbling..... Your scribbling is rife with self-loathing, fear, anxiety, ignorance, etc....... you should correct your failings.......,


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > I'm quite familiar with my own posts.....I see nothing in them that shows self-loathing....I am curious what it looks like.....
> ...



Do you mean the christian schtick where we are all sinners and will never live up or be worth of god? That kind of guilt and self loathing?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Yep, that kind. 

Christians, (especially the fundamentalist breed), are in quite a predicament. They cannot withstand a world wherein humans are the final arbiters of our destiny, that our actions need to be watched over and managed by a father figure (never seen), and that human progress is inherently impossible without the guidance of the father figure. Finally, the really angry, self-loathing Christian is in a psychological dilemma of superiority/inferiority and hate/self-hate. They are told they are born evil, base, and carrying the sins of A&E.  They are told that they are so vaunted by their gods that this entire realm of existence was created exclusively for them, but at the same time, they are so evil, base and unworthy of existence that they are but expendable property in the sight of their deities. That is a prescription for a maladjusted personality and it's evident by the seething hate / self-hate that the hyper-religious project on themselves and those around them.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


But you can't prove its not true. Lol. You are so well spoken. Just know when they bash you I think you say the truth brilliantly. You even bust bosses balls for inventing his own god. He created him out of a buffet of god parts.  The parts he doesnt like he just doesnt swallow.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > I'm quite familiar with my own posts.....I see nothing in them that shows self-loathing....I am curious what it looks like.....
> ...


Why just because we see your religion is no different from the other 999?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 2, 2015)

I got 99 problems and religion ain't one.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 2, 2015)

Bottom line is bosses arguments dont prove anything. And we know it all makes perfect sense to him but consider what makes sense to other theists. Talking snakes Noah Jonah burning Bush's virgin births and that god came through Mary the virgin I can't even continue. Its all just so damn stupid. Us athiests have to be militant. How else does someone wake a sleepwalker who do t wake up from a whisper? Eventually you have to say wake the fuck up! Youre sick and you dont know it. Dumb desease


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 2, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Bottom line is bosses arguments dont prove anything.



*How do the non-spiritual explain it? *


seems the "spiritualist" have their own lacking as to what they are trying to explain ... or understand.

.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > I'm quite familiar with my own posts.....I see nothing in them that shows self-loathing....I am curious what it looks like.....
> ...


again, give me an example of my postings which demonstrate self loathing....personally I think this is just another example of you posting meaningless slogans......


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Again...... I clearly outlined the reasons for your self-loathing and hate...... personally I think this is yet another example of your inability to follow simple directions......


----------



## Boss (Mar 3, 2015)

Hollie said:


> I clearly outlined the reasons for your self-loathing and hate



You clearly outlined reasons for something you can't present evidence for?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I clearly outlined the reasons for your self-loathing and hate
> ...


You clearly don't understand. And no, I can present no evidence for your invented spirit realms, manufactured gawds and supernatural events, and neither can you.


----------



## Boss (Mar 3, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Bottom line is bosses arguments dont prove anything. And we know it all makes perfect sense to him but consider what makes sense to other theists. Talking snakes Noah Jonah burning Bush's virgin births and that god came through Mary the virgin I can't even continue. Its all just so damn stupid. Us athiests have to be militant. How else does someone wake a sleepwalker who do t wake up from a whisper? Eventually you have to say wake the fuck up! Youre sick and you dont know it. Dumb desease



I don't understand why you think I am trying to prove something with my arguments? I can never prove anything spiritual to someone who doesn't believe in the spiritual. Why would I try?  Why does Hollie think I am here to sell something?  Is this what you and Hollie are here for? To prove an argument and to sell something? Must be, since that's what you've assumed I am doing. 

The only arguments you'll find from me are ones which refute your attempts to claim science in support of your atheism. I'm not going to let you get away with false claims about humans inventing spirituality. I'm not going to let you define spirituality as superstition. Your invalid rationalizations and opinions are not going to fly as valid science. 

You are more than happy to throw the baby out with the bath water here. Anyone can read your posts and see that you are unsure about the "no god" claims you've made. You keep having to apply caveats to define specific Gods you don't believe in. You admitted that "it doesn't seem likely" the universe doesn't have some controlling force or reason and purpose. At one time, you said you believed in Karma. 

I think you are trying your best to deny a spiritual nature you know is real. What's worse, the reason you're doing this is some personal beef you have with Christianity. Maybe their position on gay marriage and abortion? Or maybe it's more personal? Perhaps they closed down your porn shop and strip club? In any event, the Christians seem to have put a bee in your bonnet and now you're ready to sail all human spirituality up the river... even if you have to pervert science and lie to yourself to do so.


----------



## Boss (Mar 3, 2015)

Hollie said:


> You clearly don't understand.



I clearly understand you accused PmP of being "self-loathing" and he asked you for an example, which you never provided. Then you proceeded to 'splain the reasons he was self-loathing. This provides us with a good snapshot of how the Mind of Hollie operates. (It's like a three-speed blender, but the knob is broke.)


----------



## Boss (Mar 3, 2015)

Hollie said:


> And no, *I can present no evidence*...



GOOD! That was ALL you needed to say! 
...Now shut your pie hole and move on like a good little atheist dingbat.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Boss said:


> Don't know how I am coming across as "infuriated" to you, but I am not in the least bit.


The perpetual dumb act as cover for lying.


----------



## Abishai100 (Mar 3, 2015)

*Folk Facial*

I want to focus on the sentimentalism behind politics, since such talk is characteristic of modern-age drama (i.e., public access government TV).

For example, is the American vigilantism-critique populism art avatar Green Arrow (DC Comics) a street-chic version of England's Robin Hood?

That is, should we feel guilty about romanticism?





Street Justice - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 3, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Again...... I clearly outlined the reasons for your self-loathing and hate...... .


but no examples....I guess your reasoning fell a bit short......again......


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > And no, *I can present no evidence*...
> ...


An example of your typical dishonesty by selectively editing and parsing the comments of others.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Again...... I clearly outlined the reasons for your self-loathing and hate...... .
> ...


You're in denial of the examples previously supplied.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You clearly don't understand.
> ...


You poor dear. Are you again lashing out because your arguments are pointless and nothing more than appeals to your invented gawds?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I clearly outlined the reasons for your self-loathing and hate
> ...


I clearly outlined reasons for what I presented evidence for. 

Pay attention. 

Where is the evidence for your claimed spirit realms which you invented as part of your new fangled religion?


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 3, 2015)

Abishai100 said:


> *Folk Facial*
> 
> I want to focus on the sentimentalism behind politics, since such talk is characteristic of modern-age drama (i.e., public access government TV).
> 
> ...


.






*
"... is the American vigilantism-critique populism art avatar Green Arrow (DC Comics) a street-chic version of England's Robin Hood" ?*

not in the sense of ... *American vigilantism-critique populism* *art* - - as encompassing the subject matter.

*
" I want to focus on the sentimentalism behind politics, since such talk is characteristic of modern-age drama (i.e., public access government TV)".*


I believe the moralistic code from the televised English, Robin Hood was quite different - however whether Spiritualism is influenced by modern media I would say that is possible.

.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 3, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I fully and freely admit denying that examples have previously been supplied.....


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


But examples have been supplied. You're in denial. Deal with it.


----------



## dblack (Mar 3, 2015)

This is such an interesting topic.  But, here at least,  it always creates the most tedious threads.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2015)

dblack said:


> This is such an interesting topic.  But, here at least,  it always creates the most tedious threads.


It's not very interesting. This is the second thread opened by Bossy wherein he does nothing but engage in heavy handed proselytizing for his religion of spirit realms and one or more gawds he claims to have daily communications with.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 3, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


can you give the post # at least?.....


----------



## Boss (Mar 3, 2015)

Hollie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > This is such an interesting topic.  But, here at least,  it always creates the most tedious threads.
> ...



Apparently it's interesting enough to garner nearly 1,000 replies. Let's contrast this with your last several efforts... 

*Mo' Toons 2015 and Moslem Rage™ - 3 replies*
*"Palestinian" Arabs vs. End of Egyptian Patience - 3 replies*
*The Disease of Palestinian Arab Mentality -34 replies.... Ooooo! *
*Islamic Death Cultists - The Next Generation - 6 replies*
*Sunni moslems are using strap-ons. - 32 replies... Ahhh!*
*Islamic Terrorists are terrorizing Each Other - 5 replies*
*Al Qaeda Opens Syrian Jihad School - 4 replies*
*Money for Nothing - 6 replies
*
This represents over two years worth of your started threads. I will not mention that your topics are curiously all centered on the same theme and are full of your heavy handed proselytizing (aka: bigotry) for your religion of choice. It's glaringly obvious you don't know how to create a popular thread. Is it any wonder why you're so jealous of me?

How does Boss do it? How can he get *ten times more* replies to one thread in a week than Hollie has had in several threads over the past two years?  Give ya a hint.. it ain't MAGIC!


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Yet, not a single convert to _Bossy's Religion of Magical Spirit Realms.

Give ya' a hint._


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I sure can.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I already explained it. Aren't you a christian? Then you will never measure up.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line is bosses arguments dont prove anything. And we know it all makes perfect sense to him but consider what makes sense to other theists. Talking snakes Noah Jonah burning Bush's virgin births and that god came through Mary the virgin I can't even continue. Its all just so damn stupid. Us athiests have to be militant. How else does someone wake a sleepwalker who do t wake up from a whisper? Eventually you have to say wake the fuck up! Youre sick and you dont know it. Dumb desease
> ...


There are no athiests if athiest is the opposite of organized religions or "theists" because theists KNOW god exists. A fact they say because their ancestors said so.  He visited them. You dont believe that boss? But you believe parts of the lie? Zues? 

Anyways I know many agnostics that are actually agnostic atheists. They are more than sure theists are liars and fools but won't COMPLETELY rule out that there could be a god. Are you too stupid to understand this?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line is bosses arguments dont prove anything. And we know it all makes perfect sense to him but consider what makes sense to other theists. Talking snakes Noah Jonah burning Bush's virgin births and that god came through Mary the virgin I can't even continue. Its all just so damn stupid. Us athiests have to be militant. How else does someone wake a sleepwalker who do t wake up from a whisper? Eventually you have to say wake the fuck up! Youre sick and you dont know it. Dumb desease
> ...


Science does debunk god. Youtube it and they will explain how its all in your head. And atheists win every debate where you been? Notice none of the theists argue with you? I guess any god is better than no god. You guys are dumb. I lump you in with christians. Lol


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line is bosses arguments dont prove anything. And we know it all makes perfect sense to him but consider what makes sense to other theists. Talking snakes Noah Jonah burning Bush's virgin births and that god came through Mary the virgin I can't even continue. Its all just so damn stupid. Us athiests have to be militant. How else does someone wake a sleepwalker who do t wake up from a whisper? Eventually you have to say wake the fuck up! Youre sick and you dont know it. Dumb desease
> ...



Carl Sagan and Hawkins and Tyson explain why you are wrong. They haven't perverted science you just cherry pick from them.

Oh and I dont have a beef with christians I have a beef with all organized religions. Your religion is harmless. Like holly said you dont have a hook.

Dont forget I love arguing or debating this stuff. No anger. I just think its stupid and we'd be better off without.

And it is going away. One day there will be buddhists and atheists. The organized religions will go extinct. We are still very young species. No need for a god anymore. It was useful once when we were dumber.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line is bosses arguments dont prove anything. And we know it all makes perfect sense to him but consider what makes sense to other theists. Talking snakes Noah Jonah burning Bush's virgin births and that god came through Mary the virgin I can't even continue. Its all just so damn stupid. Us athiests have to be militant. How else does someone wake a sleepwalker who do t wake up from a whisper? Eventually you have to say wake the fuck up! Youre sick and you dont know it. Dumb desease
> ...


What is our purpose?


----------



## Boss (Mar 3, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> There are no athiests if athiest is the opposite of organized religions or "theists" because theists KNOW god exists. A fact they say because their ancestors said so.  He visited them. You dont believe that boss? But you believe parts of the lie? Zues?
> 
> Anyways I know many agnostics that are actually agnostic atheists. They are more than sure theists are liars and fools but won't COMPLETELY rule out that there could be a god. Are you too stupid to understand this?



I won't even pretend to understand anything in your first paragraph. I have no idea what kind of convoluted point that was supposed to imply. The *science* is clear... We have a species of life which exhibits a unique and defining behavioral characteristic and has had this trait for all it's known existence. I believe this makes it fundamental and essential to the species or it wouldn't exist. You've presented nothing in science to contradict that. In fact, your claims that we "invented" this "imaginary" thing that is totally in our heads, is contradictory to Darwinian theory itself. You can show us no other example in nature of a species tricking nature by conjuring up something from imagination, then successfully thriving because of it. It just doesn't naturally happen. 

Agnostics are not Atheists. We know this because we've developed two distinct words to define them separately... seems a bit childish I should have to point this out to you. An agnostic is someone who leaves the question of God open to possibility, an Atheist rejects the possibility of God. When one position contradicts the other, you cannot hold both positions.... unless you are retarded and don't understand the difference. 

Science does not draw any conclusion... about God or anything else. Science can't draw conclusions because conclusions render Science impotent. Science can only explore and discover possibilities, it can't do anything with conclusion. Once the conclusion is drawn, whether you used science to get there or not, the science is finished and you began practicing _FAITH_ in your conclusion.  MEN draw conclusions, not Science.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > There are no athiests if athiest is the opposite of organized religions or "theists" because theists KNOW god exists. A fact they say because their ancestors said so.  He visited them. You dont believe that boss? But you believe parts of the lie? Zues?
> ...


Sorry Bossy. Your R_eligion of Magical Spirit Realms _needs a hook if you're hoping to sucker-in some members. 

Your religion as you've configured it won't even get you guys laid in the afterlife. No carnal rewards? 

Pffffft.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > There are no athiests if athiest is the opposite of organized religions or "theists" because theists KNOW god exists. A fact they say because their ancestors said so.  He visited them. You dont believe that boss? But you believe parts of the lie? Zues?
> ...



I can't find another species because we are the only ones on this one planet that have evolved to have brains that can imagine such things. None of your arguments are good.

History and science explained why we made up gods and what the benefits were. I'm not going to explain it over and over and over.

Just because our ape ancestors first came up with god and this idea benefitted them does not prove anything.

Please dont make these same lame arguments on me again. You need more material.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

Elephant graveyards! Elephants believe in gods too.

So do whales.


----------



## Boss (Mar 3, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Carl Sagan and Hawkins and Tyson explain why you are wrong. They haven't perverted science you just cherry pick from them.



No sir. They've given their *OPINIONS.* 

Science has no evidence that God is not possible or doesn't exist. *NONE!
*
In fact, it amazes me how often Science pulls back a curtain to find some astounding new information which seems to point to some divine intervention. Over and over, you look under a rock and find God, then proceed to explain away how you can dismiss God. 

I absolutely LOVE science, but the Atheist Scientist is a constant source of entertainment for me. See... I already know "God did it!" So when science reveals that subatomic particles can instantly communicate across billions of light years with their entangled counterpart (see quantum entanglement), they are miffed by this but I am not surprised. When science discovers that every physics book is wrong and the universe is NOT mostly comprised of atoms as we once believed, but 96% of it is this dark energy/matter that we don't understand... the atheist scientists scratch their heads, but I am not surprised. When science discovers there are 40-some-odd constants, weights, ratios and forces which had to be precise to within .00000000000000000001 or the entire physical universe we know could not exist... they are perplexed, I am not surprised. 

It's like watching your favorite sit-com to see what the atheist scientists are going to have to refute next, to keep their disbelief alive. I wondered the other day... what would happen IF science somehow had this earth-shattering breakthrough and discovered the key to spiritual nature, confirmed it exists and is quantifiable but difficult to physically detect in our dimensional reality.... How long would it take for you brainiac atheists to completely abandon Science as a bunch of superstitious nonsense? 

I bet it wouldn't take long at all.


----------



## Boss (Mar 3, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> I can't find another species because we are the only ones on this one planet that have evolved to have brains that can imagine such things.



Hmm... the ONLY ones? That seems a bit odd, doesn't it? 

How do you suppose we lucked out and became the only species to ever discover how to imagine things into existence to effectively assist our evolution? 

That's a real puzzlement.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Carl Sagan and Hawkins and Tyson explain why you are wrong. They haven't perverted science you just cherry pick from them.
> ...



The multiverse hypothesis wasn't even an option when your monkey ancestors invented god.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I can't find another species because we are the only ones on this one planet that have evolved to have brains that can imagine such things.
> ...


There are a great many physiological reasons why humans are the only species with a sentient brain.

You may have been out to lunch when the gawds handed out those sentient brains.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Carl Sagan and Hawkins and Tyson explain why you are wrong. They haven't perverted science you just cherry pick from them.
> ...


You're not perplexed, you're befuddled.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I can't find another species because we are the only ones on this one planet that have evolved to have brains that can imagine such things.
> ...


How do you suppose? Never mind. I already know. And so do you apparently. Me however dont claim to know. 

And I dont buy your answer. I fail you. The right answer is you dont know. 

But you know. You KNOW. See what we mean when we say we aren't atheists because we can't KNOW? But you are sure. Its why we laugh at you.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

Let's stop looking for answers. Boss has all the answers.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Did you see he said nothing science discovers surprises him? Yet he mocks science and cherry picks what findings he likes and doesnt like? Then if science tries to explain why he's wrong he claims atheists have bastardized the science.

He's trying to make the argument that science has never disproven god.

Boss, god love ya youre a fucking idiot.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

No matter what science discovers god gets the credit. Remember when lightening was because Zeus was mad?


----------



## Boss (Mar 3, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Elephant graveyards! Elephants believe in gods too.
> 
> So do whales.



Burying dead remains is not indicative of spirituality. HOWEVER... Elephants have been a remarkable source of study into the attribute of imagination. They are very imaginative and in some cases, perhaps even 'spiritual' or inspired from beyond self. Breeze is constantly posting pictures and thoughts on the flora and fauna and how all living things are spiritually connected. I come closer to believing that than to believe all living things are agnostic, if we're being totally honest. 

Where are the Great Whale Civilizations? Why don't the Whales have representatives at the UN? Why don't we at least see some Whale protest groups for Whale rights? Probably the same reason we don't see them building schools and churches, don't you imagine?


----------



## Boss (Mar 3, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> He's trying to make the argument that science has never disproven god.



No, I am *establishing that as a fact* unless you can offer something to refute it.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Elephant graveyards! Elephants believe in gods too.
> ...



We slaughtere the great whale civilization. And our sonar and garbage are ruining their lands. 

They tried to make friends but we harpooned their leaders. They were the smartest ones. So innocent and curious they came right up to us and we murdered them.

What do you think an elephant thinks god looks like? I bet an elephant.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > He's trying to make the argument that science has never disproven god.
> ...


I've explained or replied to this already too. Several times. So has Hollie and others. I'll be damned if I go in circles with your circular bad arguments. Google whynogod and do your own homework. And you wonder why I just cut and paste to you.


----------



## Boss (Mar 3, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> We slaughtere the great whale civilization. And our sonar and garbage are ruining their lands.
> 
> They tried to make friends but we harpooned their leaders. They were the smartest ones. So innocent and curious they came right up to us and we murdered them.
> 
> What do you think an elephant thinks god looks like? I bet an elephant.



Man............................ 

It's such a beautiful thing to watch someone become spiritually enlightened!


----------



## Boss (Mar 3, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



All you and Hollie can present me with are other opinions. I've seen *NO SCIENCE!*


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Isnt psychology a science?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > We slaughtere the great whale civilization. And our sonar and garbage are ruining their lands.
> ...


Do you believe you live forever after you die? Why?

When did god first decide to create the universe we live in? Do you think he thought about it for 20 days or 20 million years before he went for it.

Also, who is intelligently designing Evey snowflake that falls. We know how snowflakes are made but not why. You're not that deep.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2015)

No way snowflakes arent intelligently designed. Too perfect. There must be a clock maker who makes snowflakes.

And no two snowflakes are exactly the same. There must be a god!


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 3, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


couple of threadfail atheists.....'bout what we've come to expect......


----------



## Boss (Mar 4, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Psychology is science, but everything in psychology reinforces the argument for God's existence. Freud said, "If God didn't exist, man would have to create Him." We are intrinsically hard-wired to believe in a God, a superior power, something greater than self. Our psyche and imaginations could never handle existing without this. 

You can believe this has somehow "naturally evolved" into man, but you need to be able to prove this with some science to claim it as fact. There is none. We have opinions of people who've made their minds up there can be no possibility of God. And this is where we differ sharply, where people like you are going to try and pervert science to include your opinion as fact, when that isn't the case. 

The actual evidence shows no sign of when humans "invented" human spirituality. From every indication, humans have been spiritual since Day 1 as humans. It doesn't even make rational sense that spirituality was invented, unless humans accidentally happened to invent something fundamental to the species out of imagination. If THAT happened, it is even more profound than belief in God.


----------



## Boss (Mar 4, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I do not believe that I will "live" in the physical sense of life as we understand it. My physical person, the body which houses my spirit and soul, will decay and return to the Earth from where it came, as does all living things. My soul/spirit will venture on to another adventure. I have no idea what that perception will be like or what I could imagine to compare it with. I hate to be vague, but I cannot imagine that which is beyond my ability to conceive. Possibly a higher state of 'being' in another dimension of time/space? Whatever.... I am not worried about it or concerned with it too much in my everyday life. 

TIME... a very interesting topic to launch into here. I believe TIME is single biggest evidence we have for God. It exists, therefore God exists. But setting my opinion aside, let's examine time and what it means to us humans. We live on a planet that rotates every 24 hrs. This is a day in time. Our planet revolves around a Sun every 365 days, or 24 hr. rotations, and that marks a year of time. If you would like to time travel, you can go anywhere we have a time zone boundary and hop from the past to the future by an hour! You can even go back to yesterday and into tomorrow! Time travel baby! There are some airline flights you can take where you actually land before you took off! Amazing stuff, isn't it? 

From a physics perspective, time is distance, but time is also relevant. This means the perception of time is relevant to the observer and can be slowed by velocity of speed. One of the theories on why a black hole is black is that the matter inside is traveling the speed of light, therefore no time space is available for light to exist. Time has stopped. This has been confirmed by observation of objects along the event horizon before they disappear. Some spooky weird stuff is happening to time there. 

At the subatomic level, through our work at CERN and other large hadron colliders, we have observed quantum entanglement. Subatomic particles communicating to each other across billions of light years instantly. Defying... no, utterly destroying our concept of time and space. And yet, it is happening with every material object you can see in the universe.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 4, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Elephant graveyards! Elephants believe in gods too.
> 
> So do whales.


Dolphins and chimps too.

BBC - Future - Death rituals in the animal kingdom


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> When science discovers there are 40-some-odd constants, weights, ratios and forces which had to be precise to within .00000000000000000001 or the entire physical universe we know could not exist...


There you go again parroting that already discredited BS.  If one of those 40 changes, you have no proof the other 39 won't change to adapt.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> The actual evidence shows no sign of when humans "invented" human spirituality. From every indication, humans have been spiritual since Day 1 as humans.


There isn't even agreement when the "day 1" of humanoids became human!
Your human spirituality superstition religion was not invented until you fabricated it from thin air.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Psychology is science


Everything tries to pass itself off as a science, they even call "boxing" "The Sweet Science."

Psychology is not a pure science and you are not a scientist any more than a boxer is a scientist.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


"I believe TIME is single biggest evidence we have for God. It exists, therefore God exists."

In the Bossy world, everything is so simple with the "because I say so" admonition. 

Really Bossy, your "I believe......" ramblings put you in the company of some genius talent.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


_*This just in!

Subatomic particles are communicating to one another.
*_
Thanks for that news flash, Bossy. I understand they're ordering subatomic pizza.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So Freud said we made him up basically.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You know the intelligent design watchmaker argument? How many angels work their asses off to make all those snowflakes we see in a snowstorm? They must have been made by someone or something intelligent right?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What will it be like when you die? Same way it was before you were born.

Right now in switzerland you dont exist never did and never will. Life goes on. You can't imagine life without you? We can. Only you believe you live forever.


----------



## Boss (Mar 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > When science discovers there are 40-some-odd constants, weights, ratios and forces which had to be precise to within .00000000000000000001 or the entire physical universe we know could not exist...
> ...



Does not matter what else changes. If the force of gravity is off by .00000000000000000001, no other parameter even matters because suns and planets could not form. If the ratio in size between electrons and neutrons were off by .00000000000000000001, matter could not exist. Other constants.... off by .00000000000000000001 and chemistry does not exist. There is no "adaptation" in physics. 1+1 doesn't "adapt" to become 3. 

All of this is well-documented science, it is far from "discredited BS."


----------



## Hollie (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nonsense. Do yourself a favor Bossy and stop getting your "science" from Harun Yahya.


----------



## Boss (Mar 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Psychology is science
> ...



Well take it up with Academia, they recognize Psychology as the Science of human behavior. This dovetails nicely with my earlier point about how long would it take an atheist to abandon science if science suggests they are wrong about God. As we see, Eddy is ready to dismiss Psychology as "invalid" science. Ultimately, this applies to all science which threatens Ed's atheist beliefs. 

Curiously, this standard of evaluation doesn't apply to atheist opinions and unfounded theories. Those are considered "scientific facts" even though they can't be supported with science.


----------



## Taz (Mar 4, 2015)

*How do the non-spiritual explain it?*

I'm going where I'm going, like everyone else. And I was dead a long time before I lived, and it doesn't seem to bother me that I've been dead already. Probably several times.


----------



## Boss (Mar 4, 2015)

Taz said:


> *How do the non-spiritual explain it?*
> 
> I'm going where I'm going, like everyone else. And I was dead a long time before I lived, and it doesn't seem to bother me that I've been dead already. Probably several times.



It's fine to believe that but you do realize this contradicts science,  right? 

Biogenesis states that all living things come from other living things. Whatever you may believe you were before, it had to be organic or you can't be a living thing. In other words, if you are living now, you've always been alive in some form. Even after your physical body expires you are still alive, still organic. You may be consumed by worms and other living organisms to produce energy and continue to sustain life. Your decaying organism could provide fertilization for a tree and thus your organic cells live on far past your death. 

The whole life and death thing is a source of much confusion to atheists, I believe. The concept of eternal life is dismissed, even though science indicates life is an eternal process.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Fundamental science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Basic science includes fundamental physics and many special sciences—natural sciences like astrophysics, biology, chemistry, geology, and perhaps cognitive sciences, too, but generally excluding behavioral sciences like psychology and social sciences like economics—and excludes engineering, medical sciences, and epidemiology, for instance, which are applied sciences, set apart from the basic/pure/fundamental science.[10][11][13][14][15][16]


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 4, 2015)

Careful Bossy

Science is science because there are questions we can't answer about the Universe

Theology is Theology because all questions are answered with the same reply: Its God.

A theist scientist tend to resolve this issue by understanding that science is about how things work, and theology is about why did God even bother.

An atheist scientist treat science the same way, however stating "Its God" is meaningless to them.  Are you telling them the phenomenon at hand is God, or is God the direct reason for that phenomenon.  Or are you saying that God is indirectly responsible?  And how do you know for sure?

The conflict that exists between the natural science and theology is that the scientist is too curious to stop at answer "Its God".  If scientist ever did, they no longer would be scientist but theologians.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > *How do the non-spiritual explain it?*
> ...


Biogenesis is a crackpot notion furthered by the Watchtower Society, a fundamentalist Christian organization. 

CB000 Law of Biogenesis

*Claim CB000:*
Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.
*Source:*
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.
*Response:*

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Yea but it doesnt prove what you think it proves.

If the planet heated up 5 degrees we might not survive it but Tardigrades would. Then this would be their planet. Would god make them a heaven or who are you to think you are better than the Tardigrade? They can survive naked in outer space can you? God didnt design you very well.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Why didn't god make us so we can fly? Ask every person what special power they'd like to have most would say fly.

But we have imagined winged humans. Boss would say they must be real because people couldn't have possibly looked at a bird and imagined that.

And no one who sees death could have possibly imagined that there is an afterlife. There must be something to it. Boss is so dumb but stubborn. He's half way to agnostic atheism and almost an agnostic. No worries you can't teach an old dog new tricks.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > *How do the non-spiritual explain it?*
> ...


You've been trolling your fundamentalist Christian ministries again, Bossy. Science does not indicate biological life is an eternal process. I understand you suffer from lack of a science vocabulary and thus invent your own twisted versions of science and christianity as you go, but biological life in terms of individual organisms clearly does have a finite lifespan.


----------



## Boss (Mar 4, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Why didn't god make us so we can fly? Ask every person what special power they'd like to have most would say fly.
> 
> But we have imagined winged humans. Boss would say they must be real because people couldn't have possibly looked at a bird and imagined that.
> 
> And no one who sees death could have possibly imagined that there is an afterlife. There must be something to it. Boss is so dumb but stubborn. He's half way to agnostic atheism and almost an agnostic. No worries you can't teach an old dog new tricks.



I have a better question. If man wanted to fly, why didn't he simply imagine his arms were wings, put faith in his imaginary playmate and take to the skies? I mean, that's how you claim man invented spirituality, right? Seems it would be no problem for our advanced brains to conjure up an ability to fly just like we conjured up worshiping Gods.


----------



## Boss (Mar 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Thanks for confirming Psychology is science.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Why didn't god make us so we can fly? Ask every person what special power they'd like to have most would say fly.
> ...


You can't wish to fly and you can't wish a god real. I dont know everything about everything but I do know bullshit when I hear it.


----------



## Boss (Mar 4, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The planet's temperature range is much greater than 5 degrees. Low and behold,we still survive! If we've discovered Tardigrades in space, why hasn't this been publicized? God didn't design your brain very well... must've been on a bender that day!

The cosmological constant and gravitational constant are more significant than simple temperature range on a given planet. These are variables which have to be precise to within a barely detectable fraction or things don't exist. It's hard for anything to survive if nothing can exist, even Tardigrades. 

We know that gravitational force is weak. In relation to other forces, it is among the weakest. The force of gravity is determined by a gravitational constant. If the force of gravity were a tad stronger or weaker, electrons could not exist. No electrons, no chemistry-- No chemistry, no life.


----------



## Boss (Mar 4, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> You can't wish to fly and you can't wish a god real. I dont know everything about everything but I do know bullshit when I hear it.



Do Atheists NOT argue that man invented God? Isn't that the argument made to explain God? That man was so afraid of mortality and death he invented God to console his fears? Now you are arguing this is not possible... that's odd.

If you believe man invented fake God to achieve consolation for his fears of mortality, why not invent fake wings to achieve flight? Doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch in your logic. Don't worry, if you are afraid to jump off that cliff and flap your fake wings, just invent an imaginary being who will protect you from death... you have a special kind of brain!


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Carl Sagan says something can seem impossible and still be true or not.

And he says non of what you say proves anything. If it does show us how many youtube hits you have so far. None? Then shut up! Lol


----------



## Hollie (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No science training on your part, just pontification.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You can't wish to fly and you can't wish a god real. I dont know everything about everything but I do know bullshit when I hear it.
> ...


Dumbest post ever. Hit the bong again.


----------



## Boss (Mar 4, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Carl Sagan says something can seem impossible and still be true or not.



I have often said the same thing just phrased differently. We can never KNOW truth, we can only BELIEVE that we know truth. I have also said that the precise instant you draw conclusion, you abandon science and adopt a faith. 

It has been part of my argument all along that our human perception is very limited. In all of our five senses, we are not even masters of our own domain. Other living things can see better, smell better, hear better, have a better sense of touch and taste... and these inadequate senses comprise what we are able to perceive. It is totally ignorant and arrogant hubris to assume our perception is all there can possibly be.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 4, 2015)

It is kind of hard to get away from the notion that God is made up by man.

To many different examples of God, definitions of God and so on.  It seems like if God really wanted man to know God, there would be only one universal example,definition, what have you to keep man clear of what he should worship.

Of course, there is the possibility that man is assuming something that God didn't ask for--but that idea would tear down every religion in the pure metaphysical sense.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> It is kind of hard to get away from the notion that God is made up by man.
> 
> To many different examples of God, definitions of God and so on.  It seems like if God really wanted man to know God, there would be only one universal example,definition, what have you to keep man clear of what he should worship.
> 
> Of course, there is the possibility that man is assuming something that God didn't ask for--but that idea would tear down every religion in the pure metaphysical sense.



First question I'm going to ask god when I meet him is which one are you? Which religion was right? Then I'd ask why he went through such great length to hide from us?

Why is a god hiding?


----------



## Boss (Mar 4, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> And he says non of what you say proves anything.



Again.... Hate to have to keep setting the record straight here, but it's not ME who is claiming *proof* of something. I can never *prove* a spiritual God to someone who doesn't believe in spiritual nature. So there is a definitive statement from me declaring that I cannot possibly do what you and others continue to insist I am trying to do. 

All I have done is refute your claims or inference that science has disproved God. Carl Sagan is disagreeing with *YOU!*


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > And he says non of what you say proves anything.
> ...


You are re defining god. Are you referring to the Abraham god that visits or your generic god?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > And he says non of what you say proves anything.
> ...


You're right. Can't prove Joseph smiths stories arent real.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 4, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> It is kind of hard to get away from the notion that God is made up by man.
> 
> To many different examples of God, definitions of God and so on.  It seems like if God really wanted man to know God, there would be only one universal example,definition, what have you to keep man clear of what he should worship.
> 
> Of course, there is the possibility that man is assuming something that God didn't ask for--but that idea would tear down every religion in the pure metaphysical sense.


Valid points. Everyone's concept of gawd comes from various books written by men. It's just so convenient that gawds display all the attributes of humanity (our wants, desires, frailties, fears and superstitions) in texts we know are written by humans. 

These human defined religions pre-define the supernatural (including gawd(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm where the gawds are presumed to be beyond any constraints of nature. At the theistic level, it's "religious belief". At the level of reason and rationality, it's utter delusion.


----------



## Boss (Mar 4, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> It is kind of hard to get away from the notion that God is made up by man.
> 
> To many different examples of God, definitions of God and so on.  It seems like if God really wanted man to know God, there would be only one universal example,definition, what have you to keep man clear of what he should worship.
> 
> Of course, there is the possibility that man is assuming something that God didn't ask for--but that idea would tear down every religion in the pure metaphysical sense.



Which explains why I am a Spiritualist. 

I believe that what man calls "God" is something we are simply unable to wrap our minds around. It is a metaphysical force present in our universe... What Isaac Newton called a "mercurial spirit" which we can't explain. You can think of it like Jupiter before man created telescopes and observed it... like microbes before man created microscopes to see them... like the Higgs boson... dark matter... black holes... etc... you get the point. God is simply our of our ability to detect physically at this time, we're not smart enough or advanced enough to observe God. 

We are blessed with an inherent spiritual connection we cannot deny. It is not by fluke, it isn't some paranoid invention of man, it's not mass delusion. It's real, it's there and it's responsible for making us everything humans are. One of the prime examples of our inherent spirituality is the formation of religions. These are the culmination of our spiritual connection meeting with our inspired imaginations. We imagine this God thing we can't understand to have humanistic attributes we can relate to. I think that's where we mess up. We're flawed and fucked up human beings with very limited perception, but we think we know everything.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > It is kind of hard to get away from the notion that God is made up by man.
> ...





I just figured out who you remind me of. Do you remember Unfrozen Cave Man Lawyer?

https://screen.yahoo.com/unfrozen-cave-man-lawyer-1-223412426.html


----------



## Hollie (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > It is kind of hard to get away from the notion that God is made up by man.
> ...


Actually, you're just a wannabe christian with all the same self loathing that derives from the original sin episode.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > It is kind of hard to get away from the notion that God is made up by man.
> ...


Oh gawd. He's rattling on with his "spiritual connection" slogan again.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 5, 2015)

OK--I am going to try and guess Bossy secrets to popular thread topics.


I think the trick is to present a quasi-sensational topic that few may feel strongly about, and then argue with those few people about why you support your opinion.

Never present too hard of an argument to follow, and try to use the oppositions "facts" to support your case.

Oh--and try not to get bogged down in an exchange of insults--it tends to destroy the thread!


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> OK--I am going to try and guess Bossy secrets to popular thread topics.
> 
> 
> I think the trick is to present a quasi-sensational topic that few may feel strongly about, and then argue with those few people about why you support your opinion.
> ...


You're right on many levels. Bossy is just an average religious fundamentalist who gets the majority of his argumentation from christian fundamentalist websites. 

His "what are the chances" arguments for the interaction between natural forces in universe which he claims are the result of his partisan gawds comes directly from the ICR, the Disco'tute and similar christian fundamentalist websites. Steven Meyer of the Disco'tute is the chief propagandist promoting the "what Are the chances" argument for biological evolution. Bossy has taken that cue and become the chief propagandist for the "what are the chances" argument regarding natural forces that affect the universe. 

It's comical to read his his silly "but..... but...... but...... but if the force of gravity was .000000001% less than it is, planets could not have formed". 

Well, no. There's no reason to accept that as true, especially coming from a christian fundamentalist who has an obvious agenda to promote partisan gawds as opposed to facts.


----------



## Taz (Mar 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > *How do the non-spiritual explain it?*
> ...


I lean towards reincarnation. I'm agnostic, I see no proof that reincarnation is run by a god, nor do I see proof for the need for reincarnation to be run by a god in the first place.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> *We know* that gravitational force is weak. In relation to other forces, it is among the weakest. The force of gravity is determined by a gravitational constant. If the force of gravity were a tad stronger or weaker, electrons could not exist. No electrons, no chemistry-- No chemistry, no life.


Speak for YOUR own stupidity. Gravity is actually the strongest force on a UNIVERSAL scale!

On astronomical scales, gravity does dominate over the other forces. There are two reasons for this: 1) gravity has a long range, and 2) there is no such thing as negative mass. Each force dies off as the two objects experiencing the force become more separated. The rate at which the forces die off is different for each force. The strong and weak nuclear forces are very short ranged, meaning that outside of the tiny nuclei of atoms, these forces quickly drop to zero. The tiny size of the nuclei of atoms is a direct result of the extreme short range of the nuclear forces. Two particles that are nanometers apart are far too distant from each other to exert an appreciable nuclear force on each other. If the nuclear forces are so weak for two particles only nanometers apart, it should be obvious that the nuclear forces are even more negligible on astronomical scales. For instance, the earth and sun are far too distant from each other (billions of meters) for their nuclear forces to reach each other.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Thanks for confirming your stupidity.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 5, 2015)

.
the thread is directed by a partisan appeal for humanities exclusivity to Spiritualism as a design of the Creators the same as Arabic and other self gratifying religions ... repetitious centuries old indulgences.

.


----------



## Boss (Mar 5, 2015)

Taz said:


> I lean towards reincarnation. I'm agnostic, I see no proof that reincarnation is run by a god, nor do I see proof for the need for reincarnation to be run by a god in the first place.



I see a computer in front of me. I am obviously the only person running it. I've looked inside the box and there is no little human in there running the computer. I am the one pushing the keys, opening the windows, executing applications. This is MY computer, I see no evidence any other human is involved. That is my observation. 

Now.... All that said, a person with any common sense will understand, some human must have created the computer I am running. At some point, many humans are responsible for this computer being here. Engineers, programmers, technicians, designers.... they all played a role in making this computer happen. I can sit here in naive stupidity and refuse to acknowledge their contributions, stubbornly insisting I don't need any explanation involving other humans. Does that make me right? 

Hey... I have no problem with the concept of reincarnation, but I think it only adds another complicated layer of awe-inspiring phenomenon that simply doesn't seem possible as the result of randomness and chance. So there is no "master plan" here? Our spiritual beings are flowing from one physical life to the next and there is no guiding force or intelligent design to the system? It just so happens to be that way? Bizarre! 

You see, I don't have to build a shrine and worship Bill Gates to acknowledge people had something to do with my computer's existence. There is a broad range between worshiping Bill Gates and acknowledging Bill Gates must exist. My refusing to acknowledge Bill Gates is never going to make Bill Gates unreal. Insisting my computer can and does exist as a matter of random circumstance and not because it was designed and created, does not change the truth.


----------



## Boss (Mar 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *We know* that gravitational force is weak. In relation to other forces, it is among the weakest. The force of gravity is determined by a gravitational constant. If the force of gravity were a tad stronger or weaker, electrons could not exist. No electrons, no chemistry-- No chemistry, no life.
> ...



*INCORRECT!*

Actually, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. Ordered from strongest to weakest, the forces are 1) the strong nuclear force, 2) the electromagnetic force, 3) the weak nuclear force, and 4) gravity. If you take two protons and hold them very close together, they will exert several forces on each other. Because they both have mass, the two protons exert gravitational attraction on each other. Because they both have a positive electric charge, they both exert electromagnetic repulsion on each other. Also, they both have internal “color” charge and thus exert attraction via the strong nuclear force. Because the strong nuclear force is the strongest at short distances, it dominates over the other forces and the two protons become bound, forming a helium nucleus (typically a neutron is also needed to keep the helium nucleus stable). Gravity is so weak at the atomic scale that scientists can typically ignore it without incurring significant errors in their calculations.

However, on astronomical scales, gravity does dominate over the other forces. There are two reasons for this: 1) gravity has a long range, and 2) there is no such thing as negative mass. Each force dies off as the two objects experiencing the force become more separated. The rate at which the forces die off is different for each force. The strong and weak nuclear forces are very short ranged, meaning that outside of the tiny nuclei of atoms, these forces quickly drop to zero. The tiny size of the nuclei of atoms is a direct result of the extreme short range of the nuclear forces. Two particles that are nanometers apart are far too distant from each other to exert an appreciable nuclear force on each other. If the nuclear forces are so weak for two particles only nanometers apart, it should be obvious that the nuclear forces are even more negligible on astronomical scales. For instance, the earth and sun are far too distant from each other (billions of meters) for their nuclear forces to reach each other. In contrast to the nuclear forces, both the electromagnetic force and gravity have infinite range and die off in strength as 1/r2.

If both electromagnetism and gravity have infinite range, why is the earth held in orbit around the sun by gravity and not by the electromagnetic force? The reason is that there is no such thing as negative mass, but there is such thing as negative electric charge. If you place a single positive electric charge near a single negative electric charge, and then measure their combined force on another, distant charge, you find that the negative charge tends to cancel out the positive charge somewhat. Such an object is called an electric dipole. The electromagnetic force caused by an electric dipole dies off as 1/r3 and not 1/r2 because of this canceling effect. Similarly, if you take two positive electric charges and two negative charges and place them close together properly, you have created an electric quadrupole. The electromagnetic force due to an electric quadrupole dies off even more rapidly, as 1/r4, because the negative charges do such a good job of canceling the positive charges. As you add more and more positive charges to an equal number of negative charges, the range of the electromagnetic force of the system gets shorter and shorter. The interesting thing is that most objects are made out of atoms, and most atoms have an equal number of positive and negative electric charges. Therefore, despite the fact that the raw electromagnetic force of a single charge has an infinite range, the effective range of the electromagnetic force for typical objects such as stars and planets is much shorter. In fact, neutral atoms have an effective electromagnetic range on the order of nanometers. On astronomical scales, this leaves only gravity. If there were such a thing as negative mass (antimatter has positive mass), and if atoms generally contained equal parts of positive and negative mass, then gravity would suffer the same fate as electromagnetism and there would be no significant force at the astronomical scale. Fortunately, there is no negative mass, and therefore the gravitational force of multiple bodies close together is always additive. In summary, gravity is the weakest of the forces in general, but it is the dominant one at astronomical scales because it has the longest range and because there is no negative mass.

Why is gravity the strongest force Science Questions with Surprising Answers


----------



## Boss (Mar 5, 2015)

Hollie said:


> It's comical to read his his silly "but..... but...... but...... but if the force of gravity was .000000001% less than it is, planets could not have formed".



It's called Physics, you stupid bitch.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > I lean towards reincarnation. I'm agnostic, I see no proof that reincarnation is run by a god, nor do I see proof for the need for reincarnation to be run by a god in the first place.
> ...


What "spiritual beings" are you babbling about?

Secondly, was that rambling screed supposed to address some point?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It's comical to read his his silly "but..... but...... but...... but if the force of gravity was .000000001% less than it is, planets could not have formed".
> ...


Sorry, you silly, angry fundamentalist but the "physics" you get from the Institute for Creation Research is a bit, how shall we say..."slanted" to appeal to people like yourself who are not real discriminating as to the accuracy of the "physics" they're presented.


----------



## Boss (Mar 5, 2015)

Hollie said:


> What "spiritual beings" are you babbling about?
> 
> Secondly, was that rambling screed supposed to address some point?



I didn't mention "spiritual beings" and you'll seldom find an example of me ever mentioning such a thing. There's a good reason for that. It's because of our perception as humans. Something we define as a "being" implies there is something in the physical state of being. Since spiritual energy is not physical, there is no being. Its an oxymoron.


----------



## Boss (Mar 5, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I didn't get the physics from ICR, they got the physics from science. Now I am sorry if creationists use valid science in their arguments, that doesn't negate the science. 

I challenge you to ask ANY astrophysicist whether electrons could exist if the gravitational constant were higher or lower? You see, the gravitational constant has to be precise or the electrons can't orbit the neutron of atoms. That's just basic physics and anyone with a degree in physics knows this. 

These pesky constants are a big problem for atheist deniers. There is not a physical reason why the universe must have these constants, in fact, it is far more likely the universe wouldn't hit the lottery on every single one. And this is where the birth of Multiverse Theory comes in! You see, the atheist deniers need a way to explain a finely-tuned universe rationally. Their theory has now become, that we are just one of many universes, therefore, the possibility for a finely-tuned one is inevitable.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


If you take time to actually study the putrid bile oozing from your fundamentalist creation ministries, you will find its not science at all.

Ah, the "finely tuned universe", meme. Just be honest, Bossy. You use every slogan and cliche' known to the ICR. Why are you pretending that your fundie Creation ministries are to be taken seriously on matters of science?


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You are such an idiot, you say I'm incorrect and then post proof I was correct as I made it quite clear I was talking on an* "astronomical scale"* and you are too stupid to comprehend simple English!


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> You see, the gravitational constant has to be precise or *the electrons can't orbit the neutron of atoms*. That's just basic physics and anyone with a degree in physics knows this.


Hydrogen has no neutron and yet its electron has no trouble orbiting its proton nucleus.
IDIOT, with obviously NO degree in Physics or Chemistry!


----------



## Boss (Mar 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



*Actually, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. Ordered from strongest to weakest, the forces are 1) the strong nuclear force, 2) the electromagnetic force, 3) the weak nuclear force, and 4) gravity. *

Which is precisely in line with what I stated. It is YOU who is trying to distort and twist that around into something you can refute. Gravity is a weak fundamental force, the weakest of the four. This is not really relevant other than to note that if gravity were just ever-so-sightly stronger or weaker, no matter comprised of atoms could exist because the electrons can't orbit the nucleus. The gravitational constant has to be precise to within 10 to the 123 power or nothing works. No chemistry, no atoms, nothing material can exist. 

Now Eddy.... You can make like a catfish and try to muddy up the waters to hide the fact that your ass is mine, I can appreciate your attempt to save face. I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about with this "astronomical scale" crap. Physics are physics. Of the known fundamental forces, Gravity is the weakest.


----------



## Boss (Mar 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Hydrogen has no neutron and yet its electron has no trouble orbiting its proton nucleus.



Because of the gravitational constant which is precisely tuned.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You've been trolling your fundamentalist christian ministries again for your "gravitational constant" diatribe.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Hydrogen has no neutron and yet its electron has no trouble orbiting its proton nucleus.
> ...


Is the ICR having a recruitment drive?


----------



## Boss (Mar 5, 2015)

Hollie said:


> ....your "gravitational constant" diatribe.



LMFAOooo... Oh the Hits just keep on a comin'!


----------



## Boss (Mar 5, 2015)

*Gravitational Constant.... *





Hollie, this is the formula for finding the force (F) of gravity. In order for us to make this calculation (and we often have), we need to know the value of G.  






This is the formula for the gravitational constant. I realize this is quite a bit over your head, but you look like an absolute idiot running around denouncing the gravitational constant as some creationist bullshit.  I mean, really... you appear to be a retard.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about with this "astronomical scale" crap.


And yet the link YOU posted to defend YOUR crap mentions it REPEATEDLY, so you admit you don't even know what you posted!
IDIOT!
Why is gravity the strongest force Science Questions with Surprising Answers


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Hydrogen has no neutron and yet its electron has no trouble orbiting its proton nucleus.
> ...


So now the "gravitational constant" suddenly has nothing to do with the "NEUTRON."

Come on, admit it, you are just C&P stuff you have no understanding of in the slightest.


edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You see, the gravitational constant has to be precise or *the electrons can't orbit the neutron of atoms*. That's just basic physics and anyone with a degree in physics knows this.
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> *Gravitational Constant.... *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, the need for a Straw Man. As you well know, it is the crap that the gravitational constant is "FINE TUNED" that is being argued as Creationist bullshit.
I mean, really... you ARE a retard.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> *Gravitational Constant.... *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Didn't you leave something out?
Why yes, yes you did!

*The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy.*[3] In SI units, the 2010 CODATA-recommended value of the gravitational constant *(with standard uncertainty in parentheses)* is:[4]





*with relative standard uncertainty 1.2×10−4*.[4]


----------



## Hollie (Mar 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > ....your "gravitational constant" diatribe.
> ...


Oh they do, Bossy. As it was noted, you're trying to make some connection between the gravitational constant and your ID'iot creationist "finely tuned universe" slogans. 

You need to revisit your heroes at the ICR because that slogan is meaningless outside of your christian creationist ministries.


----------



## Boss (Mar 6, 2015)

So we now have two atheists on record, completely rejecting modern physics in order to support their "religious" belief. Denying that we have a gravitational constant so finely tuned we can develop a formula for calculating it accurately and have been doing so for over a century. Relegated to nit-picking tiny irrelevant details and pretending this somehow refutes my argument. 

The more physical science refuses to give them answers they want, the more they will categorically reject science. This should suffice as all the evidence anyone needs that these two are on a mission and it's not a science mission.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 6, 2015)

Hey Boss

We do not have exact precise measurement for every physical constant.  

The idea that the universe is "fined tune" assumes that we do.  It lso assumes something else--that the life we do know about is the only forms of life possible,and that the universe is homogenous plus several other things.


----------



## dblack (Mar 6, 2015)

The 'fine tuned' argument always struck me us basically silly. All it really says is "if things were different, they'd be different." Yep.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> So we now have two atheists on record, completely rejecting modern physics in order to support their "religious" belief. Denying that we have a gravitational constant so finely tuned we can develop a formula for calculating it accurately and have been doing so for over a century. Relegated to nit-picking tiny irrelevant details and pretending this somehow refutes my argument.
> 
> The more physical science refuses to give them answers they want, the more they will categorically reject science. This should suffice as all the evidence anyone needs that these two are on a mission and it's not a science mission.


You're rattling on with the "finely tuned" nonsense that is a staple at your fundamentalist Christian Ministries. As your arguments have been exposed as nothing more than propaganda you gather from the ICR, you're getting more and more hysterical.


----------



## Boss (Mar 6, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> Hey Boss
> 
> We do not have exact precise measurement for every physical constant.
> 
> The idea that the universe is "fined tune" assumes that we do.  It lso assumes something else--that the life we do know about is the only forms of life possible,and that the universe is homogenous plus several other things.



We DO have precise measurements or they wouldn't be constant, they would be unknown variables. The question of life is moot if there is not the fine tuned constant to allow the formation of atoms, chemistry, carbon, stars and planets. Nothing resembling life of any kind we know of could exist in a universe with no stars and planets. 

Now people are wanting to try and argue that if the constants were not at their precise settings, who knows what alternate kind of universe we may have... but this is just blind stupidity trying to cling to disbelief. The Earth revolves around the Sun because the gravitational constant is precise. If you change that, the Earth no longer revolves around the Sun, does something greater happen instead? Is that the argument?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Boss
> ...


"The gawds did it". That what the ICR tells you and that's all you need to know.


----------



## Boss (Mar 6, 2015)

dblack said:


> The 'fine tuned' argument always struck me us basically silly. All it really says is "if things were different, they'd be different." Yep.



Nope... The problem is you are unable to maintain perspective. The argument is, if a fine tuned universe did not exist, there is no material universe as we know it. If things were different, they would not exist. 

Granted, there are some constants which could be variated by 10, maybe 20% and theoretically it wouldn't upset the apple cart too much in the grand scheme of things. But there are at least a dozen other constants/ratios/weights... which have to be precise to an astonishing degree, or the things which comprise our material reality simply can't exist. 

This is a real problem for science to explain. The latest theory is what I like to call their very own "flying spaghetti monster" theory. That's where, some place beyond our cosmos is a giant universe making machine, churning out all kinds of random universes and this explains how we were fortunate to get one in tune. Multiverse is a great theory, but it's no more 'confirmed science' than God.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > The 'fine tuned' argument always struck me us basically silly. All it really says is "if things were different, they'd be different." Yep.
> ...


It's hilarious reading the babbling of the ICR groupie, lecturing about the "science" he gets from christian fundamentalists.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Boss
> ...



*"We DO have precise measurements or they wouldn't be constant, they would be unknown variables.*"

Stop

There are physical constants we do not have precise measurements for.  That does not make them variables!!  It means that different experiments to measure these physical constants have came up with slightly different values.

For instance, the gravitational constant arises from assuming that gravitational attraction is follows an inverse square and is related to the two masses. Newton made this assumption and realized there has to exist  a small multiple to his original model to explain the small amount of force exhibited.

When Newton tried calculating the Gravitational constant the first time, he was off by a factor--he repeated the experiment several more times *and took an average*!!


----------



## Boss (Mar 6, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



Earlier, I posted the formula in physics for the gravitational constant. Now, either the formula is correct or it isn't, math doesn't produce uncertain results. Measuring something several times or several ways and averaging your results was very common before we could measure more accurately. This is how pi was figured out. I'm sure there wasn't a formula for determining the gravitational constant before Newton invented Calculus and figured out how to measure it accurately. 

But we're still playing "dodge the point" here, because regardless of whether we are certain we can accurately measure the constant, if it's a constant the value is constant. It doesn't change... it can't change or reality doesn't exist and physics does't work.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Earlier, *I posted the formula in physics for the gravitational constant*. Now, either the formula is correct or it isn't,* math doesn't produce uncertain results*.


You are soooooo scientifically STUPID, you don't even know what you C&P.

You posted the formula for the "law of universal gravitation," which contained the "gravitational constant" "G"
Then you dishonestly posted G without its uncertainty value.

According to the *law of universal gravitation*, the attractive force (_F_) between two bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses (_m_1 and _m_2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, _r_, (inverse-square law) between them:






The constant of proportionality, *G, is the gravitational constant.*

*The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy*.[3] In SI units, the 2010 CODATA-recommended value of the gravitational constant (with standard uncertainty in parentheses) is:[4]





*with relative standard uncertainty 1.2×10−4.*


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> But we're still playing "dodge the point" here, because regardless of whether we are certain we can accurately measure the constant, if it's a constant the value is constant. It doesn't change... it can't change or reality doesn't exist and physics does't work.


Except they were able to calculate "reality" existing with a less accurate gravitational "constant" in the past before we got the more accurate approximation we have now, so there is obviously a gravitational constant range where our reality can exist and physics works.


----------



## Boss (Mar 6, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Except they were able to calculate "reality" existing with a less accurate gravitational "constant" in the past before we got the more accurate approximation we have now, so there is obviously a gravitational constant range where our reality can exist and physics works.



Our ability or inability to measure things has no effects on physics. There has never been a "less accurate gravitational constant" it has always been the same. A constant, by definition, does not range in value. To make such a statement is illiterate.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> *There has never been a "less accurate gravitational constant"* it has always been the same.A constant, by definition, does not range in value. *To make such a statement is illiterate*.


Only to someone completely scientificaly illiterate!

The accuracy of the measured value of _G_ has increased only modestly since the original Cavendish experiment. _G_ is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces, and an experimental apparatus cannot be separated from the gravitational influence of other bodies. Furthermore, gravity has no established relation to other fundamental forces, so it does not appear possible to calculate it indirectly from other constants that can be measured more accurately, as is done in some other areas of physics. * Published values of G have varied rather broadly,* and some recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive. *This led to the 2010 CODATA value by NIST having 20% increased uncertainty than in 2006.*

In the January 2007 issue of _Science_, Fixler et al. described a new measurement of the gravitational constant by atom interferometry, reporting a value of G = 6.693(34) × 10−11 m3s2/kg. An improved cold atom measurement by Rosi et al. was published in 2014 of _G_= 6.67191(99) × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




But experimentation in the natural science can produce slightly different results. The math here to determine the value of a constant is statistics.

Also, you say  measure_ accurately_, But your argument requires exactness.  You can't talk about  a fine tuned universe if you do not know the exact values of the constants for that fine tuning. 

Remember, you were making arguments for the impossibility of this universe if the constants were off by 10^(-9) when the gravitational constant, as measured today with better instruments, isn't that accurate.

This isn't one of your better arguments, Boss.


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Only to someone completely scientificaly illiterate!



No sir! Illiterate people try to argue that a 'constant' can vary. 
They are scientifically illiterate by default.


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> _G_ is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces...



You began this argument claiming gravity was the strongest force. 

_*"Speak for YOUR own stupidity. Gravity is actually the strongest force on a UNIVERSAL scale!"*_ - EdtheIlliterate (post #1054)



> *Published values of G have varied rather broadly.*



This is a misleading statement which is causing your retard brain to short out. The value of G is never-changing, it is *constant.*  ...If the gravitational constant actually varied or fluctuated, nothing in physics would work. Whether or not we have developed an accurate way to measure, or whether or not we published that, has no effect on the true value of the gravitational constant.


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> But your argument requires exactness. You can't talk about a fine tuned universe if you do not know the exact values of the constants for that fine tuning.



You don't need to be able to measure exact value to know a value is constant. IF a plastic cup can only hold 16 oz. of water, it makes no difference whether we are able to measure ounces accurately, the amount the cup will hold doesn't change. 

Let's take our analogy to a higher level to represent the universe and uncertainty principle. We have a pool in the back yard... the value of water in ounces that pool can hold is constant. We understand this from the start, the pool can't gain or lose capacity. When it comes down to defining an actual set number of ounces the pool can hold, it is difficult to measure because of other variables which are not constant, floating around while we're trying to measure a result.  Air pressure on the surface of the water is fluctuating in different parts of the pool, we see the water on the surface making ripples and waves...  Some of the water we've measured has evaporated since we began the measuring, the temperature fluctuates and water molecules expand and contract, sediments in the air and impurities are constantly displacing molecules of water in the pool.... SO we can't ever know the exact precise number of ounces the pool will hold, but that constant value exists and we know that it does in spite of variable uncertainty. We even have a formula to determine a fairly accurate constant value. A standard 25m x 50m Olympic pool holds 660,000 US gal. Times 128 ounces per gallon, equals  84,480,000 ounces. Our formula results in an approximate value. We cannot measure the value any more accurately because of other floating variables happening as we try to measure. This does not change the true precise capacity of the pool.

Now, to put the final touch on this analogy, imagine if our pool could not have the capacity of one drop of water, more or less, or it can't physically exist?


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > But your argument requires exactness. You can't talk about a fine tuned universe if you do not know the exact values of the constants for that fine tuning.
> ...




Actually, we do not need to take the discussion from here.

No one is arguing that the gravitational constant is not constant.  We all agree that it is a constant!!

However, your argument for the fine tuned universe requires an accuracy for the known value of the gravitational constant that current science do not possess. 

Hence, some of the statements made for the fine tuned universe is not provable--in fact highly questionable, since we can still model this universe to an acceptable degree without our models suggesting the universe should explode/implode on the spot.

Admit it Boss--this is not even one of your original arguments.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > But your argument requires exactness. You can't talk about a fine tuned universe if you do not know the exact values of the constants for that fine tuning.
> ...



That was another atrocious waste of your time. The fact remains that we still need to get you supernaturalists/spirit realm'ists/advocates of ID'iot creationism to show that your hypothesis for various gawds are testable and propose some means by which we could either accept or reject them. I mean, _Shirley_ proponents of mainstream, testable scientific theory shouldn’t be the ones who have the burden of proof of coming up with ways to test for one or more of the thousands of asserted gawds , right? The people who are proposing "the gawds did it" model should be the ones presenting the tests for their gawds. So, it remains for the ID'iot creationists: what specific tests would confirm or falsify ID'iot creationism as pwoof of one or more gawds? As soon as you can answer this question, we can begin.


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> when the gravitational constant, as measured today with better instruments, isn't that accurate.



If there is not a gravitational constant, then gravity fails to work predictably. Planets can't maintain orbits around Suns. Electrons can't maintain orbits around protons/nucleus. It doesn't matter if we have developed the science to measure it accurately, it has to be an empirical physical constant. 

We call it *Big G!*


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> However, your argument for the fine tuned universe requires an accuracy for the known value of the gravitational constant that current science do not possess.



Wrong! My argument has absolutely nothing to do with our ability to measure something accurately. I don't know why you want to make YOUR argument into MINE now? 

If the *true value* of the gravitational constant (whatever it is) had been greater or less than it is, nothing material exists. This constant is to within .000000000000000000000002 of what it must be, for anything remotely similar to our comprehension of a universe to exist. I'd say that is finely tuned.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > However, your argument for the fine tuned universe requires an accuracy for the known value of the gravitational constant that current science do not possess.
> ...


You would say that is finely tuned because that's what your sponsors at the ICR say. 

Oh, and if today was Sunday, it wouldn't be Saturday. But of course, that's what we call _stating the obvious. _That's kinda' like your claim that if the universe was different, it would be different.

None of your "gawds fine tuning the universe" nonsense separates it from just more ICR babbling.
_
_


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



What you keep stomping your feet demanding is something we both should understand is not possible. You want physical proof of a spiritual thing. You expect someone to be able to physically examine a spiritual thing, to test it physically and objectively evaluate it on a physical basis. I hope we are both mature enough to know that isn't possible or realistic. Physical science can only examine physical nature. 

So you want to shift the debate over to Origin of Life now? Okay... fine... Science hasn't answered that question either. Show me a fucking peer-reviewed and published example of scientists creating life from inorganic material! There is no such example! Life comes from Life! It doesn't spontaneously generate. You can *believe* they might one day find a 'physical science' answer, but that is blind faith.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What an odd admission. You admit your spirit realms/gawds/supernatural entities are absent proof, demonstration, validation, etc., but here you are stomping your feet, insisting they are true and using arguments from fundamentalist Christian websites long ago dismissed as pointless.

You should avoid your silly biogenesis argument which you have taken from the Watchtower Bible Tract Society.


----------



## dblack (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > The 'fine tuned' argument always struck me us basically silly. All it really says is "if things were different, they'd be different." Yep.
> ...



I guess. I just don't see the connection between the argument, and the conviction that a designer is responsible.


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Well, if the universe is finely tuned it (and it is), how can that avoid implying a tuner? Exactly who or what that is, we can only speculate. There is not an explanation in science which has been substantiated by evidence. All you have in science are theories and we can't test them. 

So we have faith in theories or faith in God. It's still faith, right?


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

Hollie said:


> What an odd admission. You admit your spirit realms/gawds/supernatural entities are absent proof, demonstration, validation, etc., but here you are stomping your feet, insisting they are true._....yayayayahh_



Yes, if anything 'spiritual' is ever proven, demonstrated or validated through physical science, it will forever henceforth be 'physical' and not 'spiritual' in nature.

I do admit that.

The problem here is, you are confusing physical proof with things which are true.


----------



## Taz (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > I lean towards reincarnation. I'm agnostic, I see no proof that reincarnation is run by a god, nor do I see proof for the need for reincarnation to be run by a god in the first place.
> ...


The people who made your computer actually do exist and we can visit them and touch them. Your god? Not so much. Total speculation. Or wishful thinking. There MAY be a Master with his plan, but such a thing or person has yet to be proven.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > However, your argument for the fine tuned universe requires an accuracy for the known value of the gravitational constant that current science do not possess.
> ...




But Boss,  You can't just make that assumption

In fact,it begs the question of how do you know when the information to establish this point is not known --i.e. the exact values of the physical constants


----------



## dblack (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well, your phrasing is the only thing that imposes the implication ("tuned" implying a "tuner"). But recognizing that existing conditions are rare and specific - which is really all that your evidence supports - doesn't imply anything.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > _G_ is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces...
> ...


You just can't stop yourself from lying. It's your spirituality that makes you lie! But then spirituality might just be making you stupid, after all you said you have no idea what "astronomical scale" means.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > *Published values of G have varied rather broadly.*
> ...


Again, we are not arguing G, we are arguing your "fine tuned" bullshit. Whether "physics would work" has been calculated over time with widely different values for G and none of those past or present values for G produced a universe where "physics would not work."
Get it FOOL?


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

Taz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



You were talking about the need for a god in order to have reincarnation. Now you are back to rejecting God based on lack of physical proof. Did you stop believing in reincarnation in the midst of your argument?


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



Again, I gave you an example to illustrate how "exact value" doesn't have to be known to know something is constant. This constant, regardless of value or our ability to measure it, can't be out of whack or fucking gravity don't work, baby!


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Again, we are not arguing G, we are arguing your "fine tuned" bullshit.



Well *Big G* is finely tuned. That *IS* the argument.


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> ...none of those past or present values for G produced a universe where "physics would not work."



None of them produced a universe. 

Formulas for measuring do not produce universes. 

If the *empirical physical constant* known as the 'gravitational constant' were off by a hair, gravity doesn't work.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> If the *empirical physical constant* known as the 'gravitational constant' were off by a hair, gravity doesn't work.


Gawwwwd-da has spoken.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> You want physical proof of a spiritual thing. You expect someone to be able to physically examine a spiritual thing, to test it physically and objectively evaluate it on a physical basis. I hope we are both mature enough to know that isn't possible or realistic. Physical science can only examine physical nature.


.
the interaction between the physical and incorporeal is what proves their existence, the distinction of each living being proves the existence of Spirituality the same as the influence exerted by gravity on heavenly bodies.

.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Again, we are not arguing G, we are arguing your "fine tuned" bullshit.
> ...


It's not an argument. It's your specious claim, totally absent meaningful support. 

Back to trolling the ICR for you.


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > If the *empirical physical constant* known as the 'gravitational constant' were off by a hair, gravity doesn't work.
> ...



Not God, Physics.


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It's not my specious claim, it's Physics.  Meaningfully supported by every scientist who ever used G in a formula.


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> the interaction between the physical and incorporeal is what proves their existence, the distinction of each living being proves the existence of Spirituality the same as the influence exerted by gravity on heavenly bodies.



Nothing is proven, not even reality.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're perpetually befuddled. Physics makes no claim to resolve gawds or spirit realms. 

The inspiration you receive from crank christian fundamentalist websites and their silly "finely tuned" nonsense is not supported by scientists who used G in a formula. Claiming that natural forces somehow supports various gawds is strictly a promotion spewed by your heroes at the ICR.


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Physics resolves there is an empirical physical constant known as the "gravitational constant" and scientists have been using this in formulas for a few centuries or so. I've not claimed anything supports any God. It's you who is idiotically demanding physical proof of the spiritual and me telling you that's impossible without making the spiritual physical.

And I am never befuddled... only perplexed. I wonder what you can possibly be getting out of re-posting the same garbage every day? Doesn't this get boring? I mean, you know that I am going to respond to being accused of religious fanaticism the same today as yesterday, and it will be the same tomorrow.

Usually, when people argue, there is something they are trying to get the other person to see. But your arguments aren't really arguments because you're not trying to get me to see anything. You're just hurling insults, or what you think are insults, at me. And what is so weird is, it's the same insults day after day!


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Things are rare and specific and there is no logical reason we should find them to be. In fact, it is much more probable that we *wouldn't* find this fine tuning in the universe. Not to this degree. 

I mean, come on guy... This is the analogy to fit the argument, you go into the casino and there are 12 roulette wheels, each has 10 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion numbers... You pick one number and lay all your money on it.  One shot in 10 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion... YOU WIN! You do this 11 more times and WIN! Do you think that is random chance happening? Are you really lucky or is there a possibility something else is going on? 

The finely tuned universe is problematic for science because it isn't explainable. This is why you see people like Hollie and Ed rejecting it and trying to pretend it is nonsense. But it's the truth and we have to accept it as such, whether it supports our "religion" or not.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Not so much insults as addressing the pointless arguments you recycle from post to post and thread to thread. What's even more remarkable is to view your comments regarding the "finely tuned" universe, your comments regarding your belief in gawds, and your propensity for invoking your spirit realms while suggesting none of that is related to your fundamentalist religious views.

Perhaps you can explain to us how arguments based on fear, superstition and ignorance can further our knowledge?

Science has a better track record for explaining the natural world than the wishful argument from ignorance found in ID'iot creationist arguments which have no track record at all.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


"We" haven't found any "fine tuning" in the universe. Science certainly hasn't. That slogan is another you recycle from post to post and it's as pointless and undemonstrated now as in all the previous times you've used it.

Tell your pals at the ICR that you need some new slogans.


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Perhaps you can explain to us how arguments based on fear, superstition and ignorance can further our knowledge?



You'd be the best one to ask about that. You're the one rejecting Newtonian and Einsteinian physics based on fear of Christians and ignorance about the difference between superstitious and spiritual. 

Why don't we start over... Tell us about why you hate Christians so much? What happened to you personally to effect your demeanor and attitude toward people who are religious? Let's dig into your past and find what event happened which made you so bitter and angry? I think something hurt you deeply and you've never had closure. 

A lot of times, this revolves around a relationship issue where religion becomes a convenient scapegoat. You couldn't get along with your father who was religious so you avoid accepting any blame for that by blaming it on his religious views. Not saying that is the case with you, just an example. However, there is some reason you have such deep animosity toward religion and that's not healthy for you.


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

Hollie said:


> "We" haven't found any "fine tuning" in the universe. Science certainly hasn't.



Well... except that, YES, it has.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you can explain to us how arguments based on fear, superstition and ignorance can further our knowledge?
> ...


I've noticed an obvious pattern of behavior. When you're pressed to support your religiously based slogans such as those for your gawds "fine tuning" the universe, you hope to deflect. The relevant science community has never made any such statement that there is any such mechanism as "fine tuning" of the universe and no comment that the universe has a supernatural cause. 

You have such deep hatreds for knowledge, reason and rationality and that's not healthy for you. 

So tell us, regarding your comment that "we" have found the universe to be "fine tuned" (clearly referring to your gawds as the "fine tuners"), who is the "we" you are including in your comments aside from yourself and your hyper-religious pals at the ICR?


----------



## dblack (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> I mean, come on guy... This is the analogy to fit the argument, you go into the casino and there are 12 roulette wheels, each has 10 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion numbers... You pick one number and lay all your money on it.  One shot in 10 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion... YOU WIN! You do this 11 more times and WIN! Do you think that is random chance happening? Are you really lucky or is there a possibility something else is going on?



That's an excellent analogy for the fine tuning argument. Except that the only awareness we have is of the one spin, the one reality we find ourselves in. The thing is the odds of any specific combination of all the possible variables is exactly the same.

To take a slightly different variation on that analogy. Imagine rolling a thousand dice and every single one of them landing on a six. By your reckoning, this would be evidence of "something else going on". But the odds of that happening are exactly the same as all the dice landing on a one. They're also exactly the same odds as exactly half the dice being ones and the rest sixes. The odds of all the dice being sixes and one of them being a three? Again, exactly the same as the odds of them being all sixes.

The reason the universe is perfectly suited to our existence is that our existence is wholly dependent on the universe being perfectly suited to our existence. Just as any other possible universes would be perfectly suited to any beings that evolved there - and vice versa. It logically could be no other way.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > "We" haven't found any "fine tuning" in the universe. Science certainly hasn't.
> ...


Well no, it hasn't. Why not support your specious claims? Why insist on making such bellicose and fraudulent pronouncements when they are unsupportable?

Kindly refer us to an article published in a peer reviewed literature such as the journal _Nature_, for example where the relevant science community acknowledges a universe "finely tuned" by your gawds?


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I mean, come on guy... This is the analogy to fit the argument, you go into the casino and there are 12 roulette wheels, each has 10 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion numbers... You pick one number and lay all your money on it.  One shot in 10 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion... YOU WIN! You do this 11 more times and WIN! Do you think that is random chance happening? Are you really lucky or is there a possibility something else is going on?
> ...



I don't understand what you are trying to say about random odds. Letting me know the universe is tuned as it is because it needs to be, is not a scientific explanation. Anything we know as a being can't evolve in a universe with no material reality, no stars or planets, no chemistry or gravity. These are made possible through a series of constants, ratios, weights and forces. It's not that the universe is suited to our existence, the universe is suited to ANY existence in material reality.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Yet, you were pontificating in post 1120: "Nothing is proven, not even reality"


----------



## Boss (Mar 7, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I didn't say who it was finely tuned by. 

Here are what some prominent scientists say:

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." --Stephen Hawking 1988. _A Brief History of Time,_Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 125.

If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead ofdeuterium and helium.
--Paul Davies, 1993. _The Accidental Universe_, Cambridge University Press, p70-71

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[12]

_N_, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[12]

_Epsilon_ (_ε_), the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.007. If it were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.[12]

_Omega_ (_Ω_), also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the Universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[12]

_Lambda_ (_λ_) is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the Universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[13] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[12]

_Q_, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the Universe is too violent, according to Rees.[12]

_D_, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Not Physics.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Gawwwd-da now speaks for all physicists, without knowing a thing about physics. How could anyone doubt Gawwwwd-da.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> [Nothing is proven, not even reality.


Therefore your pontifications about a finely tuned G is unproven.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Boss said:


> Nothing is proven, not even reality.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Physics resolves there is an empirical physical constant known as the "gravitational constant" and scientists have been using this in formulas for a few centuries or so.





Boss said:


> Nothing is proven, not even reality.


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't understand what you are trying to say about random odds. Letting me know the universe is tuned as it is because it needs to be, is not a scientific explanation. Anything we know as a being can't evolve in a universe with no material reality, no stars or planets, no chemistry or gravity. These are made possible through a series of constants, ratios, weights and forces. It's not that the universe is suited to our existence, the universe is suited to ANY existence in material reality.



I'm saying your argument is circular. You start out with the assumption that physical reality is created by applying the word "tuned" (implying a "tuner"). It's really just another version of the watchmaker argument. You're saying that the fact that we ended up in, of all possible universes, the one that enables our existence is evidence of intent.  But where's the connection? Again, all you're really saying is "if things were different, they'd be different" (and we'd likely not exist). But so what? Why does that imply a creator?


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand what you are trying to say about random odds. Letting me know the universe is tuned as it is because it needs to be, is not a scientific explanation. Anything we know as a being can't evolve in a universe with no material reality, no stars or planets, no chemistry or gravity. These are made possible through a series of constants, ratios, weights and forces. It's not that the universe is suited to our existence, the universe is suited to ANY existence in material reality.
> ...



My argument is not circular, that was your argument that the universe is finely tuned "because it has to be." My argument has nothing to do with applying words, we use words to convey what we want to say because they work better than grunting noises. 

There are numerous empirical physical constants. It's not in dispute. We know these exist, we make astrological calculations with them all the time. There is no scientific reason these constants have to be as they are, nothing says they can't be different. If some of these were off by a hair, no life could exist in this universe. If others were off, nothing material could exist. That's not my opinion, that's simply physics. 

Now, because all of these various constants are precisely as they need to be in order for material things and life to be present in the universe, we use a grunting noise which sounds like "finely tuned" to describe it. 

Generally speaking, verbs with the suffix "-ed" always implies an undisclosed "-er" who is responsible. Examples: If something is "welded" it implies there was a "welder." If something is "baked" it implies a "baker." And IF something is "tuned" it implies a "tuner." 

So this debate is actually two parts, first one is whether we have a finely tuned universe. Atheist science deniers want to reject this because a tuned universe implies a tuner. And that is the second part. How did the universe become finely tuned? 

Now, us cavemen, we understand what a guitar is, right? We realize a guitar has to be properly tuned to play music correctly. Some people can tune their guitar by ear, others can use a tuner device... No one would consider the option of throwing the guitar in the dryer and let it bang around randomly in there for a while with the expectation of getting a tuned instrument. THAT just defies too many odds to be realistic. If the guitar is in tune, it wasn't because the drier did it.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Even by the standards of pointless attempts at analogy spewed by you ICR groupies, that was horrible.


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Even by the standards of pointless attempts at analogy spewed by you ICR groupies, that was horrible.



*TRANSLATION: That was absolutely brilliant, Boss! Well done!*


----------



## Votto (Mar 8, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Here let's see if I can break it down:
> 
> *Astral projection experiences - *hallucination of the mind
> *Near-death experiences - *hallucination of the mind
> ...


 
You mean kinda like this.

*Hope and change*:  Hallucination of the mind

*Collective salvation*:  Just smok'in more weed

*Equality for all:*  "hooey"

*Economic stimulus:*  "hoeoey" money for corporate America.

*Corporate bail outs*:  Smok'in weed followed by hallucination of the mind and ending with "hooey".


----------



## TheOldSchool (Mar 8, 2015)

Votto said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Here let's see if I can break it down:
> ...


Shut the fuck up bitch,
Eat a dick bitch,
Eat a bowl of shit bitch,
Munch on a mouthful of balls, in halls and malls
Just shut the fuck up bitch and work your jaws.
Take a pill bitch, chill bitch.
Jerk your jaws

- Kurupt "Your Girlfriend"


----------



## Votto (Mar 8, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...


 
Forgive me for questioning your gods.

Please don't have the IRS audit me!

I recant, i recant!!


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2015)

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You really don't see the circularity in that? You admit that the word 'tuned' implies a 'tuner'. Injecting the conclusion as the premise is the definition of a circular argument.


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

dblack said:


> The reason the universe is perfectly suited to our existence is that our existence is wholly dependent on the universe being perfectly suited to our existence.



May I have permission to submit this to Wikipedia under the definition of "Circular Reasoning?"


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > The reason the universe is perfectly suited to our existence is that our existence is wholly dependent on the universe being perfectly suited to our existence.
> ...



Sure. I was mirroring your argument to make a point. I'm not trying to _prove_ anything. I'm pointing out how your argument fails to do so. If you want to state the the universe is "tuned", you first have to prove that the specific state we observe is a result of some deliberate intent. Simply observing that it suits our existence doesn't establish that.


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

dblack said:


> You admit that the word 'tuned' implies a 'tuner'.



Yes, generally speaking, in English grammar, a verb ending in the suffix "-ed" implies a noun sometimes with the prefix "-er" as it's subject. Fucked<>Fucker... Owned<>Owner... Trolled<>Troller... Diverted<>Diverter... 

Therefore, *TUNED* _implies_ a *TUNER*.


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You admit that the word 'tuned' implies a 'tuner'.
> ...



So, you agree? Your argument is circular?


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2015)

To put it another way, Boss. All you've done - so far - is shown that the universe is 'in tune _with_ our existence'. Which isn't necessarily the same as 'tuned for _our_ existence'


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

dblack said:


> If you want to state the the universe is "tuned", you first have to prove that the specific state we observe is a result of some deliberate intent.



No, I don't have to prove anything we observe is by deliberate intent. I cannot prove that, not physically, anyway. All I can go by is the state we observe, that is true, but what we observe can't exist in a randomly tuned universe. Unless you accept the "fairy tales" of a giant universe making machine outside our cosmos. I have to accept truths the same as Newton and Einstein, that our universe has certain empirical physical constants. Everything in our physics, geometry and chemistry is dependent on these constants to work. 

What we can comprehend as material reality is not possible without this fine tuning. Physics doesn't work. Gravity doesn't work. Chemistry doesn't happen. Light can't exist. On and on and on... Nothing we can imagine as anything could exist. Could something completely beyond our comprehension exist instead? You mean, like Spiritual Nature?


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to state the the universe is "tuned", you first have to prove that the specific state we observe is a result of some deliberate intent.
> ...



"Fine tuning", or "just the way it is"?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to state the the universe is "tuned", you first have to prove that the specific state we observe is a result of some deliberate intent.
> ...


Which of the gawds are responsible for a "randomly tuned" universe vs. a "finely tuned" one. 

What are the differences?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...



No, but supporters cannot prove any of these "spiritual" events are probative.  I refer the reader to Michael Shermer's book, Why People Believe Weird Things (Part 2, Pseudoscience and Superstition).  Edgar Cayce is explained therein.


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No, my argument is not circular. YOUR argument is circular. You reason the universe exists as it does because it has to exist as it does. 

My argument is, it's finely tuned. Atheists reject this because it implies a tuner. I don't make any argument for a tuner, nor do I need to in order to argue the universe is finely tuned. The tuner doesn't need to be identified in order to acknowledge the universe is finely tuned. I can pick up a guitar and tell you it is in tune, I don't have to identify who/what tuned it. 

The follow-up question is regarding the Tuner. There are basically four possibilities. The answer is one of the following:

1. Necessity- (this is your view) That our universe is finely tuned because it has to be. It is the poster child for circular reasoning. Nothing in Science says it has to be because it has to be. 

2. Creation- (my view) That our finely tuned universe is spiritually and divinely inspired and created by something greater than physical nature. 

3. Chance- We've been through the odds of chance producing this finely tuned universe. Some are now hitching hopes to Multiverse theory.... or, _The Flying Spaghetti Monster_ spitting out billions of universes somewhere. 

4. Something unknown to us at this time. Perhaps it's a combination of the three things but we've not pieced it all together? Perhaps there are missing pieces we can't comprehend yet? Or maybe, ever? I admit this is a possibility, but my personal spiritual connection holds sway with what I believe.


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

dblack said:


> "Fine tuning", or "just the way it is"?



"Just the way it is" has as much science to it as "God did it!" 

If the gravitational constant were slightly different, gravity fails to function as it does in our material reality. Electrons go spinning off into space instead of revolving around their proton or neutron. There can be no atoms. So... change the parameter of this constant and nothing in our understanding exists. 

So yeah.... Just the way it is, no DUH! 

The question is, *WHY?*


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Therefore, *TUNED* _implies_ a *TUNER*.


A universe tuned by gravity.


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



We went over this.  I'm not making an argument.  I'm not trying to explain why the universe exists. You are.  And you're failing to make a coherent case fur your position.


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore, *TUNED* _implies_ a *TUNER*.
> ...



Which is tuned.


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

dblack said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Well in case you missed the last 5-6 pages, there seems to be a debate over whether or not the universe is finely tuned. My arguments have been mostly in establishing this is indeed a fact. From there, I don't think physical science can really answer why. My personal answer satisfies me, it doesn't have to satisfy others. 

You did indeed tell us why you think the fine tuned universe exists... You said it's because it *has* to exist. I say that's not science but circular reasoning. I agree, it does exist finely tuned because it has to. It couldn't exist otherwise. 

As to who/what question, I answered that fairly and objectively by presenting the four possibilities... did I miss anything? So my position is that those are the four possibilities. I explained why I dismissed two of them, and I admitted my own spiritually guided bias. I don't argue my bias is physical or I can prove it to you. It's just my opinion. When it comes down to it, this is a matter of faith.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 8, 2015)

Good

So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There's no debate about your gawds "fine tuning" of the universe. You never made any case in support of your gawds, firstly, and secondly, there's nothing to indicate any "tuning" within the universe. 

You're representing a christian fundamentalist argument with your "tuning" scenario and presenting nothing to indicate any "tuning"


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> Good
> 
> So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?


Nah. This is all about Bossy, his viciously circular arguments, his invented spirit realms and carrying on through multiple threads trying to recruit converts to his religion.


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> Good
> 
> So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?



The fact that science can't deny or avoid the problems of a precisely and finely-tuned universe is not an "argument."  We can have different opinions but the constants are there and the evidence is empirical. The question of why the universe is finely tuned is beyond the ability of science to answer at this time, and probably ever. All other options require faith.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


By gravity.


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

Hollie said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Good
> ...



Nah, this is all about Hollie suppressing some deep-rooted event in her past which has caused her to starve her spirit to death instead of nourishing it.


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Which can't work unless it's tuned finely.... precisely.


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

Hollie said:


> ...there's nothing to indicate any "tuning" within the universe.



Are you calling Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein liars?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > ...there's nothing to indicate any "tuning" within the universe.
> ...


Are you 12years old?  This may come as a shock to you but none of those folks you listed made any connection with your gawds and those designer gawds connected to the natural world.

Really, Bossy, I get it. You have an insensate need to proselytize but you're over the top with stumbling and contradicting your own comments as you use your gawds to badger people. 

You read too much into euphemisms and don't understand context because you have predefined conclusions regarding your fundamentalist religious views and the natural world.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > ...there's nothing to indicate any "tuning" within the universe.
> ...


Prove they are infallible!


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


False. Precisely. The natural forces that interact In the universe have no connection to your gawds who are sitting on their magical thrones in their magical flowing nightgowns directly navigating the planets in their respective orbits. 

 Of course, you could begin by proving your gawds, then in turn, identifying your gawds actually do wear long flowing nightgowns while directly manipulating the forces of gravity, electromagnetism, pulling rabbits out of a hat, etc.

Got anything like that?

No, I knew you didn't.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Good
> ...



The only way I can even see you making this fine tune argument work is if the numbers you are given are the exact factors you are multiplying by and not deviation  for some specific digit in the constant.

However, if that was the case, then this whole "Fine tune" argument is junk--multiplication by those factors is causing forces to vanish in those models.  Gravitational constant multiple by 2x10^-9---You pretty much made a force vanish by algebra--not change a digit at 8th or 9th place.

The scope of the factor is too large/microscopic to talk about "fine tuning"n or precision.  The range of possible values it still great between what we measure and what is being assumed for gravitational collapse.

I did not pick that up and until I read that Rees quote.  He is not suggesting that the 5 th digit of the gravitational constant be changed and these things happen--He is saying that if the gravitational constant was about a _million _times weaker or stronger this problem would be present.

A factor of 1 million is not a precision measurement--and the concept that a difference of a factor of a million suggests high precision fine tuning is a bit of a reach to me.

If you want to talk fine tuning--keep the factor within the statitistical margin of error such as 5%(i.e factors of 1.05 or .95).  If we are talking about values outside of the statistical model of error, then we are not talking about acceptable forms of precision which "fine tuning" suggests!


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



It seems you are still talking about things we measure and how accurate we are at measuring them. This simply doesn't matter to the physical constant which is empirical regardless of our ability to measure. The constant exists in constant state whether we can accurately measure it or not. Without this finely-tuned constant, gravity doesn't function. It does not matter what we are able to measure.


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I didn't argue they are infallible. They have all stated "fine tuning" of the universe in some way. Are they religious whackos trying to sell us their religions?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...


I anticipated you would sidestep and deflect but that is a pattern of behavior for you. Your entire argument is not just similar to that coming out of christian creation ministries, it is _identical_.

What is comically tragic is that you have never chosen to critically examine the self-destructing nature of the arguments you further on behalf of your christian creation ministries. On the one hand, you fundies argue that, given the laws of the universe, the probability for biological evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life on the planet is zero because of various, silly, irreducible complexity-type nonsense furthered by Dembski, Meyer and the Disco'tute freak show.   So therefore, jeebus and Jeebus Sr. must have invervened to circumvent those laws. 

Another argument says that the probability for life developing on earth was near guaranteed given the particular circumstances of this planet, and because a random set of laws could not have produced this outcome, then the gawds must have designed those laws.

However, this suggests that the gawds designed the laws of the universe just so that they would eventually have to come back and violate their own laws in order to *poof* life on the planet. That’s pretty contrived but considering the fundamentalist arguments... pretty typical. 

The real beauty opf the ID'iot creationist argument is that you can take any event and claim that the gawds both designed supernatural laws to make the event possible but at the same time were able to violate those same laws in order to make it happen. No matter how contrived the argument, you Fundie Christians can find an exception by way of the supernatural abilities of your gawds.


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> The only way I can even see you making this fine tune argument work...



Again--- Not an argument I have to make work.  This is an empirical physical constant, it is not up for debate. You can chose to ignore physics and not believe mathematics if you want. If that's the case. I don't need to win an argument with you.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


They're not the religious whackos. 

The "quotes" you quote-mined are a staple of the fundie christian cabal and are taken out of a larger context where in no way do the quote'ees suggest "the gawds did it".

It's just a typically dishonest tactic of religious extremists.


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

Hollie said:


> ...violate their own laws in order to *poof* life on the planet.



My position is, it does not matter what you believe... *SOMETHING* poofed life onto the planet.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There is nothing to suggest any  gawdly "finely tuned" constant. 

Are you still in a stupor? Do you have anything yet regarding your inability to present evidence for either one or more gawds or any evidence to connect those gawds to such "fine tuning".


----------



## Boss (Mar 8, 2015)

Hollie said:


> The "quotes" you quote-mined are a staple of the fundie christian cabal and are taken out of a larger context where in no way do the quote'ees suggest "the gawds did it".



I haven't said who did it. The debate here is TWO parts. You are claiming that no one has ever scientifically suggested we have a finely tuned universe and that is a lie. Newton, Einstein and Hawking have all indicated our universe is inexplicably fine tuned. Their formulas are based on the accepted fact that there is an immutable and empirical physical constant known as the gravitational constant and signified in their formulas with the capital letter "G." 

So the debate over whether we have a fine tuned universe is over. There is no question about it... Myself, Newton, Einstein and Hawking all know that the universe is finely tuned. You reject that. 

I don't know who or what finely tuned it, that is a different question. Science can't answer that question,  nor can if offer any substantive theory at this time. Whatever you believe is the truth is simply a matter of faith.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > ...violate their own laws in order to *poof* life on the planet.
> ...


As usual, you're wrong. All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes. 

Once again, to support your christian fundamentalist position for supernatural intervention you need to:

1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gawds, and then,

2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gawds had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.

When will you provide such evidence?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The "quotes" you quote-mined are a staple of the fundie christian cabal and are taken out of a larger context where in no way do the quote'ees suggest "the gawds did it".
> ...


"The debate is over". Bossy has spoken!

Well sorry, but you have not debated anything. You have offered nothing but boilerplate ID'iot creationist nonsense for your gawdly, "finely tuned" universe.

And sorry, identify where Newton, Einstein or Hawking have made statements explicitly identifying your gawdly "fine tuning" nonsense.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




The value of the gravitational constant is not known around for 3% or .3%(a factor at most 1.03 or .97), however there is no, and I repeat NO model that suggests gravitation fails due to using an incorrect value of the gravitational constant.

Now you can prove me wrong by producing a model or experiment that does gravitation fails if the factor is by this little.  But I seriously doubt you can--*mainly because scientist knowingly use these 'mistaken' values without failure in their models!*


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > The only way I can even see you making this fine tune argument work...
> ...




No one is ignoring physics--you are ignoring what you are saying and keep making a claim that needs clarification.

1)Is your "precision" dependent on multiplication/division by large factors?  

2)Or is your precision  change in the decimal place much much smaller than normal statistical error?

If it is the first, then you are blowing up the model. But using large factors to demonstrate this is not "precision" in the mathematical sense.  You would need to clarify what you mean by precision and finely tuned for this case.

If it is the second, then tell us how do you reach this assumption since no physical model/experiment has predicted the collapse of gravity under such a microscopic change?


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Well in case you missed the last 5-6 pages, there seems to be a debate over whether or not the universe is finely tuned. My arguments have been mostly in establishing this is indeed a fact. .


.






other than the Garden Earth a jewel of eternal randomness, just what is the accomplishment of the "finely tuned universe" suppose to "Represent" - as per your concept of a non physical, spirit bound, only God ... an earthquake on Mars ?


----------



## Boss (Mar 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.



Show us your evidence.


----------



## Boss (Mar 9, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



The precise value of the gravitational constant is known. It was accurately measured a century after Newton's death by Henry Cavendish.





So, there is no "mistaken value" for the gravitational constant. It is accurately measurable. 

Even someone who is not great at science should understand, when you change the value of any parameter in a formula, a different result is produced. So when we change this gravitational constant value, same thing happens, a different result. This means things like the gravitational coupling constant is out of whack. If the mass of an electron remains the same, it's too big for a smaller G and too little for a larger one. Force of gravity is increased with a larger G and decreased with a smaller G.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.
> ...


Life on the planet. There's your evidence.

If you had ever been outside of the Jerry Falwell madrassah and studied biology, you might have learned that.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nothing about gravity suggests your gawds magically created it.

Show us the magic.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes--you will get different results if you use different numbers

That was pointed out in the Rees comment!!

However, we are trying to nail down your concept of precision here.

When you say "fine tuning" are you making reference to the statistical concept of accuracy, or are you trying to use a different concept of precision?

When you say the off by .0000000002 and gravity fails, are you using that as a factor, or are you saying that if the 9th digit is off from the correct value of gravitational constant, then gravity fails.

I have asked these questions 3 times now.  Why will you not answer them and clarify what you mean?

P.S.  we already talked about the difficulty of measuring the gravitational constant.  The fact that you are choosing the 6.67 *10-11 number suggests that you understand the concept of rounding off in its application.  Hence, you are in agreement that if the 4th digit (the digit that would come after the 7 in this value) is not correct, gravity does not collapse, right?


----------



## Taz (Mar 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Reincarnation doesn't necessarily need a god to happen, not that I can tell anyways.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 9, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Well in case you missed the last 5-6 pages, there seems to be a debate over whether or not the universe is finely tuned. My arguments have been mostly in establishing this is indeed a fact. .
> ...


.
boss, is the fisher on the planet Mercury an act of God or a random event contrary to the finely tuned universe ?

* could the fisher occur because it is random without the presence of God ?

.


----------



## Boss (Mar 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



So your argument is: Life originated as a natural occurring process because life exists on the planet? 

*circulus in probando*


----------



## Boss (Mar 9, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Random events, even odd ones, are not contrary to a finely tuned universe. We have to be careful not to draw a false assumption that "fine tuned" somehow means pristine and perfect. Willie Nelson's guitar is finely tuned.


----------



## Boss (Mar 9, 2015)

Taz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Doesn't need a "God" per say, but it does require spirituality.


----------



## Boss (Mar 9, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



I am not an astrologist or astrophysicist, I'm not even a great mathematician. You keep getting bogged down in how we measure things and construct formulas. If the gravitational constant were a different value, we could easily create the same kind of formulas to calculate things. That is not the issue.

If the constant of gravity is different then the effect of gravity is also different. This effects quarks, leptons, electrons... all kinds of things at the subatomic level which are not as they are because the gravitational constant told them to be. The constant of the mass of an electron is not that way because we invented a formula to measure it.


----------



## amrchaos (Mar 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Again, I will ask you
What is your concept of precision?

I am not asking you how a model works
I am not asking you to explain any of the quotes you' ve cited.

I am asking you what is your concept of precision when you talk about a "finely tuned" universe.

Hint:  Depending on what you say, I might agree with you.  But a presup wouldn't


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Do you have reading comprehension issues?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


You're implying that your gawds are incompetent designers. The "finely tuned" universe was tuned by inept mechanics.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Mar 9, 2015)




----------



## dblack (Mar 9, 2015)

The 'finely tuned' argument can be claimed from pretty much any fact about reality, as all are equally rare and specific. "So what?" is the only answer the argument warrants.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


.
your spirituality seems driven by control, a finely tuned universe whereas Spirituality is in fact the exact opposite.

.


----------



## Boss (Mar 10, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> your spirituality seems driven by control, a finely tuned universe whereas Spirituality is in fact the exact opposite.



Don't know what you're talking about. My spirituality is driven by my intrinsic connection to spiritual nature. My belief the universe is finely tuned is based on science and physics.


----------



## Boss (Mar 10, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Nope. There are no inept mechanics or incompetent designers. You presume to have more knowledge than you actually have. This is a common hubris atheists often display in their blind ignorance of spiritual nature.


----------



## Boss (Mar 10, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> Again, I will ask you
> What is your concept of precision?
> 
> I am not asking you how a model works
> ...



I don't know what you mean by "concept of precision." Humans have all kinds of words we've made to define things. Precision is how close measured values are to each other. Not to be confused with "accuracy" which is how close a value is to the actual true value.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Unfortunately Bossy, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can _exclude_ Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity. 

The failed attempts by fundamentalist Christians to an arranged marriage between your religion and science does nothing to infer super-magical creation. The humiliating loses in the courts wherein you fundies tried to throw a burqa on your religion and misrepresent it as science to force it into the public schools have repeatedly shown ID'iot creationism as a laughable fraud. What actually occurred was that ID’s claims were shown to be bad science, bad religion and nothing more than trivial, empty claims, lacking in scientific relevance and applicability. 

Anyone familiar with the ID'iot creationist movement understands that it is all about fundamentalist Christianity and that any scientific applicability is only contrived.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > your spirituality seems driven by control, a finely tuned universe whereas Spirituality is in fact the exact opposite.
> ...


Those are the same cliches and slogans you used in the prior thread You opened where you were hoping to sell "_Boss's Religion of Spiritual Connections_"

No converts yet, eh?


----------



## Boss (Mar 10, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can _exclude_ Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence.



We can exclude Darwinian evolution as the cause of origin because it doesn't deal with that question. Natural selection and evolution don't happen before origin so they can't be explanations for it. The star you want to hitch your hopes to is Abiogenesis theory, and it's purely a hypothesis at this time. Scientists have never been able to produce life from inorganic material. All life comes from life.


----------



## Boss (Mar 10, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Don't need 'em... Us spiritual people are at 95% already.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Cliches' and slogans.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





> *b:* Don't need 'em... Us spiritual people are at 95% already.



. 






while singing your "gospel" in Salem -

* definitively speaking ...

.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What's curious is your continued _95%_ slogan which you have never been able to represent as true. 

Making false claims seems to define the ID'iot creationist syndicates.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Which of the gawds are responsible for a "randomly tuned" universe vs. a "finely tuned" one.
> 
> What are the differences?


your's are responsible for the randomly tuned ones......the difference is your's are fake......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Boss?....here's another candidate for your dictionary entry on Circular Reasoning.....


----------



## Taz (Mar 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


How so?


----------



## Taz (Mar 11, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Did you ever figure out how marsupials got from Oz to Noah's raft and back?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 11, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Which of the gawds are responsible for a "randomly tuned" universe vs. a "finely tuned" one.
> ...


That's as pointless as your usual nonsense.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 11, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What supernatural processes are there?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 11, 2015)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


yes.....but after I explained it to you, you simply asked again.......made you look rather silly, but that isn't my fault......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


well, under your argument some mysterious transformation from inert chemical matter to living, reproductive tissue.....that is inexplicable in nature, which only leaves the supernatural......the difference between your views and mine is that under your view, it is just the result of endless, mindless random supernatural shit happening.....under my view, someone with intent and power caused it to happen.......


----------



## Hollie (Mar 11, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


That "someone" being an elderly man wearing a long, flowing nightgown?

The problem you face is that your science education is limited to what you were given in the Jerry Falwell madrassah. It's comically tragic that you spend so much effort trying to denigrate the science you know nothing about.


----------



## MaryL (Mar 11, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Here let's see if I can break it down:
> 
> *Astral projection experiences - *hallucination of the mind
> *Near-death experiences - *hallucination of the mind
> ...


Dreams and delusions and wishful thinking. Carl Jung wrote about synchronicity, but coincidence is another name for it.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 11, 2015)

MaryL said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Here let's see if I can break it down:
> ...


I suspect that those who have a need to believe in "hooey" do so out of ignorance, fear and not understanding the human brain. 

A theoretical explanation for déjà vu, for example, is very simple and interesting. The brain is in two separate hemispheres with a cortex crossover between them. Sometimes, one hemisphere lags behind in perception, so in effect, the left side of the brain is experiencing something and your right hemisphere is slightly out of sync, and so when it catches up you get the distinct yet vague impression that you have “done this before” – and in a sense, you have, by a few milliseconds. The "hooey'ists" are simply assuming "the gawds did it", or some supernatural event for these things, and not submitting a case to support it.


----------



## eots (Mar 11, 2015)

formulated by the British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:


When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Clarke s three laws - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


/shrugs....depends.....if I were as shallow minded as yourself, I might be limited to that depiction.....fortunately, I am not......


----------



## Taz (Mar 12, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So they magically flew over like in a cartoon?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 12, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I suppose you think Jeeebus is the tall, Caucasian looking hippie in sandals.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 12, 2015)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


no child, that was not my answer.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you make so many errors when you "suppose".....you really should try to resist the temptation.......


----------



## Boss (Mar 12, 2015)

eots said:


> formulated by the British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:
> 
> 
> When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
> ...


I have always loved Clarke's Third Law... one of my favorite quotes.
*Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.*


----------



## Boss (Mar 12, 2015)

Taz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Well, it's obvious isn't it? What the hell are we "reincarnating" if not the spirit? The physical body is dead... it doesn't reanimate. New people don't sprout up out of the ground where we bury dead people, so what kind of reincarnation were you thinking about? I assumed you meant our spirit, soul, the essence of who we are... but those are all non-physical (i.e.; spiritual) things.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



.
a few have emphasized there is not a physio- neurological connection to Spirituality, Taz may be confused as you (boss) are not one of them.

.


----------



## MaryL (Mar 12, 2015)

The miracle of the lady of the sun, the lady of Fatima and mass delusions. People that were not any were  in the area of Michael Brown swore they saw  him  put his hands in the air. Science say otherwise.  Funny about facts.


----------



## Boss (Mar 12, 2015)

MaryL said:


> The miracle of the lady of the sun, the lady of Fatima and mass delusions. People that were not any were  in the area of Michael Brown swore they saw  him  put his hands in the air. Science say otherwise.  Funny about facts.



What is funny is how you can so casually dismiss the human spirit, spiritual connection to something greater than self and our long-standing intrinsic spiritual awareness as some "mass delusion" our species has suffered with all it's existence.  It's actually *HILARIOUS!*


----------



## Boss (Mar 12, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> a few have emphasized there is not a physio- neurological connection to Spirituality, Taz may be confused as you (boss) are not one of them.



Breeze, you need to learn proper sentence structure and try that again. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 12, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You make many errors whenever you try to respond to a comment.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > The miracle of the lady of the sun, the lady of Fatima and mass delusions. People that were not any were  in the area of Michael Brown swore they saw  him  put his hands in the air. Science say otherwise.  Funny about facts.
> ...


What's hilarious is your imagined "spiritual connections" when you can't even identify what that is.


----------



## Boss (Mar 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



You mean the thing 95% of us are intrinsically aware of and have no problem identifying? The single most defining attribute of our species is not the product of imagination or delusion. There is absolutely no science to support the idea that man invented spirituality. It's an opinion and a rather stupid one.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Repeating your silly _95%_ slogan is pointless. You've never been able to support that nonsense yet you keep repeating it in order to convince yourself it's true. 

Repeating a fraud doesn't make the fraud true.


----------



## MaryL (Mar 12, 2015)

When you die, part of your brain is a effected. You start having  delusions about a bright  light  down a tunnel and beauty and things, things start getting strange after a while. What is conscience, self awareness? My dog that got hit by a car had that. One day  your cell phone  might have a soul too till you drown her in the toilet . Or  the computer that drives your driverless car...


----------



## Boss (Mar 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



It's well documented, you're free to try and present something to refute it.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It's another of your frauds. You're free to try and present evidence for your fraudulent claim. But we know you've been required to do so many times before and you scurried away.


----------



## MaryL (Mar 12, 2015)

What is self awareness or conscience?  Animals we eat have that to, what is going to keep a us  from endowing  machines with it, too? Not a science  fiction  question. Reality.


----------



## MaryL (Mar 12, 2015)

I am sorry, I am  having a asthma attack here. Missed work and GOD isn't helping me here. Otherwise I would be at work and  nobody  would care one way or da udder.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


.
what is really odd is repudiating Spirituality for all other living beings, existing only for (95%) his own species ... and claims not to be a bibleist.

.


----------



## Boss (Mar 13, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> what is really odd is repudiating Spirituality for all other living beings, existing only for (95%) his own species ... and claims not to be a bibleist.



But I've never repudiated this. We've been over this before, I agreed with your idea in principle and admitted it is very possible. Several times I have stated that this is far more plausible than the idea of no spirituality. The problem is, I am a Republican and you are a Democrat. You like Big Government. liberal policies and Hilary Clinton... I like Conservatism, small government and Sarah Palin. Because you hate my political views, you've decided to behave like a 13-year-old girl and hold that against me.


----------



## Boss (Mar 13, 2015)

MaryL said:


> I am sorry, I am  having a asthma attack here. Missed work and GOD isn't helping me here. Otherwise I would be at work and  nobody  would care one way or da udder.



How much time did you spend praying for God to help you? How much faith did you have that spiritual nature could potentially resolve your problem?


----------



## Boss (Mar 13, 2015)

MaryL said:


> What is self awareness or conscience?  Animals we eat have that to, what is going to keep a us  from endowing  machines with it, too? Not a science  fiction  question. Reality.



Self-awareness and consciousness is not spiritual connection. We don't eat animals which worship God. Machines don't spiritually worship and are not spiritually connected. 

And I really hate to be such a hair-splitter here, but you can't really tell us something that you imagine can possibly happen but hasn't, and call that "reality." The things which theoretically happen in your mind are certainly not reality.


----------



## Taz (Mar 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I never said that a spirit reincarnates. If a spirit itself reincarnated wouldn't that spirit have access to all its past lives and experiences? Which is currently not the case.


----------



## Taz (Mar 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


There was one supercontinent at the time?


----------



## Boss (Mar 13, 2015)

Taz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



I guess we need to have you define what you think "reincarnation" means? 

Then, we need to find out what kind of science you are using to determine what spirits can or can't do, have access to, or what is and isn't the current case.


----------



## Boss (Mar 13, 2015)

MaryL said:


> When you die, part of your brain is a effected. You start having delusions about a bright light down a tunnel and beauty and things, things start getting strange after a while.



Uhm, when you die, ALL your brain is effected. If your brain is still functioning, you are not dead yet. There have been numerous people who's brain stopped working and heart stopped beating, who were clinically dead, but were able to be revived. It is fascinating they all report a similar experience and it has absolutely nothing to do with their personal spiritual view. 

And I've about reached the end of my patience with the "delusions" dodge. Every time an Atheist is cornered without an answer, it's fucking delusions man, yeah, that's it! Delusions can explain away everything! When you drop a ball and it hits the ground, that is just your mind being delusional! Einstein came up with a theory of relativity but he was just being delusional! Darwin proposed evolution, he was obviously delusional! See how wonderfully convenient that word can be?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > When you die, part of your brain is a effected. You start having delusions about a bright light down a tunnel and beauty and things, things start getting strange after a while.
> ...


If you actually took the time to review the details you would discover that people report similar experiences near the cessation of heart rhythm due to our biology. As the brain is starved for oxygen and the blood chemistry is thrown into disorder, a whole array of processes is disturbed.

Learn a bit of science and biology.


----------



## MaryL (Mar 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > When you die, part of your brain is a effected. You start having delusions about a bright light down a tunnel and beauty and things, things start getting strange after a while.
> ...


Yeah. When the  mind is affected by illness, drugs or intoxicants, let alone oxygen starvation, folks  start  having (Take a big breath) DELUSIONS. They see bright lights down tunnels, they hear angels singing and all sorts of stuff. Ever Read Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot"?  It's all about a man that has epileptic seizures and he thinks he  is communing with god, with orgasms even. Delusional pegs religion well, as far as I am concerned. I also have epilepsy, and I understand. No mortal human being can pretend to understand GOD, if there is one.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 13, 2015)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


sorry, that was not my answer either......


----------



## Boss (Mar 13, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Yeah. When the mind is affected by illness, drugs or intoxicants, let alone oxygen starvation, folks start having (Take a big breath) DELUSIONS. They see bright lights down tunnels, they hear angels singing and all sorts of stuff. Ever Read Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot"? It's all about a man that has epileptic seizures and he thinks he is communing with god, with orgasms even. Delusional pegs religion well, as far as I am concerned. I also have epilepsy, and I understand. No mortal human being can pretend to understand GOD, if there is one.



Sorry, but you cannot have delusions if you are DEAD! When people are near death and they report seeing lights in tunnels, angels singing, etc., you have absolutely no scientific proof they aren't having a spiritual experience. NONE! How do I know this? Because physical science has no means to examine spiritual nature at this time. If something spiritual is happening, science has no way of knowing. You may speculate they are having delusions, but it's amazing how these "delusions" can include specific details about the room they are in, which they couldn't know unless they saw the room from outside their body.

*No mortal human being can pretend to understand GOD, if there is one.*

I actually respect this opinion and it's very similar to my own viewpoint. There is a supreme spiritual force which we can loosely define as "God." It doesn't have humanistic attributes because it doesn't need them. Although man is intrinsically connected to this spiritual force, we can never fully understand it. Mainly because it is something beyond our human ability to perceive. We don't have the imaginations to conceive it in our brain. It's beyond words we have to define things. It doesn't matter that we can't verify it physically, we all know it's there intrinsically. Some people adamantly deny this but they're lying. 

Religions are a completely different topic. While they do serve as clear evidence humans do make a profound, serious and important spiritual connection to something greater than self, they are creations of man and inherently flawed as a consequence. Some more so than others. Religions do good things and bad things, we should focus on appreciating the good and condemning the bad.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 13, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...


.
the apex of knowledge is the central figure, not the understanding of the Almighty and knowledge is indeed meant to be understood to the fullest, as a necessary ingredient to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting.

.


----------



## MaryL (Mar 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. When the mind is affected by illness, drugs or intoxicants, let alone oxygen starvation, folks start having (Take a big breath) DELUSIONS. They see bright lights down tunnels, they hear angels singing and all sorts of stuff. Ever Read Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot"? It's all about a man that has epileptic seizures and he thinks he is communing with god, with orgasms even. Delusional pegs religion well, as far as I am concerned. I also have epilepsy, and I understand. No mortal human being can pretend to understand GOD, if there is one.
> ...


You posit an opinion as fact. But AT least you are a gentleman  about this. You take away from this there IS a GOD, I am not seeing that. But when you die and see God put a good word in for me. If meet him first, I owe you a coke. Deal?


----------



## Boss (Mar 13, 2015)

MaryL said:


> You posit an opinion as fact. But AT least you are a gentleman about this. You take away from this there IS a GOD, I am not seeing that. But when you die and see God put a good word in for me. If meet him first, I owe you a coke. Deal?



Haha.. Deal!! 

Let me just say that a LOT of people don't see God because they don't want to see. I have found that a lot of atheists here seem to think the only possibility for any kind of God existing is a Christian or Abrahamic God... or worse yet, some terribly stupid and childish interpretation of such. I don't believe in those either.

I'm not the type of person who can have blind faith. I don't simply "believe in" spiritual nature, it's a realization and experience for me. Some people can't accept God because they can't see physical proof but I see all kinds of physical proof... God created the physical. Nothing else could create the physical, it defies physics.


----------



## MaryL (Mar 13, 2015)

No coke, I will kiss you. But if there isn't a god, then what?


----------



## Boss (Mar 14, 2015)

MaryL said:


> No coke, I will kiss you. But if there isn't a god, then what?



Well, I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed to find the God they imagined doesn't exist. But perhaps this is beyond my understanding as well and God somehow has a way to rectify our various incarnations of Him? It doesn't seem like everyone who believes in a God can be correct, but maybe they are? 

If there isn't a "God" (meaning a singular supreme figurehead) then there is certainly a prevailing spiritual force. We can't have intrinsic awareness of something that doesn't exist, it makes no sense in logic or reason.


----------



## Taz (Mar 14, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Noah only needed a few of each species because they later evolved into the millions of species we have now?


----------



## Taz (Mar 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There is no proof of a spirit that goes from life to life as a single entity. There could be simply a life energy that continues, possibly even related to dark matter, but that would just be a guess on my part at this point. Such a life energy is maybe a natural force of the universe, like gravity. Plants and other animals are alive and are aware of their surroundings as well. So it's probably part of the same natural force.


----------



## Boss (Mar 14, 2015)

Taz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Well technically, there is no "proof" for anything, including reality. Why does the lack of physical proof mean anything to a spiritual entity or state? I have never understood that. We don't entertain the argument that lack of liquid proof must mean ice is not frozen water. We understand lack of liquid proof doesn't apply to ice because it's in a different state. Spirituality is nature in a different state than physical, and yes... I agree, dark energy and matter may very well have something to do with it. 

This is why I constantly reject the inference that "spiritual" is "supernatural" ...it's very much a part of nature, not supernatural. 

But we are getting far away from your previous admission regarding "reincarnation." The only thing you can possibly mean with regard to this is the spiritual aspects of who we are. However you want to couch that and reference it, doesn't matter, it conveys the exact same thing. A spiritual self. There is no such thing as non-metaphysical reincarnation.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your invented spirit realms are of your own making. "Supernatural" as a term is something without a great deal of meaning as it applies to something beyond or outside of nature that remains undemonstrated and irrational. 

So-called supernatural realms are just that: beyond anything of the rational, natural world. Please provide testable evidence that any of your gawds in your invented spirit realms do exist. What you don't realize is that the assertion of “supernatural” suggests a different realm, that cannot be tested, cannot be accessed and cannot be quantified or qualified and is therefore no different from describing “nothing”.


----------



## Boss (Mar 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



We can apply the very same standard to quantum entanglement, dark energy and dark matter, black holes and singularities. These are not supernatural phenomenon. The fact that we don't fully comprehend something on a physical level, doesn't mean it is supernatural. 

Human spirituality and spiritual nature is very much rational. Nothing else makes rational sense. Physical nature did not create itself. Life cannot create itself. You have no testable evidence for this. You have loads of theories and speculations, every single one of them ends with something you cannot rationalize or explain.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You spend way too much time at the ICR website. 

Your inventions of various spirit realms and an alternate reality you retreat to as a means of placating your fears and superstitions is not winning converts.


----------



## Boss (Mar 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



And you spend way too much time at this website typing out the same dimwitted retorts. It's hard to convert that last 5% because most of them are stubborn and ignorant like you. I've been posting on forums for 20 years and I've never had anyone tell me I changed their mind. It's funny you believe this is my motive.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> If the constant of gravity is different then the effect of gravity is also different. This effects quarks, leptons, electrons... all kinds of things at the subatomic level which are not as they are because the gravitational constant told them to be.


But that would make the gravitational constant the "tuner" not the tuned!


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> My belief the universe is finely tuned is based on science and physics.


Impossible, as you understand neither.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Scientists have never been able to produce life from inorganic material. All life comes from life.


But all life is made up from naturally occurring inorganic molecules, so all life comes from inorganic material.


----------



## Boss (Mar 15, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > If the constant of gravity is different then the effect of gravity is also different. This effects quarks, leptons, electrons... all kinds of things at the subatomic level which are not as they are because the gravitational constant told them to be.
> ...



No more than your radio is the "tuner" because it happens to be on a station when you turned it on.


----------



## Boss (Mar 15, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > My belief the universe is finely tuned is based on science and physics.
> ...



I understand them better than you even with the observatory avatar. I presented a rather impressive list of noted physicists who agree the universe is finely tuned and you produced diddly-squat to refute that.


----------



## Boss (Mar 15, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists have never been able to produce life from inorganic material. All life comes from life.
> ...



Life comes from life. Provide evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What you did was classic "quote-mining". It's a common practice among religious zealots who take edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" and then attempt to portray the authors intent as having some connection with your religious beliefs. 

It's a dishonest and unethical tactic but common among the ICR groupies.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Life comes from organic organisms. There are a number of pathways that science has discovered whereby the elements of life that are abundant in the universe could spark life.

Identify how your gawds suddenly *poofed* life into existence.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


A radio requires no intervention by the gawds. Yours is yet another bad analogy furthered by your pals at the ICR.


----------



## Boss (Mar 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It's like PmP told you, we both believe the same weird "supernatural" shit happened, you just believe it was by random chance and no direction. Science has done nothing but present assorted theories. There are as many as 127 variations of Abiogenesis theory, some of them contradicting physical nature and the laws of the universe. None of them testable or provable and not even observable... but look at how devoutly you believe? 

LMFAO @ Life comes from organisms!  *WOW!*


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 15, 2015)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


finally you remembered my answer.........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


organic chemicals are not organic organisms.....if it is an organism it is already alive.....organic chemicals are called the building blocks of life....they are never called the builders of life.......


----------



## Boss (Mar 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> What you did was classic "quote-mining". It's a common practice among religious zealots who take edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" and then attempt to portray the authors intent as having some connection with your religious beliefs.



No, the quotes were not out of context, they clearly state that the universe is finely tuned for life and they can't explain why. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Stephen Hawking is an Atheist. His quotes are pretty fucking clear on what he means since he doesn't communicate vocally. It's difficult to take Hawking out of context. 

This debate has raged on for 20 pages! You have yet to produce one physicist who doesn't believe the universe is finely tuned. Okay, so some smarty pants posted some bullshit opinion by some pinhead who disagrees, but even in his own works he is agreeing the universe is finely tuned, he just thinks he can explain why. I think I can explain why too, the problem is proving it.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


But your radio IS the tuner! That is why a radio is called a tuner.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


*Appeal to Authority* is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an *authority* on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.

The fallacy of appeal to authority is NOT  science! You lack the scientific capacity to understand that.

I produced a number of different valuations for the gravitational constant, all of which were capable of producing stars and planets, etc., thus proving that even "fine tuning" has a "tuning" range.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nothing lives that is not made of inorganic material. Provide evidence to the contrary.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> *You have yet to produce one physicist* who doesn't believe the universe is finely tuned. Okay, so some smarty pants posted some bullshit opinion by some pinhead who disagrees


Actually PHYSICIST and "smarty pants" Victor Stenger produced a whole BOOK debunking your "fine tuned" OPINION.

Don't you ever get tired of lying, or is your lying spirit tireless?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 15, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your Sunday school lessons are a poor substitute for formal biology classes.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > What you did was classic "quote-mining". It's a common practice among religious zealots who take edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" and then attempt to portray the authors intent as having some connection with your religious beliefs.
> ...


You rely on your own limitations to infer that your "quote-mining" is representative of scientists suggesting that your invented gawds in your invented spirit realms are responsible for magically creating existence.


----------



## Boss (Mar 15, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *You have yet to produce one physicist* who doesn't believe the universe is finely tuned. Okay, so some smarty pants posted some bullshit opinion by some pinhead who disagrees
> ...



Yes, if you read Victor Stenger's book, he admits on page one that the universe is finely tuned. His book is about explaining it, not debunking it. None of his speculations on why we have a finely tuned universe is testable or observable.


----------



## Boss (Mar 15, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Really? Where is this universe you produced with Special Ed Gravity? You can calculate all kinds of formulas and values but formulas and values don't produce universes at all. 

Also, I don't think you comprehend what "appeal to authority" means. That would be me stating that Stephen Hawking says we have a fine tuned universe so we must have! That was not my argument, Hawking is introduced to support my argument. That's called citing credible references to back what you're saying and I totally understand why such a concept is over your head. We're not all blessed with the ability to create our own special gravity and universe like you.


----------



## Boss (Mar 15, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



DNA. It's organic.


----------



## Boss (Mar 15, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I've never called a radio a tuner. A radio is an inanimate object, it can't tune anything. A radio is an example of something that is *not* finely tuned, it requires a component for tuning it manually to different frequencies. Yes, we've invented new technologies to automate this process but the radio still depends on human input.

Can we stop being obtuse and childish now?


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> if you read Victor Stenger's book, he admits on page one that the universe is finely tuned. His book is about explaining it, not debunking it. None of his speculations on why we have a finely tuned universe is testable or observable.


You just can't stop yourself from lying. He admits no such thing on page 1 or any other page, in fact he asserts the exact opposite. While he mentions such thing as the multiverse and string theory as arguments against fine tuning, he uses only conventional physics to debunk fine tuning. You just think you can lie with impunity because you have anointed your self as God and therefore made yourself the final authority on EVERYTHING in the universe.

Amazon gives a sample of the book which includes page 1 of the preface and page 1 of chapter 1. Page 22 of the preface shoots down your lie entirely!

The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us Victor J. Stenger 9781616144432 Amazon.com Books


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Made of inorganic material.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


A radio has ALWAYS been called a "tuner," just as a radio with a built-in amp is called a "receiver." You know less about electronics than you know about science, and you know nothing about science.


----------



## Boss (Mar 15, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > if you read Victor Stenger's book, he admits on page one that the universe is finely tuned. His book is about explaining it, not debunking it. None of his speculations on why we have a finely tuned universe is testable or observable.
> ...



I suppose you need to read the book and not the excerpts. Stenger begins by cleverly changing the argument he is challenging to "a universe finely tuned by God" and that isn't the argument. Who fine tuned it has no bearing on whether it is fine tuned. His own argument admits there is a finely tuned universe, he seeks to explain how this is the case without the need for God. 

Ultimately, his argument is a form ofcircular reasoning.. The universe is fine tuned because it has to be.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Repeating your lie does not make it any less of a lie. But at least you dropped the "page 1" bluff part of your lie, of course, after I posted enough of the book to expose it as a lie, even a God like you had to back down.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Not because it has to be but because of your ".... because I say so" nonsense.

And still, you continue to follow the path of your mentors at the ICR by fabricating the "quotes" of others to fit your fundamentalist agenda.


----------



## Boss (Mar 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Not because it has to be but because of your ".... because I say so" nonsense.



No that is Stenger's argument and it's circular reasoning. Stating the universe is finely tuned because it has to be is no different than saying because God did it.


----------



## Boss (Mar 15, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Repeating your lie does not make it any less of a lie. But at least you dropped the "page 1" bluff part of your lie, of course, after I posted enough of the book to expose it as a lie, even a God like you had to back down.



Why don't you revert to arguing semantics over whether a radio is a tuner some more? I think that one really demonstrates your overall level of anxiety and desperation to win an argument here. 

As for Stenger's argument, I have read most of his book and I am not impressed. As I said, he begins by tacking on the caveat of "tuned by God" and his entire diatribe is centered on refuting that. He cannot avoid the fact of a finely tuned universe... no one can. At least not honest people.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Not because it has to be but because of your ".... because I say so" nonsense.
> ...


Lying about Stenger's argument does NOT make it circular, it only makes you a liar.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> As for Stenger's argument, *I have read most of his book*


Yeah, sure you did, that explains why you didn't even know what was on page 1 but tried to bluff you way into a pontification.


----------



## Boss (Mar 16, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > As for Stenger's argument, *I have read most of his book*
> ...



Look idiot, "page one" is what is known as "a figure of speech." I didn't memorize the book, I don't know the specific page he laid out his goofy premise, but the gist of his argument was as I stated. He actually states his idiotic non-point on the cover, BEFORE page one, in the title of the book!  

_The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning Why the Universe Is Not Designed *for Us*_ 

Now I don't fucking know *who* God fine tuned the universe for. It may have been for us, it may have been because God was bored, it may have been some reason only God knows. Maybe God is just extremely fucking lucky? --My argument is *the universe is finely tuned*. (not by who or for what) Stenger cannot avoid this fact so he tacks on the caveat of "for us" and proceeds to give his opinion why *that's* not the case. 

It's just another Atheist attempting to use science to try and refute God. Faced with the immutable fact of a fine tuned universe, he sidles around the argument by applying false caveats to whack religious people in the head. When I challenge you pinheads to give me an example of a physicist who doesn't believe the universe is finely tuned, this is your lone example. I posted the words of some of the most profound physicists in the world to support my claim, and all you can come up with is one lone hack who admits the universe is fine tuned, just not for us or by God. 

Pitiful!


----------



## Hollie (Mar 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Where are these "immutable facts of a find tuned universe".

You're getting quite desperate, bossy. Your "because I say so", arguments have that odor of desperation that defines the arguments of the hyper-religious.


----------



## Boss (Mar 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Where are these "immutable facts of a find tuned universe".
> 
> You're getting quite desperate, bossy. Your "because I say so", arguments have that odor of desperation that defines the arguments of the hyper-religious.



*sigh* How many times do I need to post these? 

Coupling constant for the strong nuclear force.
Cosmological constant, which acts to accelerate the expansion of the universe.
The initial density of the universe relative to the critical density.
Universal gravitational constant.
Mass of a proton relative to the mass of a neutron.
Fine structure constant.
Speed of light.

Those are the main ones, there are about 30 more. If the physical universe had not hit the lotto on these, nailing the one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion value it needed on each one precisely, the physical universe could not, and would not exist.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Where are these "immutable facts of a find tuned universe".
> ...


Nothing of your citing of natural forces suggests involvement by your gawds. You, and your pals at the ICR are making no connection between natural forces and magical gawds.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


and your posts are a poor substitute for debate......do you deny that an organism is already alive?.....


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> He actually states his idiotic non-point on the cover, BEFORE page one, in the title of the book!
> 
> _The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning Why the Universe Is Not Designed *for Us*_
> 
> Now I don't fucking know *who* God fine tuned the universe for. It may have been for us, it may have been because God was bored, it may have been some reason only God knows. Maybe God is just extremely fucking lucky? --My argument is *the universe is finely tuned*. (not by who or for what) Stenger cannot avoid this fact so he tacks on the caveat of "for us" and proceeds to give his opinion why *that's* not the case.


No, he says the universe is NOT fine tuned, PERIOD. You are a pathological liar.

Here is a quote:

"I have made a modest attempt to obtain some feeling for what a universe with different constants would be like. Press and Lightman (1983) have shown that the physical properties of matter, from the dimensions of atoms to the order of magnitude of the lengths of the day and year, can be estimated from the values of just four fundamental constants (this analysis is slightly different from Carr and Rees [1979 ]). Two of these constants are the strengths of the electromagnetic and strong nuclear interactions. The other two are the masses of the electron and proton. Although the neutron mass does not enter into these calculations, it would still have a limited range for there to be neutrons in stars, as discussed earlier. I find that long-lived stars that could make life more likely will occur over a wide range of these parameters. For example, if we take the electron and proton masses to be equal to their values in our universe, an electromagnetic force strength having any value greater than its value in our universe will give a stellar lifetime of more than 680 million years. The strong interaction strength does not enter into this calculation. If we had an electron mass 100,000 times lower, the proton mass could be as much as 1,000 times lower to achieve the same minimum stellar lifetime. *This is hardly fine-tuning."*


----------



## Hollie (Mar 16, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Your posts are a poor representation of a thinking human. Nowhere does "the gawds did it" answer anything.


----------



## Taz (Mar 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Life energy could be like gravity, not specific to each person. Meaning, that there's no proof that a spirit stays whole and goes from life to life intact.


----------



## Boss (Mar 16, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > He actually states his idiotic non-point on the cover, BEFORE page one, in the title of the book!
> ...



In *NONE* of his assertions is there *ANY* evidence. He is merely taking the constants apart with speculative analysis that can't be tested. His argument against a fine tuned universe amounts to *"nuh uh, is not!"* 

As I correctly pointed out, he does not bother to deny these irrefutable constants. He admits these exist, he just thinks they aren't all that important in the scheme of things, but he isn't offering ANY evidence other than his opinion, as far as I can tell. 

He makes statements about what "could be" if the values are different but there is not even a formula shown to see where he came to this conclusion. I don't believe he is a 'clairvoyant psychic' physicist, so where the hell are his mathematical formulas to support his theory?


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> If the physical universe had not hit the lotto on these ... the physical universe could not, and would not exist.


.
your own statement gives the physical its proper role in the development of the universe, the Spiritual would follow as a random variable enabling the occurrence for Life to then emerge - from the inert physical.

.


----------



## Boss (Mar 16, 2015)

Taz said:


> Life energy could be like gravity, not specific to each person. Meaning, that there's no proof that a spirit stays whole and goes from life to life intact.



Now you are trying to explain your way around the previous comment you made about reincarnation. There is no proof of spirits, whole, intact or not! What does it even mean that a "spirit stays whole or intact?"  --'the fuck are you talking about here? Spirits aren't physical so how would you determine if one was whole or intact? I mean, even as speculation, this does not make a lick of sense. 

Of course, we can sit here all day long and let our imaginations run wild with how spiritual nature may work, I can't prove you wrong and you can't prove you're right. Any speculation on the nature of spiritual nature is really beside the point. If you believe it's possible spiritual nature exists, then it is logical it would have a guiding mechanism like physics to physical nature. Whether spirits remain intact or assimilate themselves on the fly as needed, something has to control this process.


----------



## Boss (Mar 16, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > If the physical universe had not hit the lotto on these ... the physical universe could not, and would not exist.
> ...



Possibly.


----------



## Boss (Mar 16, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> No, he says the universe is NOT fine tuned, PERIOD. You are a pathological liar.



No, the title of his book is: _The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning Why the Universe Is Not Designed *for Us*_ 

He simply tacks on the concept of God at the end then presents his speculative opinion on why there is no God. He can't explain away the fine tuned universe! No one can! Every theoretical physicist and astrophysicist acknowledges the fine tuning of the universe, including this clown who simply pontificates his opinion as if it were science.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Where are these "immutable facts of a find tuned universe".
> ...


*sigh* 

How many more times are you going to fail in your attempts to use natural forces as a blanket "pwoof" for your gawds?

It really is a desperate and dishonest tactic to suggest that completely natural phenomenon somehow prove your spirit realms.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


do you deny that an organism is already alive......


----------



## Boss (Mar 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well maybe that has something to do with your insisting that spiritual nature is supernatural? The forces of nature are finely tuned, that is our debate here. Regardless of a God or the nature of spiritual nature, the forces of physical nature are finely tuned or physical nature couldn't exist. 

I'm not trying to prove my spirit realms, you don't have to believe spiritual nature exists. Your point is proven, so why are you still arguing? I can't show you physical proof of spiritual things. I won't be able to do that tomorrow or the next day. Physical science doesn't understand how to examine or observe spiritual nature, just like it doesn't understand the finely tuned universe, dark matter and dark energy, what's inside of a black hole, how quantum entanglement works, what gravity is!


----------



## Hollie (Mar 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Actually, it is you who has configured your religion of spirit realms as supernatural. It's convenient that you configured your new fangled religion be exempt from investigation by rational science but that's typical for all religions. You just copied the template in the creation of your _Religion of Magical Spirit Realms. 
_
And no, science, at least legitimate science doesn't buy in to the religious fundamentalist conception of your gawdly tuned universe because it's a silly notion that is unsupportable.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 16, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I deny you're capable of even _pretending_ to be a thinking human.


----------



## Boss (Mar 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I've not configured anything and I've repeatedly told you that I am not religious. Rational science has no explanation for a finely tuned universe but it can't deny one exists. That's okay, there are plenty of things at the subatomic level that rational science can't explain. 96% of our universe is comprised of dark energy and dark matter that our rational science can't explain. What happens when something physical crosses the event horizon of a black hole, rational science can't explain.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


In spite of your religious extremist views, no, science does not recognize your religious conception of what you call a "finely tuned universe". 

You won't learn science at the iCR.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


If you had actually read the book as you falsely claimed, you would know he does have many formulas backing his conclusions. He completely disproves fine tuning by showing that there is a wide range of values that will produce the same result.

Again, from the previous quote:

"If we had an electron mass 100,000 times lower, the proton mass could be as much as 1,000 times lower* to achieve the same *minimum stellar lifetime. *This is hardly fine-tuning."*


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> What happens when something physical crosses the event horizon of a black hole, *rational science can't explain.*


Just because you are stupid does not mean "rational science" is as stupid as you!

Nothing happens when something physical crosses the event horizon of a black hole, we simply lose sight of it because its light can't escape the gravity of the black hole to reach our observational instruments. It still physically exists but is invisible to an outside observer.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> I can't show you physical proof of spiritual things. I won't be able to do that tomorrow or the next day. Physical science doesn't understand how to examine or observe spiritual nature, just like it doesn't understand the finely tuned universe, dark matter and dark energy, what's inside of a black hole, how quantum entanglement works, what gravity is!


. 


> *b:* I can't show you physical proof of spiritual things









.





"things" 


* there is a definitive, visible distinction between the physical universe and the variably distinct Spiritual nature ... 

.


----------



## Boss (Mar 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Science doesn't recognize ANY religious concept, that's why I don't talk about them when I am presenting scientific facts like the fine tuned universe.


----------



## Boss (Mar 17, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Second time you've posted it-- still no formula appearing. Should I chant?


----------



## Boss (Mar 17, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > What happens when something physical crosses the event horizon of a black hole, *rational science can't explain.*
> ...



First of all, my usage of "rational science" was to mock the idiot Hollie who used it first. And I am sorry, science does not know what happens beyond the event horizon. Guarantee you, it's not something simple. 

I watched a documentary on black holes recently. It was on NOVA or Discovery, but they had the usual panel of talking head physicists they always have, interjecting commentary here and there. They asked them the question: What is a black hole made of? The result was stunning. Without exception, each of these science experts sat there dumbfounded, searching for something to say. They each stuttered around and finally admitted they have no idea. 

See... I have a little different theory of why you can't see beyond the event horizon and it has nothing to do with gravity. While we know gravity can bend light waves, I don't believe gravity affects the speed of light or the speed of light would vary depending on presence of gravity and we all know speed of light is constant. I think the reason we cannot see beyond the event horizon is because time stops. There is no time space for the light to exist in, therefore nothing is seen.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There is no scientific fact of any gawds creating a finely tuned universe.

You comments are literally drenched in religious connotations: the gawds you claim to have daily communications with, spirit realms, etc.

You're reciting the mantras that are spewed by the ICR. It's become as creepy as watching the kids in a Pakistani Madrassah rocking back and forth in endless recitations of religious verses. You are behaving in similar fashion with your endlessly repeated verses of some silly finely tuned universe, which doesn't exist.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Rational science is demonstrated by the scientific method. It's a logical and rational progression of ideas, theories and experimentation. It's a process of discovery which is absent in your world of religious fundamentalism wherein the world is governed by magical gawds in your version of magical spirit realms. 

You ICR groupies are a strange lot.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your event horizon theorem is interesting... in a comic book kind of way. 

Is that what they teach you at the ICR Summer Fundie Fest?


----------



## Boss (Mar 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



*There is no scientific fact of any gawds creating a finely tuned universe.*

Oh, I know.. I've been saying this all my life, where have you been? Why do you keep thinking I've made such a ridiculous statement? There is no scientific fact of any gawds doing anything. Or anything else spiritual, for that matter. Hell science has enough trouble establishing facts for physical science. Some would even say there are no scientific "facts." 

Now-- a finely tuned universe _*does*_ exist and virtually every physicist agrees it exists. Including people like Newton, Einstein and Hawking. Why or How are up for debate. Nothing is proven, no evidence exists for any solution, except something metaphysical.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


And they couldnt stand it that they had no evidence so they lied and said he visited.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


But most theists say he came and visited. Why do you think they lied?


----------



## Boss (Mar 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Rational science is demonstrated by the scientific method. It's a logical and rational progression of ideas, theories and experimentation. It's a process of discovery which is absent in your world of religious fundamentalism wherein the world is governed by magical gawds in your version of magical spirit realms.



It's also absent in the world of quantum entanglement, singularities, inside black holes, or regarding dark matter and dark energy... not to mention the everlasting question of origin of life. Oh, there are plenty of theories and ideas but all the experimentation keeps pointing to a creator. If you don't believe in a creator then it has to be magic, there's not another option.


----------



## Boss (Mar 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Do you have proof they lied?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Rational science is demonstrated by the scientific method. It's a logical and rational progression of ideas, theories and experimentation. It's a process of discovery which is absent in your world of religious fundamentalism wherein the world is governed by magical gawds in your version of magical spirit realms.
> ...


So you think the only 2 options or possible answers are a creator or magic? Lol


----------



## Boss (Mar 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> So you think the only 2 options or possible answers are a creator or magic? Lol



Yup!


----------



## Hollie (Mar 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I wasn't aware that virtually every physicist agrees with your assigning to them your religious belief of the finely tuned universe.

Your delusions have become a pathology wherein you believe what the voices in your head are telling you.

And, just to rock your world, Hawking has never stated the universe is finely tuned. Really dude, your desperate attempts to press your fundamentalist religious agenda really is a pathology.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


and yet I am not the one that claimed life originated from organic organisms.......


----------



## Hollie (Mar 17, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Creation by magic has no requirement for biology. ...............


----------



## Hollie (Mar 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Rational science is demonstrated by the scientific method. It's a logical and rational progression of ideas, theories and experimentation. It's a process of discovery which is absent in your world of religious fundamentalism wherein the world is governed by magical gawds in your version of magical spirit realms.
> ...


Your religious fundamentalist views are what point to designer/creator gawds.

Your gawds are also-rans in the human creation paradigm of creator/designer gawds.

To the back of the line for you and your gawds.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


M ten ft tall and can turn invisible and god talked to me and my moms a virgin. Got proof otherwise or to the contrary?


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> See... I have a little different theory of why you can't see beyond the event horizon and it has nothing to do with gravity. While we know gravity can bend light waves, I don't believe gravity affects the speed of light or the speed of light would vary depending on presence of gravity and we all know speed of light is constant. I think the reason we cannot see beyond the event horizon is because time stops. There is no time space for the light to exist in, therefore nothing is seen.


Light still exists in a black hole and is still moving, its mass just can't escape the event horizon to be visible to an observer outside of the event horizon. A black hole is a vortex, like the water circling the drain in a bathtub. Once light enters the event horizon it circles around the vortex as it is drawn down the black hole, like water down the drain.

So your "theory" is as unscientific as ALL your "science."


----------



## Boss (Mar 17, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > See... I have a little different theory of why you can't see beyond the event horizon and it has nothing to do with gravity. While we know gravity can bend light waves, I don't believe gravity affects the speed of light or the speed of light would vary depending on presence of gravity and we all know speed of light is constant. I think the reason we cannot see beyond the event horizon is because time stops. There is no time space for the light to exist in, therefore nothing is seen.
> ...



Nothing can exist in a black hole if there is no time space for it to exist in. We know time slows down as something approaches the speed of light, which is what is happening at the event horizon. And there is a reason we call it an "event horizon" and not a vortex. While there are some vortex characteristics, a black hole is quite different. With water spiraling down the drain, we can see inside the vortex walls down into the funnel, there is no defined "event horizon." We see nothing being "drawn down" the black hole. 

As for your last sentence, you just sat here and tried to explain to me what is happening inside a black hole. I propose you write down your finding and present your evidence for peer review and publication because you're obviously entitled to the next Nobel Prize in physics. If you actually know what is going on inside a black hole, you are ahead of every physicist on the planet.


----------



## Boss (Mar 17, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Nope.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


not knowing what an organism is shows you should be grateful there are no requirements of biology.......


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> *Nothing can exist in a black hole* if there is no time space for it to exist in. We know time slows down as something approaches the speed of light, which is what is happening at the event horizon. And there is a reason we call it an "event horizon" and not a vortex. While there are some vortex characteristics, a black hole is quite different. With water spiraling down the drain, we can see inside the vortex walls down into the funnel, there is no defined "event horizon." We see nothing being "drawn down" the black hole.
> 
> As for your last sentence, you just sat here and tried to explain to me what is happening inside a black hole. I propose you write down your finding and present your evidence for peer review and publication because you're obviously entitled to the next Nobel Prize in physics. If you actually know what is going on inside a black hole, you are ahead of every physicist on the planet.


Again, just because you are scientifically ignorant does not mean all of science is scientifically ignorant!

Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe Inside Science

*Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe*

Our universe may exist inside a black hole. This may sound strange, but it could actually be the best explanation of how the universe began, and what we observe today. It's a theory that has been explored over the past few decades by a small group of physicists including myself.


----------



## Boss (Mar 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *Nothing can exist in a black hole* if there is no time space for it to exist in. We know time slows down as something approaches the speed of light, which is what is happening at the event horizon. And there is a reason we call it an "event horizon" and not a vortex. While there are some vortex characteristics, a black hole is quite different. With water spiraling down the drain, we can see inside the vortex walls down into the funnel, there is no defined "event horizon." We see nothing being "drawn down" the black hole.
> ...



Another theory which defies physics and has no evidence to support it. Again... When you've confirmed what is inside a black hole, get that peer reviewed and published, then wait for your Nobel Prize to arrive man!


----------



## Hollie (Mar 18, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


It seems you even failed Benny Hinn Sunday school.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


That would apply to discovery of your new fangled designer gawds and the spirit realms you have configured for them.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 18, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


since you don't understand biology you would appear to be the perfect candidate for origin by magic........shit happened, and then life crawled out of a puddle of organic chemicals.....magic!


----------



## Hollie (Mar 18, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Shit happens is certainly an intellectual analysis for you Pat Robertson madrassah graduates but the science of biology is more rigorous than that.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Funny how YOU can be so certain what is NOT inside a black hole and have NO Nobel Prize to show for it!

From my link, idiot:

"The idea that our universe is entirely contained within a black hole provides answers to these problems and many more.* It eliminates the notion of physically impossible singularities in our universe. And it draws upon two central theories in physics.*"


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 18, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



lol, not what you pretend is science....


----------



## Boss (Mar 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well I stated my opinion which is just as valid as your opinion or Mr. Every Universe is a Black Hole. There is no formulas or tests, no observational data or research regarding the inside of a black hole, NONE! It is ALL completely theoretical speculation. 

Hey... *God created the heavens and earth..* provides answers to these problems and many more and eliminates the notion of physically impossible singularities in our universe and also solves the physics mystery in general. Problem is, like Mr. Every Universe is a Black Hole's theory, there is no Scientific basis.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 18, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Pointless. You Pat Robertson madrassah graduates are science illiterate.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, your "opinion" was that the theory in my link "DEFIES PHYSICS" and I showed that that stupid opinion of yours defies any understanding of Physics.


----------



## Boss (Mar 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well, if physics hasn't proven it and doesn't have evidence for it... then it *defies* physics. That's what the word means, Ed. It's not my opinion that his theory defies physics, that's a fact. My theory is, when things reach the speed of light, time stops. Physics supports my theory according to Einstein. If time stops, there is no time space for something to exist in. Now, you can disagree with my theory which physics supports, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, I can't offer scientific proof to support my theory. No one can when it comes to black holes, we don't fucking know what's going on there. It's all a matter of opinion. BUT... You fuckwits read some damn article which is chock full of phrases like _"we believe..."_ and _"it's possible that..."_ and _"seems to suggest...."_ but for some bizarre reason, this computes inside your brains as _"this is empirical truth no one can refute!"_ 

I think it's because you've sold your soul to science. You've abandoned human spiritual faith in God and replaced it with your God of Science, which is totally fallible and subject to error and fault. You don't like it when people point out the flaws in your God, it pisses you off because that's your faith and it's deeply personal to you.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 18, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I bet Pat Robertson doesn't think life originated from organic organisms.......


----------



## Boss (Mar 18, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



LOL... Not to be confused with those "inorganic" organisms!


----------



## Hollie (Mar 18, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I'm sure he doesn't. He is as science illiterate as so many of you YEC'ists who have never been exposed to a science curriculum.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Not to be confused with magical gawds and the silly "uncaused cause" argument.


----------



## Boss (Mar 18, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Not to be confused with magical gawds and the silly "uncaused cause" argument.



That's YOUR cause, my cause has a cause. 

Spiritual things exist eternally, they don't have a cause because they are eternal. They exist without presence of time, a physical dimension. It's not magic, it's just how physical and spiritual nature differ. You are the one who believes in some kind of magic. Somehow, physical nature defied itself and came into creation on it's own... you don't know how and can't explain how. Fits all definitions of magic perfectly, and that's your opinion. My opinion is, you are wrong. Spiritual nature created physical nature.


----------



## Boss (Mar 18, 2015)

Hollie said:


> I'm sure he doesn't. He is as science illiterate as so many of you...



Anyone who states that LIFE originated from "organic organisms" should never question anyone's science literacy.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure he doesn't. He is as science illiterate as so many of you...
> ...


You need to discuss that with the YEC'ist knucklehead who used the term. 

For that matter, you "uncaused cause" groupies from the ICR should always question your ability to function in the rational world.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Not to be confused with magical gawds and the silly "uncaused cause" argument.
> ...


Yes, apparently your gawds have an infinite hierarchal cause of designer gawds, caused by super designer gawds caused by super, super designer gawds, etc., etc.,etc.

Somehow, you became a groupie of the ICR and embraced fear, ignorance and superstition as a life's ambition. 

Still no converts to _Bossy's Religion of Invented Magical Spirit Realms? _


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Not to be confused with magical gawds and the silly "uncaused cause" argument.
> ...


From the big bang story it doesnt seem very spiritual. Maybe if it happened in 7 days but 13.5 billion? What was this creator doing 14 billion years ago? Maybe he rolled the dice on a universe before us and we are just another roll. Each roll taking 20 billion years our time of course.

An answer is not suppose to require more questions. Your explanations are not logical or factual. If it is please provide a link to anyone who supports your position. Or are you just another snowflake?


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> My theory is, when things reach the speed of light, time stops. Physics supports my theory according to Einstein. If time stops, there is no time space for something to exist in. Now, you can disagree with my theory which physics supports


There is NO physics, and especially not Einstein, that supports your bullshit! For time to stop, all motion must stop. That is physics. You admit that something is MOVING at the speed of light, therefore time has not stopped. A photon traveling at the speed of light, which it does, obviously exists. You are obviously too scientifically ignorant to know just how stupid you are!


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 18, 2015)

.
there is no reason to believe accomplishing Spirituality insures an eternal existence, anymoreso than a physical object will remain the same forever or that the physical and Spiritual may not become one or the other.

Admission to the Everlasting is only a beginning ...

.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 18, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you're the science illiterate who doesn't realize that when she says life originated from organic organisms you were saying exactly the same thing Boss was saying when he says Life comes from Life......


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....
> 
> Astral projection experiences.
> Near-death experiences.
> ...


It is a simple, lack of Perfect Knowledge; that is all.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 18, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I'm quoting you, you silly putz......


----------



## Boss (Mar 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > My theory is, when things reach the speed of light, time stops. Physics supports my theory according to Einstein. If time stops, there is no time space for something to exist in. Now, you can disagree with my theory which physics supports
> ...



Einstein's theory of special relativity supports my view. Notice, I did not state that his theory PROVES my view, only that it supports it. There is no scientific proof for this because our instruments can't travel the speed of light. We have proven, however, that time slows down as something (mass) approaches the speed of light. A photon is mass-less. 

I did not admit something is moving a the speed of light. I admitted as something approaches speed of light, time slows, because that's Einstein's theory. At speed of light, time = 0. If time = zero, there is no time space for mass to appear in. We don't know if it "exists" ...we can't examine it. We can logically presume that mass still exists because mass can't be created or destroyed, but our ability to observe and detect it is limited to the constraints of time space, a dimension in our physical universe.


----------



## Boss (Mar 19, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> From the big bang story it doesnt seem very spiritual. Maybe if it happened in 7 days but 13.5 billion? What was this creator doing 14 billion years ago? Maybe he rolled the dice on a universe before us and we are just another roll. Each roll taking 20 billion years our time of course.
> 
> An answer is not suppose to require more questions. Your explanations are not logical or factual. If it is please provide a link to anyone who supports your position. Or are you just another snowflake?



Well, at this point, science isn't even sure there was a "big bang" but let's assume there was, or at least some kind of cosmic event which set the universe into motion 13.7 billion years ago, which is the apparent state we find it in. All the parameters of physics that we understand were created and made functional and possible at the instant of this event. Physical nature began at this point as time also began. There is no physical explanation for this because physics doesn't exist until physical time and space exists. 

Now we still have little uniformed idiots running around espousing 20-year-old scientific speculations on a "singularity" which supposedly existed before the big bang. However, singularity completely defies physics. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle all but dooms any possibility for a singularity, but for years and years, physicists believed something would come along to explain this. Within the past 20 years, they have began to unlock the mysteries of quantum physics and it has caused a profound reconsideration of all we thought we knew about the origins of our universe. 

The paradox and dichotomy is, physical nature cannot create itself. This is unsupportable by physics or logic. Absent the possibility of physical nature creating physical nature, what remains? I'll leave that for you to ponder, but I believe the answer is spiritual nature which doesn't require time or space in a physical dimension.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're obviously confused and befuddled about your incompetence regarding terms and their usage. That's pretty typical for you religious zealots lacking a science vocabulary.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


What is an organic organism as opposed to a non-organic organism?

This is the danger you face when your science comes from the ICR sponsored Sunday schools.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > From the big bang story it doesnt seem very spiritual. Maybe if it happened in 7 days but 13.5 billion? What was this creator doing 14 billion years ago? Maybe he rolled the dice on a universe before us and we are just another roll. Each roll taking 20 billion years our time of course.
> ...



The problem you have is your new fangled religion of supernatural processes governed by your gawds and spirits is no different than the fundamentalist Christianity you stole from the ICR. You just gave your gawds a different name.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Not to be confused with magical gawds and the silly "uncaused cause" argument.
> ...


"Magic" is not a cause. It's an intellectual drop ten and punt because you're hopelessly ignorant of science.

You can posit all the various gawds and supernatural - magical realms you wish. It's obviously nothing more than your own adaptation of the appeals to ignorance, fear and superstition promoted by the ICR and other fundamentalist ministries.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 19, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You would think other theists would back up his claims but even they dont know what he is saying. I've asked him to show me any links from anyone who agrees with his "facts" and logic but it appears these are 100% bossisms.


----------



## Boss (Mar 19, 2015)

Hollie said:


> What is an organic organism as opposed to a non-organic organism?



One is redundant and the other is non-existent.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > What is an organic organism as opposed to a non-organic organism?
> ...


That describes your religious zealot cohort who still uses the term.


----------



## Boss (Mar 19, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You sure do spend an inordinate amount of your time vehemently refuting something you believe is non-existent. That's a little disturbing to me. It's a key sign of schizophrenia, have you ever been tested? This is not healthy for you, schizophrenia can lead to severe psychosis. 

Let's take an objective look at your behavior. How many consecutive days does this make that the sun comes up and here you are repeating the same basic refutations of spirituality? Are you trying and failing to convince yourself? Because you're not convincing anyone else. You don't ever seem to have any new information or even anything substantial to support your disbelief. It's just another day and more relentless refutation of something you claim is non-existent. Bizarre behavior indeed!


----------



## Boss (Mar 19, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No Dear, it was *YOU* who stated that life emerged from "organic organisms" and no one else.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I don't spend any time _not believing_ your fundamentalist religious views regarding magic and supernatural entities are non-existent.

You never offer even the most basic elements of supportable arguments for your specious claims. It is wholly irrelevant, as you know, how many times you recite your religious verses. While aspects such as repetition of the dogma is a staple of religions as a means to persuade the faithful, nothing in in your religious views which are replete with appeals to fear and ignorance are any different from every other religion in that it requires unthinking allegiance to the doctrines. Your religion of magical spirit realms fails because like other religions embraces faith, which is totally unnecessary to explain existence, because it requires the imposition of supernaturalism to "support" its veracity.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Sorry. You're confused. It was your YEC'ist cohort who used the silly term and you bought into it.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


She convinces me and you're a broken record.

I dont know why she bothers with you or postmordem either.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 19, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


your direct statement was life comes from organic organisms.....tell me Dr. Science, how were you using those terms of science vocabulary............


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 19, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


well....an organic organism is obviously a living thing......whereas a non-organic organism (not being anything that actually exists) would be only an example of how little you know about science or vocabulary.....


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> I did not admit something is moving a the speed of light. *I admitted as something approaches speed of light,* time slows, because that's Einstein's theory. At speed of light, time = 0. If time = zero, there is no time space for mass to appear in. We don't know if it "exists" ...we can't examine it. *We can logically presume that mass still exists because mass can't be created or destroyed,* but our ability to observe and detect it is limited to the constraints of time space, a dimension in our physical universe.


And there Einstein destroys your stupid opinion. Mass never reaches the speed of light because according to Einstein mass is INFINITE at the speed of light, a singularity!!!


----------



## Boss (Mar 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I did not admit something is moving a the speed of light. *I admitted as something approaches speed of light,* time slows, because that's Einstein's theory. At speed of light, time = 0. If time = zero, there is no time space for mass to appear in. We don't know if it "exists" ...we can't examine it. *We can logically presume that mass still exists because mass can't be created or destroyed,* but our ability to observe and detect it is limited to the constraints of time space, a dimension in our physical universe.
> ...



You're confusing yourself. A singularity is the theoretical condensing of all matter and energy in the universe into one very tiny point. Mass is not infinite at speed of light because mass is not created or destroyed (how can it be infinite?) Speed doesn't create more mass, so what the fuck are you talking about? Do you even know? 

Again, this is all sparked by the question of what is beyond the event horizon of a black hole, which you don't know. I don't know and science doesn't know. All we can do is speculate but it is clearly not scientific to start concluding and declaring impossibilities. This is why it's so dangerous to be making science into your God. It causes the ignorant to begin prosthelytizing and pontificating theories as facts. It is okay to say you don't know the answer. Einstein didn't know it, Hawking doesn't know, your favorite 'prophet' Neil Degrasse Tyson doesn't know. All anyone has is a theory. 

My theory is, what we observe to be a black hole is actually where the physical dimension of time has stopped because mass reached speed of light. The mass still exists inside the black hole, there is just no time space for you to observe it in. Now, if I could prove my theory is true, I'd be the most famous physicist ever known to mankind... a pretty significant deal since I am not even a physicist! But as I said, we can't prove this because we have no instruments which can travel the speed of light.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


.


> *b:* It's a key sign of schizophrenia -



.
by ignoring the consequential results of the past and emergent scriptural religious dogmas your rendition of Spirituality confirms the well founded script that those who fail to learn from History are bound to repeat it ...

Spiritualism does not equate to personal gratification.

.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> You're confusing yourself. A singularity is the theoretical condensing of all matter and energy in the universe into one very tiny point. Mass is not infinite at speed of light because mass is not created or destroyed (how can it be infinite?) Speed doesn't create more mass, so what the fuck are you talking about? Do you even know?


Hey dumb ass know-it-all, Einstein was talking about INERTIAL mass becoming infinite at the speed of light, you idiot!


----------



## Boss (Mar 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You're confusing yourself. A singularity is the theoretical condensing of all matter and energy in the universe into one very tiny point. Mass is not infinite at speed of light because mass is not created or destroyed (how can it be infinite?) Speed doesn't create more mass, so what the fuck are you talking about? Do you even know?
> ...



*Gravitational mass* is measured by comparing the force of gravity of an unknown mass to the force of gravity of a known mass. This is typically done with some sort of balance scale. The beauty of this method is that no matter where, or what planet, you are, the masses will always balance out because the gravitational acceleration on each object will be the same. This does break down near supermassive objects such as black holes and neutron stars due to the high gradient of the gravitational field around such objects. 

*Inertial mass* is found by applying a known force to an unknown mass, measuring the acceleration, and applying Newton's Second Law, m = F/a. This gives as accurate a value for mass as the accuracy of your measurements. When the astronauts need to be weighed in outer space, they actually find their inertial mass in a special chair. 

The interesting thing is that, physically, no difference has been found between gravitational and inertial mass. Many experiments have been performed to check the values and the experiments always agree to within the margin of error for the experiment. Einstein used the fact that gravitational and inertial mass were equal to begin his Theory of General Relativity in which he postulated that gravitational mass was the same as inertial mass and that the acceleration of gravity is a result of a 'valley' or slope in the space-time continuum that masses 'fell down' much as pennies spiral around a hole in the common donation toy at your favorite chain store. 

To state the answer one more time, there is *no difference* between gravitational and inertial mass as far as we know.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Bossy whines:



> *b:* It's a key sign of schizophrenia -



Yet, Bossy is the one rattling on about his magical spirit realms and invented supernatural entities.


----------



## Boss (Mar 19, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I'm having a hard enough time trying to understand one idiot, I don't need another one throwing indecipherable and incoherent half-baked sentences at me because he doesn't like my politics.


----------



## Boss (Mar 19, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Yet, Bossy is the one rattling on about his magical spirit realms and invented supernatural entities.



You're confused, dear... YOU'RE the one who believes in magic, I believe in God.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Yet, Bossy is the one rattling on about his magical spirit realms and invented supernatural entities.
> ...


You're free to believe in all the gawds you choose to invent as part of your new fangled religion. It's just important for you to understand that your gawds share the same attributes of all the other invented gawds: they're inventions of superstitious humans.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There is no difference when MEASURED, but there is a difference on what is producing the measurement, gravity in one case and movement/acceleration in the other. So as acceleration increases to the speed of light, the mass measured increases and at the speed of light the inertial mass is infinite, a singularity. Since infinite mass cannot reach the speed of light, your time stopping bullshit is not possible.
Get It?


----------



## Boss (Mar 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



*There is no difference when MEASURED, but there is a difference on what is producing the measurement, gravity in one case and movement/acceleration in the other. So as acceleration increases to the speed of light, the mass measured increases and at the speed of light the inertial mass is infinite, a singularity. Since infinite mass cannot reach the speed of light, your time stopping bullshit is not possible.
Get It?
*
No because what you are saying sounds so convoluted it doesn't make any sense. Inertial and gravitational mass are the same, the only difference is how they are measured. We cannot measure infinity, the value for it is unknown. That fucking sideways 8 is a nightmare for physics. 

You can pontificate what your opinion is on what happens to matter at the speed of light, but physics simply can't support you on it. Dance around and try to muddy the water by introducing "special" mass, and you look like a bumbling idiot. Inertial mass is exactly the same as gravitational mass. Mass cannot create itself regardless of how you calculate it, so if you calculate "infinite" mass, the flaw is in your formula or calculations. In other words, you are arguing something contradictory to physics. 

Now, the argument I have challenged is the prevailing theory that the reason we can't see beyond the event horizon of black holes is because gravity is so strong the light can't escape. That could theoretically be true, but it could also not be true. It is not conclusive. Most of the time you find me arguing points in science, I am simply arguing from the perspective that science is never conclusive. Theories are great, but they are not conclusions. Other possibilities always remain, and it's the providence of Science to explore those possibilities and discover.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Dance around and try to muddy the water by *introducing "special" mass*, and you look like a bumbling idiot. Inertial mass is exactly the same as gravitational mass.


Idiot! I introduced no "special" mass, you are just too scientifically ignorant to know how stupid you are.

Inertial mass. This is mainly defined by Newton's law, F = ma, which states that when a force F is applied to an object, it will accelerate proportionally, and that constant of proportion is the mass of that object. In very concrete terms, to determine the inertial mass, you apply a force of F Newtons to an object, measure the acceleration in m/s2, and F/a will give you the inertial mass m in kilograms.

Gravitational mass. This is defined by the force of gravitation, which states that there is a gravitational force between any pair of objects, which is given by

F = G m1 m2/r2

where G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects, and r is the distance between them. This, in effect defines the gravitational mass of an object.


----------



## Boss (Mar 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Dance around and try to muddy the water by *introducing "special" mass*, and you look like a bumbling idiot. Inertial mass is exactly the same as gravitational mass.
> ...



None of this matters in relation to what we were talking about. Inertial and gravitational are two ways to measure mass. Big Whoop! Why does that mean anything to the question of what happens to matter when it reaches speed of light? You do realize that actual physics operates by nature and not by a calculation, correct? I mean... e still equaled mc2 when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth, we just didn't know it until Einstein came along... that wasn't when relativity began, you do understand this, correct?


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No they are two different kinds of mass that are equivalent. *They are only "the same" in calculations!!! *

Matter can never reach the speed of light because its inertial mass becomes infinite at the speed of light.

Just because you are too stupid to understand the science does not mean "none of it matters."


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


. 
illiteracy is a poor excuse ... and a gratuitous calling card ( "_in charge and on point _" ).

.


----------



## Boss (Mar 20, 2015)

LMAO @ two different kinds of mass! 

Almost as good as "organic organisms" ...where Hollie says life came from, ya know?


----------



## Boss (Mar 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Matter can never reach the speed of light because its inertial *mass becomes infinite at the speed of light.*



Prove this!


----------



## Hollie (Mar 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> LMAO @ two different kinds of mass!
> 
> Almost as good as "organic organisms" ...where Hollie says life came from, ya know?


It's a shame there Bossy. Your failed arguments for the supernatural realms you have invented leaves you with no options but to spam the thread with your typically pointless banter.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Matter can never reach the speed of light because its inertial *mass becomes infinite at the speed of light.*
> ...


How comical. Bossy insists that his arguments, staples of fundamentalist ministries, are to be excused from the standards of proof that the relevant science community is held to.


----------



## Boss (Mar 20, 2015)

The Science community is only held to the standard of the Scientific Method. Don't whine about it, that's what Science has to adhere to in order to be Science and not be spiritual faith. 

The problem is, people like you, silly boob, eddy and others, want to claim science has spoken on things it hasn't. Here Eddy is, making conclusions on what happens to matter at the speed of light, just after he admitted matter can't travel the speed of light. You see, this is the difference between faith and science. Eddy has faith in spite of science... even if he has to create his own "special" kind of matter! You have faith that life emerged spontaneously... (or from organic organisms. lol) Silly Boob has faith that IF a God exists, it can't be a certain type and has to be another type. 

None of you have offered any scientific evidence for why spiritual nature doesn't exist and you can't. Science is physical science, it can't evaluate spiritual nature. For that you need human spiritual awareness, which you have but you're committed to suppressing. In fact, you are so committed your OCD has kicked in and you find yourself spending days and days of your personal time here, typing out the same mindless paragraphs.


----------



## Boss (Mar 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Matter can never reach the speed of light because its inertial mass becomes infinite at the speed of light.



If matter can never reach the speed of light, how do you know it's mass becomes infinite? Also, how did you determine a precise value for infinity? You see, Eddy.... You have FAITH in what a calculation tells you will happen IF matter were to reach speed of light, which it can't physically do. But our physical universe operates on physics and not calculations or faith in calculations.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Matter can never reach the speed of light because its inertial mass becomes infinite at the speed of light.
> ...


Actually, the universe operates under the auspices of the gawds who inhabit your magical spirit worlds.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Suckers are those who aren't interested in seeking the truth, regardless of where it leads.



Ironic coming from the sucker who is afraid of the scientific facts that expose the "truthiness" of his OP.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Mar 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> LMAO @ two different kinds of mass!
> 
> Almost as good as "organic organisms" ...where Hollie says life came from, ya know?


did you count the one the Catholic Church has early in the morning?......


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Matter can never reach the speed of light because its inertial *mass becomes infinite at the speed of light.*
> ...


As if YOU could possibly understand it, idiot!

Mathematically, this increased mass is given by : m*γ where m is the mass of the object at rest and γ is the Lorentz Factor, a function of the body's velocity given as follows: 

γ(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) 

As you can see, if you plug in the speed of light, γ becomes infinite ergo the object's mass appears to be infinite. However, an object can never be accelerated to the speed of light as some energy which is used to accelerate it will always add to its mass thereby requiring even more energy to accelerate the object at the same rate. Hence, an infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate an object to the speed of light. This can be shown mathematically as well: 

E = (γ-1)mc^2 where E is the Kinetic Energy of a moving body and c is the speed of light (m and γ are the same as before) 

Again, plug in c in the formula and you'll end up with infinity again.

E mc SUP 2 SUP - Special and General Relativity - The Physics of the Universe

If a body with mass is pushed ever closer to the speed of light, the body would have to become harder and harder to push, so that its speed never actually reached or exceeded the speed of light, which we know to be the de facto maximum speed. In fact, by extension,* if a material body were ever to reach the speed of light it would effectively have to have acquired an infinite mass.*

This connection between Einstein’s equation _E = mc2_, where _E_ stands for already seen that the Lorentz factor γ ≡ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, so we can therefore also say that _E =γmoc2_ (where mo is the rest previous section)* the mass of a moving object becomes greater and greater as its velocity increases until, at the speed of light, it becomes infinite.*


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Here Eddy is, making conclusions on what happens to matter at the speed of light, just after he admitted matter can't travel the speed of light. You see, this is the difference between faith and science. Eddy has faith in spite of science... even if he has to create his own "special" kind of matter!


Again you are toooooooo scientifically ignorant to know just how STUPID your pontifications are.

You think you can bluff by invoking the name of Einstein and by the fallacy of appeal to authority claim even he agrees with you and then you call that science!


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Matter can never reach the speed of light because its inertial mass becomes infinite at the speed of light.
> ...


Notice how Bossy has adopted MY argument that time does not stop as a mass reaches the speed of light because me mass can reach the speed of light because its mass becomes infinite at the speed of light as if it was his all along. After claiming that time stopped WHEN mass reaches the speed of light, he now claims I have to be wrong because matter cannot reach the speed of light. 



Boss said:


> My theory is, *when things reach the speed of light, time stops.* Physics supports my theory according to Einstein.


----------



## Boss (Mar 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> As you can see, if you plug in the speed of light, γ becomes infinite ergo....



Ergo, you have a physics paradox which *cannot* exist in our physical universe.


----------



## Boss (Mar 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Notice how Bossy has adopted MY argument that time does not stop as a mass reaches the speed of light because me mass can reach the speed of light because its mass becomes infinite at the speed of light as if it was his all along. After claiming that time stopped WHEN mass reaches the speed of light, he now claims I have to be wrong because matter cannot reach the speed of light.



My theory all along has been that it does not matter if matter's mass is infinite or anything else because at the speed of light, time stops. It can't physically exist without a time space in which to exist... doesn't matter what way you calculate it's potential weight.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > As you can see, if you plug in the speed of light, γ becomes infinite ergo....
> ...


Ahh. So this is where you revert to your claims that a supernatural component of the universe can be invoked, that magical portion of the universe controlled by the gawds in your supernatural realms.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > As you can see, if you plug in the speed of light, γ becomes infinite ergo....
> ...


Ergo, we have a mathematically proven physics fact that makes a fool out of YOU!


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> I think the reason we cannot see beyond the event horizon is because time stops. There is no time space for the light to exist in, therefore nothing is seen.





Boss said:


> My theory all along has been that it does not matter if matter's *mass* is infinite or anything else because at the speed of light, time stops. It *can't physically exist* without a time space in which to exist... doesn't matter what way you *calculate it's potential weight.*


Again we see the scientific ignorance of someone toooooo stupid to know the scientific difference between mass and weight, let alone that mass/matter/energy is conserved and can't suddenly stop existing as it crosses the event horizon of a black hole because it has reached the speed of light and thus time has stopped.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> For that you need human spiritual awareness, which you have but you're committed to suppressing. In fact ...


.
... human spiritual awareness







speaking of suppression, maybe that is why bossy is unable to recognize Spirituality and sees only the self interest of past ( Suppressors ) of true Spirituality and recognizes only what the anti-Spiritualist were trying to accomplish ... and became one of their converts.

indeed, one can not prove what one does not understand.

.


----------



## Boss (Mar 21, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No sir, you do not have anything physically proven until it happens, *which it can't.* 

You have a mathematical formula which is nothing more than characters scribbled on a page. I can write "Elvis is not dead!" on some paper, it does not make Elvis not dead! 

Now.. You and I have spent two fucking days arguing this irrelevant point that doesn't matter. Whether matter can't travel speed of light because it's mass is "infinite" or because time stops at speed of light--  either way, it's not physically possible according to actual physics. But you now have two days invested in an irrelevant argument you don't intend to lose, no matter how utterly stupid you look defending your pointless point!  

If I go by past experience with you, this is about the time when you up and decide to switch the argument around, usurp MY opinion and start claiming I've been arguing yours.


----------



## Boss (Mar 21, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I think the reason we cannot see beyond the event horizon is because time stops. There is no time space for the light to exist in, therefore nothing is seen.
> ...



I didn't say it stopped existing, I said it can't physically exist with no time space. More clearly, it can't *appear* to exist. In order for us to observe and perceive it, there has to be a time space where it can physically exist and at the speed of light, time has stopped. You can't physically express anything when time has stopped because there is no time for physics to operate. Now perhaps matter crosses into another dimension when it hits the cosmic speed limit? Theoretically, that's a possibility. We don't know because we can only perceive things in a physical universe with time and space as a dimension. 

What is not a physical possibility is the concept of infinity. Whenever a physics calculation results in a value which is infinite, it's a serious problem for physics. It means the principles of physics, including your calculation, has broken down and is unresolvable. This means, whenever we make statements about matter at speed of light, it is merely a speculation and not physically supportable. 

Because your calculations say mass becomes infinite, doesn't mean anything because we know mass cannot be infinite. It doesn't matter if your calculations predict it, your calculations must be wrong.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



*Boss'ism Alert!*

".....your calculations must be wrong...... "_because I say so_."

Classic Boss'ism. He understands only that nothing can challenge his gawds and spirit worlds yet he's left to defend his supernaturalism with nothing more than the ranting of Henry Morris at the ICR.


----------



## Boss (Mar 21, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Not because I say so but because it isn't possible. Mass cannot equal infinity. If you have physical evidence to suggest it can, your physical evidence is wrong, it has to be... doesn't matter what I say. 

You are in WAY over your head, toots. This conversation left your atmosphere a long time ago. Ed is arguing what he believes happens to matter at speed of light while also admitting his calculations for inertial mass prohibit matter from reaching speed of light. I am okay with Eddy's faith, it's just the presenting it as "science fact" that I have problems with. He cannot prove his formula true because it's not a physical possibility. He is assuming it would be true because the formula says so, but physics doesn't care about what you wrote on a piece of paper or what grunting sounds you created to describe it.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I do find some comedic relief in your statements of absolutes regarding subject matter you browse at the ICR and suggesting your religious dogma passes for a reasonable critique of science matters. 

Discussion of science left your spirit worlds long ago as your sole source of argumentation is intended to support your spirit realms, gawds and appeals to supernaturalism. 

This is why you're left to sniping as you're arguments are reduced to "..... because I say so".


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> I didn't say it stopped existing, I said it can't physically exist


March 01, 2012

RUSH: To put it bluntly, *dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing*! You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and* there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb. *


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Now perhaps matter crosses into another dimension when it hits the cosmic speed limit? Theoretically, that's a possibility.


Idiot, matter cannot "hit the cosmic speed limit." It is not a theoretical possibility because it has been mathematically shown by Einstein to be impossible, you fool.


----------



## Boss (Mar 21, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Now perhaps matter crosses into another dimension when it hits the cosmic speed limit? Theoretically, that's a possibility.
> ...



This is where your brain has things flip-flopped. Nothing in physics has ever happened because someone mathematically expressed it. Mathematically, it is impossible for a single electron to be in two places at the same time but it happens all the time. The electrons apparently aren't concerned with your 'flawed' mathematics. 

You are saying matter cannot reach speed of light because Einstein wrote a formula which says that's not possible. The thing is, nature doesn't have any respect for Einstein or formulas, and more importantly, you're concepts of what is or isn't possible.. To complicate things further, you also seem to think that "infinity" is a resolved value and it's not... it's a physicists worst nightmare. When something calculates to infinity it means physics has no resolution and can present no valid answer as a result. 

How much is two times infinity? What is the value of infinity plus one? How much is 10% of infinity? As you can see, infinity poses an impossible problem for mathematical evaluation. It is as totally useless to formulas as a question mark. .


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> Earlier, I posted the formula in physics for the gravitational constant. Now, either the formula is correct or it isn't, math doesn't produce uncertain results.


Boss V Boss


Boss said:


> This is where your brain has things flip-flopped. Nothing in physics has ever happened because someone mathematically expressed it.


----------



## Boss (Mar 21, 2015)

There is no contradiction of those two separate points.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> There is no contradiction of those two separate points.


And there is no truth to that statement!


----------



## Bonita Louise (Mar 23, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Well said dear..


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 23, 2015)

Hollie said:


> What _supernatural laws _can you define for us that will explain the natural world?



Dear Hollie
You may not consider this supernatural
but the process of FORGIVING things in the past, or things collectively,
has been shown to IMPACT the individual's perception or relations with others.

Where does this change come from?
Where does the energy come from that allows a person to FORGIVE and CHANGE
perception. Does it come from within that person? So thoughts and energy we are
already generating affect themselves? 

If CHANGE involves energy OUTSIDE a system, is this coming from inside or outside?
How does THAT work, can you explain emotional changes that people go through
as something internal or "externally injected" from collective society?

Is that an EQUAL exchange of energy?

If so, where did the force come from to INSTIGATE this mutual exchange?

Can  you explain the relationship and perception/emotional changes
people have on each other WITHOUT referring to some collective
process that requires a "super-" or external energy coming from "outside the given system or fields of energy/waves/mass"


----------

