How did the Universe get here?

[jillian]

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???

worry about your own salvation

leave everyone else alone.

 

[Boss]

No operational definition of "spiritual"?

I certainly provided enough question to start with.

No operational definition means it doesn't exist.

Nope! That is as ridiculous as saying if an event can't be proved it proves the opposite. I can't prove the my imagination is more prolific than yours. It does not prove it is not. No proof is just what it says, no proof, either way, yea or nay!

Yes it does. Of you can't even present some manner by which to examin it, then it is just bullshit.

And sure you come up with ways of measuring imagination and how prolific it is. If it real, it is measurable. It can be experienced and thereby counted. Otherwise it is simply bullsht

And there in lies the most basic point.

And yes, utter failure to be able to prove it does mean it doesn't exist.

What is not true is that failure to prove non existance means it does exist. You can imagine that it does, but that doesn't make it so. All that proves is that you have an imagination. Perhaps a prolific one at that.

We can take what you've posted here and determine that you don't comprehend science or how science works. Failure to prove something isn't proof of something else. Sorry.

There have been all kinds of things science was unable to examine, yet when science discovered ways to examine them, they were confirmed. They didn't suddenly become real when science learned to examine them, they were always true, science just couldn't examine them. This is the case with virtually EVERY scientific discovery known to man.

You can measure imagination, you can also measure spirituality. Spirituality has been experienced by humans for all of human existence. What you can't provide is the material composition of imagination. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Okay, so... IF my plane is traveling at a speed of 25,000 mph away from the moon and it suddenly stops as I jump out, will I still go down? OR.... If I have a rocket pack strapped to my back, would I still go down? OR... If there were 30,000 feet of marshmallows between the moon and myself?

Why are you arguing about rockets and marshmallows when the discussion is about gravity? None of this asinine silliness changes the fact that you are affected by gravity.....

Gravity isn't a "FACT" as was stated. Lots of things effect gravity. Should we discuss the numerous times science has revised it's theories regarding gravity? And.... STILL waiting on someone to tell me what exactly gravity is. Yes, it's a "force" but so is GOD!

Untrue.

Gravity IS a fact.

Provable by repeating an experiment over and over and over using only a big rock, my strong back and arms, and the big toe of a stupid volunteer, ALWAYS with the same result:

"Ow!"​

 

[GISMYS]

why are you arguing about rockets and marshmallows when the discussion is about gravity? None of this asinine silliness changes the fact that you are affected by gravity.....

gravity isn't a "fact" as was stated. Lots of things effect gravity. Should we discuss the numerous times science has revised it's theories regarding gravity? And.... Still waiting on someone to tell me what exactly gravity is. Yes, it's a "force" but so is god!

untrue.

Gravity is a fact.

Provable by repeating an experiment over and over and over using only a big rock, my strong back and arms, and the big toe of a stupid volunteer, always with the same result:

"ow!"​

oh!!! How heavy is your big rock 500 miles out from earth in space???

 

[Dr Grump]

So how can you prove that something that isnt 'physical' even exists in the first place? And I think your answer with regard to that (something doesn't require creation because you cant' see it etc) is a cop out because it gives you an out having to justify your position.

Okay.... Follow closely here. You CAN'T. There has never been any way to prove physical existence of something spiritual. When we say "exists" it means "to physically exist" and spiritual nature itself doesn't physically exist. This is where you have to be able to comprehend a different type of "existing" in order to acknowledge spiritual nature. As long as your mind will only rationalize "physical existing" then it will continue to reject spiritual existence, because it makes no rational sense.

I didn't say "something doesn't require creation because you can't see it." Those are your words, derived from something different I said. What I tried to convey is, the word "create" applies to material or physical things... or for the obtuse nit pickers... things that apply to material or physical things. Spiritual nature is not material or physical. It is not bound by time or entropy.

Not everything is theory. Gravity is not a theory - it's a fact. Try jumping out of aeroplane at 30,000 feet and see what direction you go. The actual dictionary definition of theory, and the scientific one, are two different beasts.

Gravity exists, but what is gravity? Where did it come from? I disagree with your assumption on jumping out of a plane to see what direction you go. If the plane is 30,000 feet above the moon, I might not go anywhere. If the plane is sitting on top of 30,000 feet of jello, I may float. Furthermore, do you KNOW that the properties of gravity will work tomorrow as they did today? Perhaps something happens with a physical universe every 14.5 billion years to render gravity inoperable, and tomorrow happens to be that time? So... We don't really know what it is, we don't really know how it works, other things effect it, and while it has been fairly consistent and reliable, there is no guarantee it always will be.

That said, eddy surmised the other day that gravity and energy are immortal. They were never created and can't be destroyed. Perhaps GOD is gravity?

At the end of the day none of us know why the universe came about. Some believe an omnipresent being, others prefer the scientific method. Many scientific methods have been proven over the years, some not. There is not one shred of evidence that has ever been brought forth that an omnipresent god exists. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Just belief.

It's true we don't know why the universe came about. Some do believe in an omnipresent being or God. And some people believe science can one day explain this, but science only deals with things in the physical universe, it can't tell us what happened before a physical universe existed. Science has used scientific method to help us establish certain things, but it doesn't prove things. It posits theories and then continues to test the theories. Some theories seem to be valid for a long time before science finds a contradiction. Theories about gravity have been rewritten numerous times. Earlier you called it a "fact" and it's interesting to point out, the minute you've concluded something is a "fact" then science is through, it can't do anything more. Science can only evaluate possibility and predict probability, test it's theories, falsify and observe... these are not things you do with a "fact." Once you've determined a "fact" the thing you then rely on is called "faith." You have "faith" in this "fact" you've determined. Science has clocked out and gone home, leaving you with your faith in facts.

You say there is not one shred of physical evidence an omnipresent God exists. I would say the greatest evidence we have is time, energy and gravity. Is it PROOF? No, but evidence doesn't have to prove things. Do you accept this as evidence? Depends on whether you believe in an omnipresent God.

There were no caveats to my example - no moon shot or marshmallows. Get on a plane, go to 30,000 feet and jump out without a parachute. Tell me what happens....

Another example of scientific fact. Humans need oxygen to breath. Dive under water and hold your breath. When you run out of breath, stay there. It's a fact you will die due to lack of oxygen.

I'm bringing facts to the table, you're bringing hypothesis...

 

[Montrovant]

If you want to call gravity god, feel free. Of course, I can show the effects of gravity with repeatable experiment. If that is the only thing you think god does, fine.

Perhaps you can show the effects of God by repeatable experiment and just didn't realize that was what you were doing? I don't think that's the only thing God does, there's more. You know how those tiny electrons disappear and re-materialize or are able to exist in two places at the same time? That's God as well. You know how you can collide little particles of matter into one another and find all kinds of amazing subatomic particles inside? More God at work! You know how light can be both a particle and wave at the same time? God's miracle. Energy can't be created or destroyed? Immortality of God. On and on and on.

It's when you start getting into speculation that there are issues. God created the universe? God wants people to do this or that, to be this way, etc.? This or that happens after a person dies? Those types of claims, for which there is little or no objective evidence, are where these arguments really stem from.

There's no objective evidence for you because you are not objective about spiritual evidence. You want to be subjective and insist it conform to physical nature so you can physically examine it before believing it. Many people find plenty of objective evidence of spiritual nature, billions upon billions, as a matter of fact. And they've been doing so for as long as humans have existed.

Now, as for questions and claims, I can't say who is right and who is wrong. I can only know what I know based on my personal experience. One thing science has taught me is to be very careful about concluding things are "impossible."

Where the arguments seem to stem from is FAITH. You have different faiths than I have, and they seem to contradict one another in many ways.

And yes, the same kinds of things are done by people without spiritual beliefs. sealybobo has certainly made some statements I find ridiculous, and I've argued with him as well, despite the fact our views on spirituality seem to be much closer than do mine and yours.

You've demonstrated over and over that you have no intention of agreeing with me on anything. I could state "the sky is blue" and you'd argue the sky is not blue, then launch into some long-winded technical explanation of why I am wrong. For whatever reason, you've decided that you're just not going to find agreement with me on anything, doesn't matter how silly or ridiculous you have to be, you're just not going to do that.

Oh, and why do you keep trying to make human emotions into other things? Earlier you were calling various emotions senses, now I've seen you calling love a spiritual concept. Are all emotions spiritual concepts, or just love? And if just love, why is it different from all other emotions? These are the kinds of statements that lead to so much arguing with you.

It's because all human emotions are spiritually inspired. It may not be "positive" spirituality, it can go both ways. The hate and anger you feel for religion and theocracy are spiritually inspired. It's negative spirituality, much like antimatter is to matter.

Knowing what you know based on personal experience, that cannot be shared with others, is subjective evidence. That's my point. I can show you the effects of gravity. You can show yourself. You experience those effects. Now, you may consider it to be god, or magic, or some relationship between particles, it doesn't change the ability to show gravity objectively.

God, on the other hand, is almost never defined in a way as to be shown objectively. You complain that I require physical evidence, but the problem is that you have yet to show anything else even exists, nor how I or anyone else can sense this non-physical stuff. You've given some physical examples as evidence, but since you are opposed to my desire for physical evidence, here we are. I am unaware of any senses with which to observe or experience things that are not physical.

There is plenty of objective evidence that some people consider evidence of god, physical evidence. I've seen people claim the existence of the universe, or life on this planet, are both evidence of god. That the universe exists is objectively true. That there is life on this planet is objectively true. That whatever version of god a person believes in is responsible for those things is not. You seem unable to grasp the difference, sometimes going off into philosophical tangents about whether anything is real as though that is relevant to the discussion. You talk about someone not accepting evidence making it not objective, but whether someone accepts the conclusions based on the evidence does not change if the evidence is objective.

I wouldn't argue with you if you said the sky is blue. What would happen, based on your previous posts, is that at first you would say the sky is brown. Then, after I or someone else disagreed with that, you would claim we were misinterpreting your words. Perhaps then you would change your claim to the sky is brown when seen at the right point of sunset, then go on to tell us you never simply said the sky is brown. After some back and forth you would complain about people nit picking unimportant semantics, then toss around some insults and vulgarities, then complain about other people using insults.

I have little to no faith in the subjects we are discussing. My beliefs are mostly that I don't know. I find it unlikely that man's religions are correct, just as I find it unlikely that much of what you believe is correct. I think the answers are likely beyond most, if not all, human understanding.

 

[sealybobo]

Nope! That is as ridiculous as saying if an event can't be proved it proves the opposite. I can't prove the my imagination is more prolific than yours. It does not prove it is not. No proof is just what it says, no proof, either way, yea or nay!

Yes it does. Of you can't even present some manner by which to examin it, then it is just bullshit.

And sure you come up with ways of measuring imagination and how prolific it is. If it real, it is measurable. It can be experienced and thereby counted. Otherwise it is simply bullsht

And there in lies the most basic point.

And yes, utter failure to be able to prove it does mean it doesn't exist.

What is not true is that failure to prove non existance means it does exist. You can imagine that it does, but that doesn't make it so. All that proves is that you have an imagination. Perhaps a prolific one at that.

We can take what you've posted here and determine that you don't comprehend science or how science works. Failure to prove something isn't proof of something else. Sorry.

There have been all kinds of things science was unable to examine, yet when science discovered ways to examine them, they were confirmed. They didn't suddenly become real when science learned to examine them, they were always true, science just couldn't examine them. This is the case with virtually EVERY scientific discovery known to man.

You can measure imagination, you can also measure spirituality. Spirituality has been experienced by humans for all of human existence. What you can't provide is the material composition of imagination. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Until now our understanding of imagination -- where it comes from and what it looks like in the brain -- has been remarkably limited. That's now beginning to change, and a new study from researchers at Dartmouth University is providing some answers.

The Dartmouth researchers found that the activity of what we call the imagination is the product of a widespread network of neurons (what they call the "mental workspace") that consciously alters and manipulates images, symbols, and ideas, and gives us the intense mental focus that we need to come up with new ideas and solutions to complex problems.

To witness the workings of the imaginative brain, researchers hooked 15 participants up to an fMRI scanner and asked them to visualize specific abstract shapes, then told them to imagine combining those shapes into more complex figures. What they discovered was a large cortical and subcortical network across the brain that produced the manipulations of imagery -- the so-called mental workspace.

The Dartmouth findings and other recent studies have effectively debunked the popular theory that the "right brain" governs creative activity; mounting research suggests, instead, that the human brain is far more vast and interconnected than such simple explanations would indicate.

 

[sealybobo]

.

We can take what you've posted here and determine that you don't comprehend science or how science works. Failure to prove something isn't proof of something else. Sorry.

I think people are explaining to you in previous posts how that is true about YOU!

 

[Boss]

Knowing what you know based on personal experience, that cannot be shared with others, is subjective evidence. That's my point. I can show you the effects of gravity. You can show yourself. You experience those effects. Now, you may consider it to be god, or magic, or some relationship between particles, it doesn't change the ability to show gravity objectively.

And I can show you the effects of God objectively. You don't accept them as effects of God. You experience them same as me, you just don't believe they are from God. My analogy was accurate, I could just say I don't believe in gravity and insist it's the Power of God. Demonstrate it, show evidence of it, test it or run experiments... still, I believe it's the Power of God and not gravity.

Billions and billions have experienced a spiritual connection and shared it with others.

God, on the other hand, is almost never defined in a way as to be shown objectively. You complain that I require physical evidence, but the problem is that you have yet to show anything else even exists, nor how I or anyone else can sense this non-physical stuff. You've given some physical examples as evidence, but since you are opposed to my desire for physical evidence, here we are. I am unaware of any senses with which to observe or experience things that are not physical.

You've defined spiritual things yourself. Musical composition, art, imagination. The feeling you get from hearing a great musical composition is not physical. Realizing beauty is not a physical material thing. You can't really prove you are physically moved any more than you can prove people are spiritually moved. Brain waves don't tell you that. Chemical reactions in the brain don't tell you that.

I am unaware of any senses with which to observe or experience things that are not physical.

I can think of many. Fear, for example. Intuition is another example. Inspiration. Artistic vision. How many examples do I need to give you?

There is plenty of objective evidence that some people consider evidence of god, physical evidence. I've seen people claim the existence of the universe, or life on this planet, are both evidence of god. That the universe exists is objectively true. That there is life on this planet is objectively true. That whatever version of god a person believes in is responsible for those things is not.

It is to them. Just as objective as your truths are to you. This is called "faith."

You seem unable to grasp the difference, sometimes going off into philosophical tangents about whether anything is real as though that is relevant to the discussion. You talk about someone not accepting evidence making it not objective, but whether someone accepts the conclusions based on the evidence does not change if the evidence is objective.

Whether something is considered "objective" largely depends on the individual. Whether something is considered "evidence" is highly subjective. You throw these words around as if you and only you get to define the parameters. You need to realize other individuals may have a different point of view, where their perception of what is "objective" or "evidence" might be completely different from yours.

I have little to no faith in the subjects we are discussing. My beliefs are mostly that I don't know. I find it unlikely that man's religions are correct, just as I find it unlikely that much of what you believe is correct. I think the answers are likely beyond most, if not all, human understanding.

I know you have little or no faith in the subject we're discussing, that is apparent by your unwillingness to accept spiritual evidence or realize it can be just as "objective" as physical evidence to the individual. You're unable to objectively evaluate spiritual evidence because you really don't believe in the spiritual, although you will claim you do in order to "prove me wrong" in discussion.

I share your view on organized religion, but I stop short of saying "it's a bunch of fantasy and bs" because I don't know that. I just think men are flawed and have created a flawed understanding of God through Religion. Perhaps you are correct that the truth and answers are far beyond human understanding or comprehension... not sure if I believe that, humans seem to be intrinsically hard-wired to make spiritual connections with something greater than self.

 

[Boss]

To witness the workings of the imaginative brain, researchers hooked 15 participants up to an fMRI scanner and asked them to visualize specific abstract shapes, then told them to imagine combining those shapes into more complex figures. What they discovered was a large cortical and subcortical network across the brain that produced the manipulations of imagery -- the so-called mental workspace.

Did Dartmouth define the specific material composition of thought and imagination or not?

 

[sealybobo]

Knowing what you know based on personal experience, that cannot be shared with others, is subjective evidence. That's my point. I can show you the effects of gravity. You can show yourself. You experience those effects. Now, you may consider it to be god, or magic, or some relationship between particles, it doesn't change the ability to show gravity objectively.

And I can show you the effects of God objectively. You don't accept them as effects of God. You experience them same as me, you just don't believe they are from God. My analogy was accurate, I could just say I don't believe in gravity and insist it's the Power of God. Demonstrate it, show evidence of it, test it or run experiments... still, I believe it's the Power of God and not gravity.

Billions and billions have experienced a spiritual connection and shared it with others.

God, on the other hand, is almost never defined in a way as to be shown objectively. You complain that I require physical evidence, but the problem is that you have yet to show anything else even exists, nor how I or anyone else can sense this non-physical stuff. You've given some physical examples as evidence, but since you are opposed to my desire for physical evidence, here we are. I am unaware of any senses with which to observe or experience things that are not physical.

You've defined spiritual things yourself. Musical composition, art, imagination. The feeling you get from hearing a great musical composition is not physical. Realizing beauty is not a physical material thing. You can't really prove you are physically moved any more than you can prove people are spiritually moved. Brain waves don't tell you that. Chemical reactions in the brain don't tell you that.

I am unaware of any senses with which to observe or experience things that are not physical.

I can think of many. Fear, for example. Intuition is another example. Inspiration. Artistic vision. How many examples do I need to give you?




It is to them. Just as objective as your truths are to you. This is called "faith."

You seem unable to grasp the difference, sometimes going off into philosophical tangents about whether anything is real as though that is relevant to the discussion. You talk about someone not accepting evidence making it not objective, but whether someone accepts the conclusions based on the evidence does not change if the evidence is objective.

Whether something is considered "objective" largely depends on the individual. Whether something is considered "evidence" is highly subjective. You throw these words around as if you and only you get to define the parameters. You need to realize other individuals may have a different point of view, where their perception of what is "objective" or "evidence" might be completely different from yours.

I have little to no faith in the subjects we are discussing. My beliefs are mostly that I don't know. I find it unlikely that man's religions are correct, just as I find it unlikely that much of what you believe is correct. I think the answers are likely beyond most, if not all, human understanding.

I know you have little or no faith in the subject we're discussing, that is apparent by your unwillingness to accept spiritual evidence or realize it can be just as "objective" as physical evidence to the individual. You're unable to objectively evaluate spiritual evidence because you really don't believe in the spiritual, although you will claim you do in order to "prove me wrong" in discussion.

I share your view on organized religion, but I stop short of saying "it's a bunch of fantasy and bs" because I don't know that. I just think men are flawed and have created a flawed understanding of God through Religion. Perhaps you are correct that the truth and answers are far beyond human understanding or comprehension... not sure if I believe that, humans seem to be intrinsically hard-wired to make spiritual connections with something greater than self.

How do you know those things you feel are the effects of a "God"?

Are the radio and microwaves god's breath?

 

[Boss]

I think people are explaining to you in previous posts how that is true about YOU!

Yeah... Punks run their mouths and say all kinds of things on a message board.

Do you support ifitzme's belief that if things can't be proven it means they don't exist? Yes or no?
Let's see how well YOU understand science and how the scientific method works.

 

[itfitzme]

Nope! That is as ridiculous as saying if an event can't be proved it proves the opposite. I can't prove the my imagination is more prolific than yours. It does not prove it is not. No proof is just what it says, no proof, either way, yea or nay!

Yes it does. Of you can't even present some manner by which to examin it, then it is just bullshit.

And sure you come up with ways of measuring imagination and how prolific it is. If it real, it is measurable. It can be experienced and thereby counted. Otherwise it is simply bullsht

And there in lies the most basic point.

And yes, utter failure to be able to prove it does mean it doesn't exist.

What is not true is that failure to prove non existance means it does exist. You can imagine that it does, but that doesn't make it so. All that proves is that you have an imagination. Perhaps a prolific one at that.

We can take what you've posted here and determine that you don't comprehend science or how science works. Failure to prove something isn't proof of something else. Sorry.

There have been all kinds of things science was unable to examine, yet when science discovered ways to examine them, they were confirmed. They didn't suddenly become real when science learned to examine them, they were always true, science just couldn't examine them. This is the case with virtually EVERY scientific discovery known to man.

You can measure imagination, you can also measure spirituality. Spirituality has been experienced by humans for all of human existence. What you can't provide is the material composition of imagination. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I am trained im scieñce, engineering, matamatics, and statistics and can guarantee that I know accurately and precisely how sciemce works. I am absolutely correct. Sorry, you have created a wealth of bs based in nothing.

And yes failure to prove something is often used to deter!mine the existance of something else. Just as is the failure to prove something prove that it doesnt exist. Indeed, that is a standard in scientific hypothesis testing. In fact, it is the most common technique.

 

[sealybobo]

To witness the workings of the imaginative brain, researchers hooked 15 participants up to an fMRI scanner and asked them to visualize specific abstract shapes, then told them to imagine combining those shapes into more complex figures. What they discovered was a large cortical and subcortical network across the brain that produced the manipulations of imagery -- the so-called mental workspace.

Did Dartmouth define the specific material composition of thought and imagination or not?

thought 1. an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind.

mind 1. A mind /ˈmaɪnd/ is the set of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory—a characteristic of humans, but which also may apply to other life forms.

A lengthy tradition of inquiries in philosophy, religion, psychology and cognitive science has sought to develop an understanding of what a mind is and what its distinguishing properties are. The main question regarding the nature of mind is its relation to the physical brain and nervous system – a question which is often framed as the Mind-body problem, which considers whether mind is somehow separate from physical existence

Many religions associate spiritual qualities to the human mind. These are often tightly connected to their mythology and afterlife.

Science knows boss that we/you are making god up in your "mind"

Due to the mind-body problem, much interest and debate surround the question of what happens to one's conscious mind as one's body dies. According to neuropsychology, all brain function halts permanently upon brain death, and the mind fails to survive brain death and ceases to exist. This permanent loss of consciousness after death is often called "eternal oblivion". The belief that some spiritual or immaterial component exists and is preserved after death is described by the term "afterlife".

 

[sealybobo]

I think people are explaining to you in previous posts how that is true about YOU!

Yeah... Punks run their mouths and say all kinds of things on a message board.

Do you support ifitzme's belief that if things can't be proven it means they don't exist? Yes or no?
Let's see how well YOU understand science and how the scientific method works.

No. As I've said before the most logical thing to say is WE DON"T KNOW and keep looking. To say you have proof god exists and then babble on for days and weeks and months and years and I see no one coming to your aid. Either the god believers are Christians or "spiritual" and I see no one arguing your position.

That's smaller than a cult. We'll call your belief system a ****.

 

[itfitzme]

There have been all kinds of things science was unable to examine, yet when science discovered ways to examine them, they were confirmed. They didn't suddenly become real when science learned to examine them, they were always true, science just couldn't examine them. This is the case with virtually EVERY scientific discovery known to man.

Science doen't make claims of fact that which cannot be. Shown to be fact. No operational definition, no hypothesis test. No test, no fact

 

[Montrovant]

Knowing what you know based on personal experience, that cannot be shared with others, is subjective evidence. That's my point. I can show you the effects of gravity. You can show yourself. You experience those effects. Now, you may consider it to be god, or magic, or some relationship between particles, it doesn't change the ability to show gravity objectively.

And I can show you the effects of God objectively. You don't accept them as effects of God. You experience them same as me, you just don't believe they are from God. My analogy was accurate, I could just say I don't believe in gravity and insist it's the Power of God. Demonstrate it, show evidence of it, test it or run experiments... still, I believe it's the Power of God and not gravity.

Billions and billions have experienced a spiritual connection and shared it with others.

God, on the other hand, is almost never defined in a way as to be shown objectively. You complain that I require physical evidence, but the problem is that you have yet to show anything else even exists, nor how I or anyone else can sense this non-physical stuff. You've given some physical examples as evidence, but since you are opposed to my desire for physical evidence, here we are. I am unaware of any senses with which to observe or experience things that are not physical.

You've defined spiritual things yourself. Musical composition, art, imagination. The feeling you get from hearing a great musical composition is not physical. Realizing beauty is not a physical material thing. You can't really prove you are physically moved any more than you can prove people are spiritually moved. Brain waves don't tell you that. Chemical reactions in the brain don't tell you that.

I am unaware of any senses with which to observe or experience things that are not physical.

I can think of many. Fear, for example. Intuition is another example. Inspiration. Artistic vision. How many examples do I need to give you?




It is to them. Just as objective as your truths are to you. This is called "faith."

You seem unable to grasp the difference, sometimes going off into philosophical tangents about whether anything is real as though that is relevant to the discussion. You talk about someone not accepting evidence making it not objective, but whether someone accepts the conclusions based on the evidence does not change if the evidence is objective.

Whether something is considered "objective" largely depends on the individual. Whether something is considered "evidence" is highly subjective. You throw these words around as if you and only you get to define the parameters. You need to realize other individuals may have a different point of view, where their perception of what is "objective" or "evidence" might be completely different from yours.

I have little to no faith in the subjects we are discussing. My beliefs are mostly that I don't know. I find it unlikely that man's religions are correct, just as I find it unlikely that much of what you believe is correct. I think the answers are likely beyond most, if not all, human understanding.

I know you have little or no faith in the subject we're discussing, that is apparent by your unwillingness to accept spiritual evidence or realize it can be just as "objective" as physical evidence to the individual. You're unable to objectively evaluate spiritual evidence because you really don't believe in the spiritual, although you will claim you do in order to "prove me wrong" in discussion.

I share your view on organized religion, but I stop short of saying "it's a bunch of fantasy and bs" because I don't know that. I just think men are flawed and have created a flawed understanding of God through Religion. Perhaps you are correct that the truth and answers are far beyond human understanding or comprehension... not sure if I believe that, humans seem to be intrinsically hard-wired to make spiritual connections with something greater than self.

I'll respond to the rest later, but as to the part I put in bold, . First, I never claimed to believe in the spiritual, far from it. So you're arguing a strawman. Second, if what you meant to say was I don't believe in the possibility of the spiritual, this is yet another example of exactly what I mentioned earlier : you have a bad habit of not saying what you actually mean (and then getting upset when people respond to what you say). Third, you are again deciding that you know what someone else believes, apparently in contradiction to what you think I've said (although, as previously stated, you are completely incorrect in what I've said). Fourth, you're back to your circular logic : you have to believe in the spiritual before you can objectively evaluate evidence for it. But why would I believe in something before I've seen objective evidence for its existence? When did belief in a thing equate to objectivity about that thing?

It's as though when I point out some problems in you arguments, you feel the need to go do those very things.

 

[edthecynic]

 

[Boss]

To witness the workings of the imaginative brain, researchers hooked 15 participants up to an fMRI scanner and asked them to visualize specific abstract shapes, then told them to imagine combining those shapes into more complex figures. What they discovered was a large cortical and subcortical network across the brain that produced the manipulations of imagery -- the so-called mental workspace.

Did Dartmouth define the specific material composition of thought and imagination or not?

thought 1. an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind.

mind 1. A mind /ˈmaɪnd/ is the set of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory—a characteristic of humans, but which also may apply to other life forms.

A lengthy tradition of inquiries in philosophy, religion, psychology and cognitive science has sought to develop an understanding of what a mind is and what its distinguishing properties are. The main question regarding the nature of mind is its relation to the physical brain and nervous system – a question which is often framed as the Mind-body problem, which considers whether mind is somehow separate from physical existence

Many religions associate spiritual qualities to the human mind. These are often tightly connected to their mythology and afterlife.

Science knows boss that we/you are making god up in your "mind"

Due to the mind-body problem, much interest and debate surround the question of what happens to one's conscious mind as one's body dies. According to neuropsychology, all brain function halts permanently upon brain death, and the mind fails to survive brain death and ceases to exist. This permanent loss of consciousness after death is often called "eternal oblivion". The belief that some spiritual or immaterial component exists and is preserved after death is described by the term "afterlife".

Yadda, yadda, yadda... Did Dartmouth determine the material composition of thought and imagination or not?

Science knows boss that we/you are making god up in your "mind"

Uhm... NO... Science does not KNOW this.

 

[Boss]

Yes it does. Of you can't even present some manner by which to examin it, then it is just bullshit.

And sure you come up with ways of measuring imagination and how prolific it is. If it real, it is measurable. It can be experienced and thereby counted. Otherwise it is simply bullsht

And there in lies the most basic point.

And yes, utter failure to be able to prove it does mean it doesn't exist.

What is not true is that failure to prove non existance means it does exist. You can imagine that it does, but that doesn't make it so. All that proves is that you have an imagination. Perhaps a prolific one at that.

We can take what you've posted here and determine that you don't comprehend science or how science works. Failure to prove something isn't proof of something else. Sorry.

There have been all kinds of things science was unable to examine, yet when science discovered ways to examine them, they were confirmed. They didn't suddenly become real when science learned to examine them, they were always true, science just couldn't examine them. This is the case with virtually EVERY scientific discovery known to man.

You can measure imagination, you can also measure spirituality. Spirituality has been experienced by humans for all of human existence. What you can't provide is the material composition of imagination. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I am trained im scieñce, engineering, matamatics, and statistics and can guarantee that I know accurately and precisely how sciemce works. I am absolutely correct. Sorry, you have created a wealth of bs based in nothing.

And yes failure to prove something is often used to deter!mine the existance of something else. Just as is the failure to prove something prove that it doesnt exist. Indeed, that is a standard in scientific hypothesis testing. In fact, it is the most common technique.

LMFAO... I serious doubt your claimed qualifications. I think you barely graduated high school. You have ZERO understanding of how science works or the standards of scientific hypothesis testing. Failure to prove anything is just failure to prove that thing, it has nothing to do with proving or disproving something else.

For 2,000 years, we failed to disprove Aristotle's theory of gravity and levity. It was taught to every student of every university in the world. Had you been alive back then, no doubt you would have considered it an absolute fact that could never be disputed. But this fella named Newton came along and said... not so fast, Aristotle... I don't think you are right. The result was Principia. Arguably one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time.

Now, Newton's Laws of Motion became what was taught in every university for the next several hundered years. No doubt, had you been around then, you would have considered this unassailable proven fact of science that could not be questioned or challenged. BUT... fella named Einstein came along... said, not so fast Newton! I don't think you are right! The result was the Theory of General and Special Relativity. Again, one of the greatest of all scientific achievements.

NONE of this can happen in a world where science determines things not proven mean something else is proven. In fact, none of this happens with a science that PROVES things. It only happens with a science that continues to explore possibility and doesn't draw assumption and conclusions of fact.