Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
None of the above assertions prove there is a God, and none of the above assertions prove there is NO GOD! This whole discussion proves only that some people believe in God and others don't. It is totally ridiculous to argue for or against an issue which cannot be proved.
The argument has been adequately ridiculed.
You said if the spiritual could be measured physically it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.
You said if the spiritual could be measured physically it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.
Well okay... THINK about that for a hot second. What is meant by "spiritual" and what is meant by "physical" in common parlance? If something is thought to be "spiritual" and we found some way to "physically" explain it, would it still be "spiritual" after that? Or would we say that it used to be thought of as spiritual but now it's physical because it was explained by physics?
It's the nature of the words and how we use them to define "spiritual" versus "physical" that is the issue. And that is the point I am making with the quote you are now taking way out of context. We may very well have defined things as "physical" that are indeed spiritual nature at work... like gravity and energy for example. How would we know? We presume something is physical when we can physically explain it. Does that mean it can't possibly be spiritual? Or maybe it can be both? Is there some law written somewhere that says it can't be?
I believe the spiritual created the physical, so in essence, everything has a spiritual component. That does not mean all things spiritual are physical.
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.
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.
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!"
You've backed things up with flimsy evidence and data, at best, and often used circular logic (you have to believe in something before you accept evidence for it). Perhaps you don't yet understand, after all this time, that I haven't been arguing against your premise so much as the nature of the evidence you provide for that premise. You may well be right about spirituality. I don't think so, but maybe you are. Even if you are, though, most of your arguments in favor of your particular beliefs have been far from the convincing, unassailable positions you make them out to be.
You said if the spiritual could be measured physically it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.
Well okay... THINK about that for a hot second. What is meant by "spiritual" and what is meant by "physical" in common parlance? If something is thought to be "spiritual" and we found some way to "physically" explain it, would it still be "spiritual" after that? Or would we say that it used to be thought of as spiritual but now it's physical because it was explained by physics?
It's the nature of the words and how we use them to define "spiritual" versus "physical" that is the issue. And that is the point I am making with the quote you are now taking way out of context. We may very well have defined things as "physical" that are indeed spiritual nature at work... like gravity and energy for example. How would we know? We presume something is physical when we can physically explain it. Does that mean it can't possibly be spiritual? Or maybe it can be both? Is there some law written somewhere that says it can't be?
I believe the spiritual created the physical, so in essence, everything has a spiritual component. That does not mean all things spiritual are physical.
Do you not see the contradictions in your statements? You say if something can be measured physically, it can't be spiritual. Then you say that energy may be spiritual. Are you trying to say energy cannot be measured?
So billions of people have practiced spirituality but have not believed in something spiritual?
You said it "WOULDN"T" be spiritual, to be exact.Well okay... THINK about that for a hot second. What is meant by "spiritual" and what is meant by "physical" in common parlance? If something is thought to be "spiritual" and we found some way to "physically" explain it, would it still be "spiritual" after that? Or would we say that it used to be thought of as spiritual but now it's physical because it was explained by physics?
It's the nature of the words and how we use them to define "spiritual" versus "physical" that is the issue. And that is the point I am making with the quote you are now taking way out of context. We may very well have defined things as "physical" that are indeed spiritual nature at work... like gravity and energy for example. How would we know? We presume something is physical when we can physically explain it. Does that mean it can't possibly be spiritual? Or maybe it can be both? Is there some law written somewhere that says it can't be?
I believe the spiritual created the physical, so in essence, everything has a spiritual component. That does not mean all things spiritual are physical.
Do you not see the contradictions in your statements? You say if something can be measured physically, it can't be spiritual. Then you say that energy may be spiritual. Are you trying to say energy cannot be measured?
Again. Read my explanation and THINK about it for a moment before you respond. I did not say "If something can be measured physically it CAN'T be spiritual." IF you somehow misinterpreted what I said, I apologize... maybe I stated it incorrectly! That is not what I meant. If something can be measured physically, we no longer define it as "spiritual" because there is a physical explanation. It becomes known as physical and not spiritual. You can't prove spiritual things physically without them becoming understood as physical. That doesn't mean they aren't spiritual or CAN'T be spiritual.
You spend an amazing amount of time trying to argue semantics here. I don't understand it. Are you really this obtuse? Does life suck so bad for you that this is the only way you can find satisfaction? It's really kind of pathetic if you ask me. You know what I mean, I've clarified it several times. Still, you want to pretend that you've cornered me and somehow relegated everything I've ever said as irrelevant because you took something out of context. All you are doing is being extremely annoying.
God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.
You said it "WOULDN"T" be spiritual, to be exact.
God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.
How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?
And if you believe there are multiple universes, then how did the Multiverse get here?
We know the Universe wasn't always here, and will end sometime in the future.
How did everything begin, and what happens after the end?
I'm looking for an answer from those of you who say God definitely does not exist.
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. 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.
Boy how little you know.
What an amazing thing to be able to dig so deep into ones own psyche that one can get to the core of the programming in the brain beyond the programming in the Modern Brain and into the primitive brain and the genetically implanted instinctual self.
We have put together a schematic diagram showing the central role of the Amygdala in producing instinctually-sourced emotional responses according to the work of LeDoux in investigating the pivotal role of the Primitive Brain in inducing fear.
These are not from my atheist sites. These are scientific.
This diagram forms the scientific neuro-biological basis of what it is we are doing on the wide and wondrous path to Actual Freedom. LeDoux empirically investigated the pivotal role of the amygdala in producing the feeling of fear, in particular the relationship between the thalamus (relay centre), the amygdala (feelings) and the neo-cortex (modern brain/thoughts).
The most significant of LeDoux experimentation with regard to fear is that the sensory input to the brain is split at the thalamus into two streams one to the amygdala and one to the neo-cortex. The input stream to the amygdala is quicker 12 milliseconds as opposed to 25 milliseconds to the neo-cortex. Less information goes to the amygdala quicker it operates as a quick scan to check for danger.
Indeed LeDoux regards the amygdala as the alarm system, for bodily safety hence the necessity for a quick scan and an almost instantaneous instinctive (thoughtless) response. This quick and dirty processing pathway results not only in a direct automatic bodily response to either an actual or a perceived danger, but because the amygdala also has a direct connection to the neo-cortex it causes us to emotionally experience the feeling of fear i.e. we feel the feeling of fear a split-second later than the bodily reaction.
Not only is the primitive brains response quick and dirty, it is also very powerful in that it primes the whole body for action which is precisely why instinctual reactions and the resulting instinctual passions are ultimately so hard to keep in control.
Now, these are things we all know well from personal experience as well as from observation of others but it is fascinating that scientific investigation of the hardware of the human brain is now providing the biological evidence of how what is known as human nature operates.
Schematics Our Animal Instincts in the Primitive Brain
So they even know what part of your brain makes you so dumb and which part makes you so stubborn.
God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.
To expound further, just so you are completely clear on what was said... In the above quote, I am talking specifically about God. When I say "it can't be measured physically" it's not referring to all things spiritual, but specifically to God. What I am saying is, if God could be physically measured or quantified, God would no longer be considered spiritual in nature. God would henceforth be considered something physical that was physically provable by physical measurement.
So we see that what I said and what you claim I said are two entirely different things. You've taken what I said out of context, and you do this all the time, ed. It's a real problem in trying to communicate with you. It's difficult to make any kind of progress in dialogue when we have to stop every other post to rectify an error you've made in interpreting things I say. I don't understand your purpose in doing this, maybe you're too stupid to comprehend basic English. You seem like a bright enough guy, so I don't think that is the case. Is this some kind of debate strategy? Are you just so hungry for a win and desperate to prove me wrong on something that you must resort to this sort of thing? What's the deal?
How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?
And if you believe there are multiple universes, then how did the Multiverse get here?
We know the Universe wasn't always here, and will end sometime in the future.
How did everything begin, and what happens after the end?
I'm looking for an answer from those of you who say God definitely does not exist.
I have no idea.
I have no idea whether there is a God.
Seems kinda narcissistic for someone to think they're sure of any of it.
.
God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.
To expound further, just so you are completely clear on what was said... In the above quote, I am talking specifically about God. When I say "it can't be measured physically" it's not referring to all things spiritual, but specifically to God. What I am saying is, if God could be physically measured or quantified, God would no longer be considered spiritual in nature. God would henceforth be considered something physical that was physically provable by physical measurement.
So we see that what I said and what you claim I said are two entirely different things. You've taken what I said out of context, and you do this all the time, ed. It's a real problem in trying to communicate with you. It's difficult to make any kind of progress in dialogue when we have to stop every other post to rectify an error you've made in interpreting things I say. I don't understand your purpose in doing this, maybe you're too stupid to comprehend basic English. You seem like a bright enough guy, so I don't think that is the case. Is this some kind of debate strategy? Are you just so hungry for a win and desperate to prove me wrong on something that you must resort to this sort of thing? What's the deal?
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)
God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.
To expound further, just so you are completely clear on what was said... In the above quote, I am talking specifically about God. When I say "it can't be measured physically" it's not referring to all things spiritual, but specifically to God. What I am saying is, if God could be physically measured or quantified, God would no longer be considered spiritual in nature. God would henceforth be considered something physical that was physically provable by physical measurement.
So we see that what I said and what you claim I said are two entirely different things. You've taken what I said out of context, and you do this all the time, ed. It's a real problem in trying to communicate with you. It's difficult to make any kind of progress in dialogue when we have to stop every other post to rectify an error you've made in interpreting things I say. I don't understand your purpose in doing this, maybe you're too stupid to comprehend basic English. You seem like a bright enough guy, so I don't think that is the case. Is this some kind of debate strategy? Are you just so hungry for a win and desperate to prove me wrong on something that you must resort to this sort of thing? What's the deal?
Pink unicorns fly all around me all day long. I can't prove it but you can't prove they are not. They aren't physical so they can't be measured/proven. You'll just have to take my word for it.
Why do I believe? Because of electricity and energy man. Smoke another one Boss. THat's deep.
True. The only thing I'm 100% sure of is that Muslims Jews and Christians are wrong.
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.
