How did the Universe get here?

[emilynghiem]

In fact, much of what you consider to be physical is spiritually manifested. Like energy and gravity.

You are way off base there, they are purely physical and can be measured physically.

Remember:

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

Dear [MENTION=13101]edthecynic[/MENTION] and [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]

1. I disagree that something measured physically can't be spiritual in nature

We can measure the brain patterns and responses to
fear vs. love
enough to tell the difference
but these can both still have spiritual aspects to them

We just can't make someone else call it that

2. For demonic or angelic influences, again, we can document
the energy and maybe the process
and it can still be a spiritual process connecting people over time and space

We may not be able to prove it to someone using those terms,
but it is possible to document and measure the physical effects and process

As long as we agree WHICH energy yields positive effects in which situations
and which energy yield negative effects, that's good enough to solve problems with

3. again I compare it to dreams
we cannot prove that you dreamed X or I dreamed Y or if this is spiritual or what
we can show the physical brain patterns while we were dreaming

As long as you and I agree what we mean by dreams
they can still operate on the same level

even if you say it is spiritual and I only see it is a physical process

We can even share the content and interpretations of these dreams,
and talk about the dreams of others as common phenomena
while some people call it spiritual and others do not

that is not necessary in order to focus on the "content and meaning"

 

[Derideo_Te]

Except that, as usual, you provide no clear definition for what the spiritual is nor how you or anyone else can objectively observe it. This is further complicated by your vague descriptions of the interaction between the spiritual and the physical, the questions of whether and how one can effect the other, etc. Your logic only holds up if one begins by accepting a premise with no evidence; that the spiritual exists and does so in a way described by you.

You also have yet to clearly explain just how you come by your knowledge of the spiritual, nor have you explained why the rest of the world is unable to see the evidence that you do. You generally start talking about religious belief when this is brought up, despite your own stated belief that religions are merely poor interpretations of the spiritual connection which you, and quite possibly you alone, understand.

Well you can't objectively observe the spiritual in a physical sense. You can observe it in a spiritual sense, but you have to first be willing to recognize 'spiritual' can exist. As long as your conception of "exist" only includes physical existing, and "objective observation" is confined to the physical, it's not possible. It doesn't matter how much you demand it or how much I try to explain it to you, if you don't accept that 'spiritual' is real, we're at a dead end.

There is PLENTY of evidence for the spiritual, I've never said there wasn't. YOU argue there isn't because there isn't physical evidence for the spiritual, and I agree. But there is mountains of spiritual evidence. In fact, much of what you consider to be physical is spiritually manifested. Like energy and gravity. Can't prove it to you because you don't accept 'spiritual' as being real.

It's not just me alone, we've covered this over and over. It's billions and billions of humans spanning the entirety of the species existence. It's 88% of the current population of the planet. You are among the vast minority who doesn't acknowledge the 'spiritual' as real. The rest of us do realize it and connect with it. That's what motivates people to create all of these various religions.

Actually it is relatively easy to measure people who are experiencing a spiritual state with modern equipment. So much so that it is possible to identify the same state in other mammals. The fallacy is to assume that the human spiritual state is evidence of the existence of a deity.

 

[AVG-JOE]

There IS one way for proof of God to be found. One and only one...
God could prove Himself.

I think I'd go with pillars of fire blocking all of the abortion clinics and gay bars, but I'm probably more cynical than God. Ass-U-Me-ing God IS, that is.

Yes, you are cynical. I think energy and gravity should reveal themselves to us and let us know they are not spiritually inspired. They could start by not being immortal, by being creatable and destroyable... like other physical things. Why can't they just do that and then we could put this whole argument to rest?

I mean... If gravity is SO great, why does it have to kill so many innocent people. They fall off a building or ladder, and gravity just kills them for no reason. It should be like a giant marshmallow, when they hit the ground it could change it's characteristics to break the fall! And energy, it mercilessly kills people too! Electricity, for instance, should be more benevolent and caring, give us a little warning before it unleashes it's power on an unsuspecting individual. We should be able to stick our tongue in a light socket and maybe get a really sour taste or bitter... yeah, bitter would be best... then we'd know it was present and wouldn't die trying to taste it!

So here is what I propose... I will have a talk with God about proving Himself to you, and you have a talk with energy and gravity! Maybe we can even get emily involved as a mediator? Together, we can all be happy in a perfect little world!!

I heard the perfect thing this weekend on one of those Sunday morning animal shows. They took one monkey away and the others knew something was up so they started freaking out. The zoologist said "like all animals they have a healthy fear of the unknown" And that is why you believe in a god.

Just a few more chromizones and those apes would believe in god(s) too. Maybe they do. Maybe they think we're gods. And we must be since they have always thought we were. Maybe they are right, right?

Oh, and I saw another story where 5 different religions clashed in Yugoslavia and the historian giving the guy a tour was explaining now the politicians riled them up. I reject your premise that every society that has abandoned god has been fucked up. That doesn't have to be the way it is.

I also watched a religious show on how man's law isn't as good as gods law because of abortion. But in the next sentence he acknowledged how we are destroying this planet with pollution. So I say thank GOD we have aborted those billion people. This planet can't afford them.

Anyways, my point is, god is a silly reason to ban abortion when we clearly need population control. And some people just can't/shouldn't/don't want to raise children. So I say we will do just fine without god's laws as long as we have laws.

We may still have to fight the ISIS/Muslim religion still thought.

P.S. Did you think about the number of young people that say they believe in god? Went from 80 to 70 to 60 today in just a few years. Are you sure religion is here to stay? I say it's a dieing thing. Sure we'll always have cults yes but it won't be 80% of the population.


And seriously, I don't buy it that less religion equals higher crime. I think higher unemployment and desperation cause those things. I'm living proof you don't have to believe there is an invisible man watching you and you can still be a good person. No god necessary. Maybe for you but you're the past. Already too far brainwashed.

The trick is to have basic Civil Law that deals with behaviors, and then let everyone who wants to add belief laws like Sharia Law, Christian Law and/or Jewish Law to their own personal life have at it.

Tolerance and Education, Baby!

 

[AVG-JOE]

There IS one way for proof of God to be found. One and only one...

God could prove Himself.
​

OK but it will take a lot of corn popping for this show.

The Christian way of saying it is if two or three witnesses to God's truth agree and pray in Jesus name, then it is done by the Father in Heaven.

So if two or three groups (independent sources, such as atheist scientists using science, and Christian believers using Christian prayer) were to form an agreement...

Can we start with just the agreement between a few groups coming together as witnesses to universal truth, establish that privately and then share it publicly to see the effect?

Universal truth?

The only universal truth that I know of is that all Monkeys die.

Beyond that all we have is speculations and opinions about speculations.

Back to square one.

 

[Boss]

Actually it is relatively easy to measure people who are experiencing a spiritual state with modern equipment. So much so that it is possible to identify the same state in other mammals. The fallacy is to assume that the human spiritual state is evidence of the existence of a deity.

This is not measuring something spiritual. You are measuring a possible reaction to something spiritual. It is not possible to know for certain you are measuring the same thing in another mammal.

Who said anything about a deity?

 

[Boss]

In fact, much of what you consider to be physical is spiritually manifested. Like energy and gravity.

You are way off base there, they are purely physical and can be measured physically.

Remember:

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

Yes, God can't be measured physically. Only physical things can be measured physically. That doesn't mean that physical things can ONLY be measured physically. Spiritual created physical, it is manifest in everything physical by that aspect alone. Your son is not you. However, your son couldn't exist without you and you are a part of your son. You are not your son, never will be. This doesn't change the fact your son couldn't exist without you and part of you is in your son.

 

[sealybobo]

In fact, much of what you consider to be physical is spiritually manifested. Like energy and gravity.

You are way off base there, they are purely physical and can be measured physically.

Remember:

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

Yes, God can't be measured physically. Only physical things can be measured physically. That doesn't mean that physical things can ONLY be measured physically. Spiritual created physical, it is manifest in everything physical by that aspect alone. Your son is not you. However, your son couldn't exist without you and you are a part of your son. You are not your son, never will be. This doesn't change the fact your son couldn't exist without you and part of you is in your son.

Now I get it. That horny feeling dad got before he banged my mom is not physical. His erection might have been but the feeling was spiritual. So that's god?

If you can't measure god physically then you have zero proof. It is amazing and baffling and we may never have all the answers but to call the energy "god" is just misleading.

Did you read my comment from earlier? I was watching a show on apes and the zoo keeper said they were stressed because they knew something was wrong. He said, "all animals have a healthy fear of the unknown". And that is how your ape ancestors invented god. And it is also why today you believe. You have a healthy fear of the unknown and you have a wild enough imagination that it over rides your common sense.

 

[sealybobo]

Actually it is relatively easy to measure people who are experiencing a spiritual state with modern equipment. So much so that it is possible to identify the same state in other mammals. The fallacy is to assume that the human spiritual state is evidence of the existence of a deity.

This is not measuring something spiritual. You are measuring a possible reaction to something spiritual. It is not possible to know for certain you are measuring the same thing in another mammal.

Who said anything about a deity?

Ample evidence shows that animals are extremely smart and that they demonstrate emotional and moral intelligences.

But what about their spiritual lives? Do animals marvel at their surroundings, have a sense of awe when they see a rainbow, find themselves by a waterfall, or ponder their environs? Do they ask where does lightning come from? Do they go into a "zone" when they play with others, forgetting about everything else save for the joy of playing? What are they feeling when they perform funeral rituals?

science may never be able to measure such emotions with any precision, but anecdotal evidence and careful observation indicate such feelings may exist.

So too does evolutionary theory. Recall Charles Darwin's ideas about evolutionary continuity in which differences among species are differences in degree rather than differences in kind. The bottom line is that if we have something, they (other animals) do too, and it would behoove us to study the questions at hand rather than dismiss them because animal can't possibly do or experience something that we think is uniquely human. For years it was thought that only humans were rational, self-conscious, linguistic, or moral beings, but we now know this isn't so (see also). Darwin also commented that we really can't be sure that animals don't reflect on past pleasures and pains, for they have "excellent memories and some power of imagination."

So, what can we say about animal spirituality? Of course much turns on how the word "spiritual" is defined, but for the moment let's simply consider nonmaterial, intangible, and introspective experiences as spiritual, of the sort that humans have.

Consider waterfall dances, which are a delight to witness. Sometimes a chimpanzee, usually an adult male, will dance at a waterfall with total abandon. Why? The actions are deliberate but obscure. Could it be they are a joyous response to being alive, or even an expression of the chimp's awe of nature? Where, after all, might human spiritual impulses originate?

For now, let's keep the door open to the idea that animals can be spiritual beings and let's consider the evidence for such a claim. Meager as it is, available evidence says "Yes, animals can have spiritual experiences" and we need to conduct further research and engage in interdisciplinary discussions before we say that animals cannot and do not experience spirituality.

 

[sealybobo]

Actually it is relatively easy to measure people who are experiencing a spiritual state with modern equipment. So much so that it is possible to identify the same state in other mammals. The fallacy is to assume that the human spiritual state is evidence of the existence of a deity.

This is not measuring something spiritual. You are measuring a possible reaction to something spiritual. It is not possible to know for certain you are measuring the same thing in another mammal.

Who said anything about a deity?

A HA@!!!

From a neurological perspective, spiritual sensations like out-of-body experiences are fairly easy to understand. They're the result of changes in the brain's arousal system. But animals have the same system as humans...meaning animals could have a spirituality all their own.

This new theory is put forward by University of Kentucky neuroscientist Kevin Nelson. He freely admits there's no obvious way to actually prove animals perceive out-of-body experiences and other mental sensations commonly associated with spiritual phenomena, but they possess all the same structures do in order to experience them

Nelson explains the basics of his theory:

"Since only humans are capable of language that can communicate the richness of spiritual experience, it is unlikely we will ever know with certainty what an animal subjectively experiences. Despite this limitation, it is still reasonable to conclude that since the most primitive areas of our brain happen to be the spiritual, then we can expect that animals are also capable of spiritual experiences."

 

[sealybobo]

Actually it is relatively easy to measure people who are experiencing a spiritual state with modern equipment. So much so that it is possible to identify the same state in other mammals. The fallacy is to assume that the human spiritual state is evidence of the existence of a deity.

This is not measuring something spiritual. You are measuring a possible reaction to something spiritual. It is not possible to know for certain you are measuring the same thing in another mammal.

Who said anything about a deity?

Let me re post this so to make sure you get it: the most primitive areas of our brain happen to be the spiritual

 

[sealybobo]

In fact, much of what you consider to be physical is spiritually manifested. Like energy and gravity.

You are way off base there, they are purely physical and can be measured physically.

Remember:

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

Yes, God can't be measured physically. Only physical things can be measured physically. That doesn't mean that physical things can ONLY be measured physically. Spiritual created physical, it is manifest in everything physical by that aspect alone. Your son is not you. However, your son couldn't exist without you and you are a part of your son. You are not your son, never will be. This doesn't change the fact your son couldn't exist without you and part of you is in your son.

Look at it this way. With all your theories, you are at least as smart as a monkey Boss.

These mystical sensations that can produce a sense of wonderment in humans are produced in the limbic system. The limbic system is a relatively primitive part of the brain, and lots of other animals possess the same basic structures. The similarity is strong enough that Nelson suspects animals might even possess a sense of spiritual oneness, feelings that are produced entirely by the brain's perception of wonder and not in reaction to its surroundings.

No less an expert than legendary primate researcher Jane Goodall buys into the theory. She has written on chimpanzees who dance themselves into a trance-like state after heavy rains. This reverie looks suspiciously like those found in religious and other human cultural ceremonies, and is perhaps another indication that mystery and wonder are not the exclusive domain of humans.

 

[Montrovant]

Except that, as usual, you provide no clear definition for what the spiritual is nor how you or anyone else can objectively observe it. This is further complicated by your vague descriptions of the interaction between the spiritual and the physical, the questions of whether and how one can effect the other, etc. Your logic only holds up if one begins by accepting a premise with no evidence; that the spiritual exists and does so in a way described by you.

You also have yet to clearly explain just how you come by your knowledge of the spiritual, nor have you explained why the rest of the world is unable to see the evidence that you do. You generally start talking about religious belief when this is brought up, despite your own stated belief that religions are merely poor interpretations of the spiritual connection which you, and quite possibly you alone, understand.

Well you can't objectively observe the spiritual in a physical sense. You can observe it in a spiritual sense, but you have to first be willing to recognize 'spiritual' can exist. As long as your conception of "exist" only includes physical existing, and "objective observation" is confined to the physical, it's not possible. It doesn't matter how much you demand it or how much I try to explain it to you, if you don't accept that 'spiritual' is real, we're at a dead end.

There is PLENTY of evidence for the spiritual, I've never said there wasn't. YOU argue there isn't because there isn't physical evidence for the spiritual, and I agree. But there is mountains of spiritual evidence. In fact, much of what you consider to be physical is spiritually manifested. Like energy and gravity. Can't prove it to you because you don't accept 'spiritual' as being real.

It's not just me alone, we've covered this over and over. It's billions and billions of humans spanning the entirety of the species existence. It's 88% of the current population of the planet. You are among the vast minority who doesn't acknowledge the 'spiritual' as real. The rest of us do realize it and connect with it. That's what motivates people to create all of these various religions.

So we see, that yes, you use logic in your arguments. It's just circular logic, which you have no problem with and think is somehow valid in a discussion.

Yes, billions of people have believed in something spiritual. Of course, those same billions have believed in something different from you, and most would likely scoff at your explanations of the spiritual. It's convenient that you can both dismiss or denigrate their beliefs as misguided at the same time you try to use those beliefs as evidence of your own.

You cannot seem to decide if the spiritual and the physical interact and effect each other. You can't define the spiritual, other than to say it is non-physical. You talk about spiritual evidence being something other than physical evidence, then use physical examples as evidence of the spiritual.

As per usual, your evidence and explanations boil down to 'because I say so'.

 

[sealybobo]

Except that, as usual, you provide no clear definition for what the spiritual is nor how you or anyone else can objectively observe it. This is further complicated by your vague descriptions of the interaction between the spiritual and the physical, the questions of whether and how one can effect the other, etc. Your logic only holds up if one begins by accepting a premise with no evidence; that the spiritual exists and does so in a way described by you.

You also have yet to clearly explain just how you come by your knowledge of the spiritual, nor have you explained why the rest of the world is unable to see the evidence that you do. You generally start talking about religious belief when this is brought up, despite your own stated belief that religions are merely poor interpretations of the spiritual connection which you, and quite possibly you alone, understand.

Well you can't objectively observe the spiritual in a physical sense. You can observe it in a spiritual sense, but you have to first be willing to recognize 'spiritual' can exist. As long as your conception of "exist" only includes physical existing, and "objective observation" is confined to the physical, it's not possible. It doesn't matter how much you demand it or how much I try to explain it to you, if you don't accept that 'spiritual' is real, we're at a dead end.

There is PLENTY of evidence for the spiritual, I've never said there wasn't. YOU argue there isn't because there isn't physical evidence for the spiritual, and I agree. But there is mountains of spiritual evidence. In fact, much of what you consider to be physical is spiritually manifested. Like energy and gravity. Can't prove it to you because you don't accept 'spiritual' as being real.

It's not just me alone, we've covered this over and over. It's billions and billions of humans spanning the entirety of the species existence. It's 88% of the current population of the planet. You are among the vast minority who doesn't acknowledge the 'spiritual' as real. The rest of us do realize it and connect with it. That's what motivates people to create all of these various religions.

So we see, that yes, you use logic in your arguments. It's just circular logic, which you have no problem with and think is somehow valid in a discussion.

Yes, billions of people have believed in something spiritual. Of course, those same billions have believed in something different from you, and most would likely scoff at your explanations of the spiritual. It's convenient that you can both dismiss or denigrate their beliefs as misguided at the same time you try to use those beliefs as evidence of your own.

You cannot seem to decide if the spiritual and the physical interact and effect each other. You can't define the spiritual, other than to say it is non-physical. You talk about spiritual evidence being something other than physical evidence, then use physical examples as evidence of the spiritual.

As per usual, your evidence and explanations boil down to 'because I say so'.

And I have shown him that science says the spiritual part of of the brain comes from the most primitive part of the brain but his brain is so hard wired he can't even believe his own lying eyes. At least admit you have no hard evidence to prove the existence of god BOSS so we can move on. First of all, that this shouldn't be and isn't a fucking christian nation. Second, so we stop brainwashing human's with a lie. If churches want to sell "spirituality" then so be it. But to tell us an invisible man is going to send us to heaven or hell if we do or don't believe? What the fuck? And boss thinks that this new human not being lied to and controlled anymore will run amok. We NEED god on that wall we WANT god on that wall but then....wait that's from A Few Good Men, but you get my point.

We need to kill the Jesus lie and then fight the Muslims because those people are all religious because they are being forced to be religious. Give them freedom and then watch them get Enlightened very quickly. I've seen it in my friends. Seeing how sure the Muslims are and then come to America where Gismys' are equally sure their way is the best opened his eyes they are all fools GISMYS you stupid bitch.

 

[GISMYS]

Well you can't objectively observe the spiritual in a physical sense. You can observe it in a spiritual sense, but you have to first be willing to recognize 'spiritual' can exist. As long as your conception of "exist" only includes physical existing, and "objective observation" is confined to the physical, it's not possible. It doesn't matter how much you demand it or how much I try to explain it to you, if you don't accept that 'spiritual' is real, we're at a dead end.

There is PLENTY of evidence for the spiritual, I've never said there wasn't. YOU argue there isn't because there isn't physical evidence for the spiritual, and I agree. But there is mountains of spiritual evidence. In fact, much of what you consider to be physical is spiritually manifested. Like energy and gravity. Can't prove it to you because you don't accept 'spiritual' as being real.

It's not just me alone, we've covered this over and over. It's billions and billions of humans spanning the entirety of the species existence. It's 88% of the current population of the planet. You are among the vast minority who doesn't acknowledge the 'spiritual' as real. The rest of us do realize it and connect with it. That's what motivates people to create all of these various religions.

So we see, that yes, you use logic in your arguments. It's just circular logic, which you have no problem with and think is somehow valid in a discussion.

Yes, billions of people have believed in something spiritual. Of course, those same billions have believed in something different from you, and most would likely scoff at your explanations of the spiritual. It's convenient that you can both dismiss or denigrate their beliefs as misguided at the same time you try to use those beliefs as evidence of your own.

You cannot seem to decide if the spiritual and the physical interact and effect each other. You can't define the spiritual, other than to say it is non-physical. You talk about spiritual evidence being something other than physical evidence, then use physical examples as evidence of the spiritual.

As per usual, your evidence and explanations boil down to 'because I say so'.

And I have shown him that science says the spiritual part of of the brain comes from the most primitive part of the brain but his brain is so hard wired he can't even believe his own lying eyes. At least admit you have no hard evidence to prove the existence of god BOSS so we can move on. First of all, that this shouldn't be and isn't a fucking christian nation. Second, so we stop brainwashing human's with a lie. If churches want to sell "spirituality" then so be it. But to tell us an invisible man is going to send us to heaven or hell if we do or don't believe? What the fuck? And boss thinks that this new human not being lied to and controlled anymore will run amok. We NEED god on that wall we WANT god on that wall but then....wait that's from A Few Good Men, but you get my point.

We need to kill the Jesus lie and then fight the Muslims because those people are all religious because they are being forced to be religious. Give them freedom and then watch them get Enlightened very quickly. I've seen it in my friends. Seeing how sure the Muslims are and then come to America where Gismys' are equally sure their way is the best opened his eyes they are all fools GISMYS you stupid bitch.

THINK!! SILLY TARD BRAIN!!! YOUR ETERNITY DEPENDS ON YOU SEEKING AND FINDING TRUTH=ALMIGHTY GOD!!! ARE YOU SEEKING TRUTH OR JUST posting your ignorance here for all the world to see???

 

[dnsmith35]

Actually it is relatively easy to measure people who are experiencing a spiritual state with modern equipment. So much so that it is possible to identify the same state in other mammals. The fallacy is to assume that the human spiritual state is evidence of the existence of a deity.

The fallacy can also be that human spiritual state is not evidence there is no deity. You don't know, you are guessing again.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

I'm going to utter three words that for some reason scare the crap out of religious people when it comes to this question. We. Don't. Know. We just don't have enough information yet to put forth a solid, defensible, provable hypothesis for what set existence into motion. Science put forth the big bang theory but that still doesn't say what caused the big bang. That still isn't an answer to the question of our origin and the origin of space and time. But most people can't accept the "We don't know" answer. The unknown scares them. So does ceasing to exist. These fears couple with the compulsion to find patterns even when there are none and tell stories about them is why we have religion. We have a deep seeded need to come up with these grand stories, patterns and explanations about the universe and the simpler they are and the more warm and fuzzy they are the better. That's why the Abrahamic faiths triumphed over the Grecco/Latin faiths that really weren't that comforting in comparison. It comforts us to think that our consciousness is eternal and that despite how inhospitable the universe is there is an all powerful entity that has our back. Some of these human traits I mentioned are good and are the same traits that gave rise to science. Need to find answers to questions and to know the unknown so we can master it and not be afraid of it. However in some cases this need goes to far and when we can't find answer we make one up rather than accepting that, for the moment at least, we are stumped. Religion represents our baser need to feel safe and our arrogant feeling that we are special. We are not. We are animals like any other. Special only in the fact that we have the gift of conscious thought. A gift that also comes with a terrible burden (the fear of one day losing it)

 

[Boss]

And I have shown him that science says the spiritual part of of the brain comes from the most primitive part of the brain...

You've not shown anyone a damn thing. You SAID something, and it's something really stupid, as usual.

There is no "most primitive part" to our brain. Our entire brain has been with us the whole time. One part is not more primitive than another. We've been spiritually connected as long as we've been a species. There is no point at which we developed spirituality, and you've never demonstrated this. You continue to repeat absolute nonsensical garbage you've read at some atheist blog.

"all animals have a healthy fear of the unknown". And that is how your ape ancestors invented god.

And that's why we see religion and spirituality so prevalent in other species of the ape family... ooops! Except, no we don't! Monkeys getting excited at a waterfall is not spirituality. All animals get excited by nature, my dog particularly likes butterflies.. she has a deep fascination with them.. but she isn't spiritual.

If you can't measure god physically then you have zero proof.

No you don't. You have zero proof that God can be measured physically at present. 1. It doesn't mean that you will never have physical proof. 2. It doesn't mean God can't be measured spiritually. 3. Because you've defined something as physical doesn't mean it can't also be spiritual or spiritually inclined as well. Spiritual created physical.

...science may never be able to measure such emotions with any precision...

So why do you keep acting like they have and this is a concluded fact? Is that the 'primitive' part of your brain trying to work or something?

 

[AtheistBuddah]

And I have shown him that science says the spiritual part of of the brain comes from the most primitive part of the brain...

You've not shown anyone a damn thing. You SAID something, and it's something really stupid, as usual.

There is no "most primitive part" to our brain. Our entire brain has been with us the whole time. One part is not more primitive than another. We've been spiritually connected as long as we've been a species. There is no point at which we developed spirituality, and you've never demonstrated this. You continue to repeat absolute nonsensical garbage you've read at some atheist blog.

"all animals have a healthy fear of the unknown". And that is how your ape ancestors invented god.

And that's why we see religion and spirituality so prevalent in other species of the ape family... ooops! Except, no we don't! Monkeys getting excited at a waterfall is not spirituality. All animals get excited by nature, my dog particularly likes butterflies.. she has a deep fascination with them.. but she isn't spiritual.

If you can't measure god physically then you have zero proof.

No you don't. You have zero proof that God can be measured physically at present. 1. It doesn't mean that you will never have physical proof. 2. It doesn't mean God can't be measured spiritually. 3. Because you've defined something as physical doesn't mean it can't also be spiritual or spiritually inclined as well. Spiritual created physical.

...science may never be able to measure such emotions with any precision...

So why do you keep acting like they have and this is a concluded fact? Is that the 'primitive' part of your brain trying to work or something?

No "primitive" part of the brain you say? Um. Yes. There is. It's a grouping of different sections of the brain (amygdala, brainstem, and perhaps a few others I can't quote them all) that's not important to the point I'm going to make. The old brain is the portion of the brain that deals with survival, it controls our involuntary processes such as breathing. The amygdala is also what gives us the fight or flight reflex that all animals posses. It is very basic one might even say very "primitive" and it's something all members of the animal kingdom have in their skulls. Much more primitive than say the neocortical brain or the new brain that is responsible for our reasoning skills and communicating skills. The new brain is what gives us conscious thought and what sets us apart from other animals that don't have one. *swish

 

[Boss]

So we see, that yes, you use logic in your arguments. It's just circular logic, which you have no problem with and think is somehow valid in a discussion.

Yes, billions of people have believed in something spiritual.

No, they have practiced spirituality. They believe in something beyond the physical that is greater than self. Call it whatever kind of logic you please, if you can't accept something exists you can't accept evidence for it.

Of course, those same billions have believed in something different from you, and most would likely scoff at your explanations of the spiritual. It's convenient that you can both dismiss or denigrate their beliefs as misguided at the same time you try to use those beliefs as evidence of your own.

They didn't believe in something different, they believed in the same something greater than self, beyond the physical. They have had different incarnations and connotations of that thing, because humans have imagination. The fact there is no universal definition of a car doesn't mean automobiles don't exist. There are Fords, Chevys, Toyotas.... none of them are exactly the same. It is not "convenient" that I can say they are all cars.

You cannot seem to decide if the spiritual and the physical interact and effect each other.

What the hell? What do you mean I can't decide? They certainly do interact and effect each other. We're physical beings practicing spirituality! Spiritual created Physical! Some things can be both physical and spiritual at the same time, like light can be both a particle and wave and an electron can be in two places at once.

You can't define the spiritual, other than to say it is non-physical.

Well how else would you define spiritual? Metaphysical? Okay, we can go with that if it makes you feel any better. Humans make a connection to the metaphysical. Happy?

You talk about spiritual evidence being something other than physical evidence, then use physical examples as evidence of the spiritual.

That's because spiritual created physical. Everything physical is spiritually created.

As per usual, your evidence and explanations boil down to 'because I say so'.

I've never said anything was "because I say so" Duhla! I've backed up every argument I've made with examples, historical data, archeological evidence, reason and logic. You continue to shoot down all of my arguments with what amounts to "because I say not!"

 

[BreezeWood]

actually it is relatively easy to measure people who are experiencing a spiritual state with modern equipment. So much so that it is possible to identify the same state in other mammals. The fallacy is to assume that the human spiritual state is evidence of the existence of a deity.

.

maybe, out there someone else does not confine Spirituality to "only" Fauna but recognizes its prevalent in all living beings of varying physiology - so much so as being the basis for life ... and no Spirituality does not demonstrate a specific deity but does demonstrate a consensus by all living beings on this planet of a singular derivative for their existence.

xx

.