How did the Universe get here?

[Boss]

You really never stop, do you?

I didn't say we don't experience emotions. I asked if, absent brain impulses, we experience emotion. Are you truly unable to see the difference?

I fail to see the point. If we don't have brain impulses then we don't have ANY awareness, physical OR spiritual. We are vegetables! Brain impulses are merely an indicator of something happening, they are not the thing that is actually happening.

You say thoughts and dreams are not physical at the same time you give examples of physical evidence of thoughts and dreams. Does the brain have nothing to do with thought and emotion?

The brain has something to do with everything we perceive, physical OR spiritual. We're not talking about the brain, we're talking about non-physical things the brain helps us perceive. You can indeed have physical evidence of something non-physical, gravity is a good example. There is no material physical composition of gravity, it is a force... we can measure it and see the effects of it, but it's not physical in a material sense. How long are we going to spend debating nonsense here? Are you just going to bow up and refuse to acknowledge any damn thing I say? If so, what is the point in all of this?

Why do you assume that people who lack a spiritual sense must have intentionally kept themselves from using it? People are born blind, or deaf, people have accidents which damage them in ways that prevent use of senses, there are diseases that can do the same. Why, with spiritual sense, must it be by choice? You seem to base your belief about this on anti-atheist bias. You certainly haven't given any mechanism by which a person has a spiritual sense, yet seem sure that people without it intentionally found a way to suppress it.

Because the evidence shows that human civilizations have been spiritual since the inception of man. There is not a time in human history where man was without spirituality. It's an intrinsic thing that defines us as humans, and it has been present in our species as long as we've existed. Every Atheist I know is fully aware of human spirituality. That is what they reject, it's why they are Atheists. I don't understand what you mean "by what mechanism" people have a spiritual sense. I suppose the same mechanism by which they have common sense?

I didn't say you 'made a declaration' about religion. What I said, at least twice now, is that belief in something can automatically include disbelief in contradictory things. I gave examples of that. Let me give a silly but plainer one, perhaps then you'll understand. If you believe the sky is blue, and I (standing next to you) tell you I believe it is neon green, you believe I am wrong. You don't have to declare it, it's inherent in believing it is blue; if it is blue, it is not neon green. Or how about this? You believe in your version of god. I don't believe in any god. You inherently believe I am wrong, since there cannot both be a god and not be a god. You don't have to say the words, "You are wrong.". It's inherent in the contradictory nature of the beliefs. It is unimportant if you accept the possibility you are wrong, this is about what you believe to be true.

I intentionally mentioned truth at the same time as right and wrong to show I wasn't using those words in a moral sense. By right I mean true, or correct, not good.

But there can be more than one "truth" here. I believe in strawberry ice cream, someone else believes in chocolate ice cream, you believe there is no such thing as ice cream. Now, you are wrong... there IS a such thing as ice cream. I don't know that there isn't a such thing as chocolate ice cream, there could be. I only believe in strawberry kind. Maybe there is all different kinds? I don't know, I can't say there isn't or that it's wrong to believe there is. At the same time, I know that there is a such thing as ice cream. I believe that is true.

Emotions are defined as emotions? Such ridiculousness.
Emotions are not defined as mental states?
"1. A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love."
emotion - definition of emotion by The Free Dictionary

Fine, then spirituality is a mental state as well. What the hell is your point? Yes, it's ridiculous for you to be arguing that a mental state is something materially physical when most rational people understand it is not.

If you do not get upset in these threads, why do you sometimes degenerate into tossing out insults, or do the message board equivalent of yelling?

I think that's a perception problem.

And again, where do you get your information that someone who is spiritually handicapped must have done it to themselves? Really, this is just one example of the bigger question of where you get any of your information about all of this.

Again, from the fact that humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self and that's what makes us different from all other living things. From the fact that you can't show me where man invented spirituality because the timeline doesn't cooperate with your theory. We find no evidence that spirituality was invented by man, it has apparently been present in man for all of our existence in some form or another. From the fact there is no Atheist who doesn't know of or isn't aware of human spirituality.

 

[emilynghiem]

While I'd agree it seems easier to believe in something that others tell you is true, I don't think the idea of god requires a group. Have 20 people grow without human interaction and there's every possibility at least one would come up with the idea of a god, or something similar.

Isn't the point of any concept or principle
to come up with "common language" for "common meanings"
within the audience or group that is going to use that term?

while withholding or setting aside all judgment, and not pushing one over any other,
why can't we just take the terms we already use for laws/truths in the world
and "map out" what words/concepts align with each other.

Why is there any need to fear or judge what each person uses by number or group?

So even if only one person uses the term "nature" to mean the same thing as "God/God's laws/God's universe" all combined into one term "nature" that is STILL what that one person uses for their system -- then all the other people using universe/creation/God etc.
AGREE to let that one person use the word Nature and it still aligns with
their 5 billion different words for Life/Universe/Creation/God/etc.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

BTW, did anyone prove that life had a beginning?

Cuz it seems to me that this is the more fundamental question that makes or breaks the whole arguement.

Life? or Existence of the Universe?

Both.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there....

 

[sealybobo]

You really never stop, do you?

I didn't say we don't experience emotions. I asked if, absent brain impulses, we experience emotion. Are you truly unable to see the difference?

You say thoughts and dreams are not physical at the same time you give examples of physical evidence of thoughts and dreams. Does the brain have nothing to do with thought and emotion?

Why do you assume that people who lack a spiritual sense must have intentionally kept themselves from using it? People are born blind, or deaf, people have accidents which damage them in ways that prevent use of senses, there are diseases that can do the same. Why, with spiritual sense, must it be by choice? You seem to base your belief about this on anti-atheist bias. You certainly haven't given any mechanism by which a person has a spiritual sense, yet seem sure that people without it intentionally found a way to suppress it.

I didn't say you 'made a declaration' about religion. What I said, at least twice now, is that belief in something can automatically include disbelief in contradictory things. I gave examples of that. Let me give a silly but plainer one, perhaps then you'll understand. If you believe the sky is blue, and I (standing next to you) tell you I believe it is neon green, you believe I am wrong. You don't have to declare it, it's inherent in believing it is blue; if it is blue, it is not neon green. Or how about this? You believe in your version of god. I don't believe in any god. You inherently believe I am wrong, since there cannot both be a god and not be a god. You don't have to say the words, "You are wrong.". It's inherent in the contradictory nature of the beliefs. It is unimportant if you accept the possibility you are wrong, this is about what you believe to be true.

I intentionally mentioned truth at the same time as right and wrong to show I wasn't using those words in a moral sense. By right I mean true, or correct, not good.

Emotions are defined as emotions? Such ridiculousness.
Emotions are not defined as mental states?
"1. A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love."
emotion - definition of emotion by The Free Dictionary

If you do not get upset in these threads, why do you sometimes degenerate into tossing out insults, or do the message board equivalent of yelling?

And again, where do you get your information that someone who is spiritually handicapped must have done it to themselves? Really, this is just one example of the bigger question of where you get any of your information about all of this.

He said we aren't born with spiritual sense? That's the point. No one is. I would be willing to bet it wasn't until we became social animals and started talking to each other that we first invented god. I doubt that if you let 20 human's grow up by themselves without any human interaction that any of those 20 would create god in their minds. I'm sure to come up with the concept you'd have to be discussing the possibility of it and someone else would have to buy into this idea and as a group if 11 said they believed the other 9 better go along or else lord of the flys starts happening. Maybe the first leader of the pack called himself god and the rest of them had to serve and worship him.

But you need community/groups/more than one person to come up with the idea of god.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

While I'd agree it seems easier to believe in something that others tell you is true, I don't think the idea of god requires a group. Have 20 people grow without human interaction and there's every possibility at least one would come up with the idea of a god, or something similar.

Ok that's true, but if one person believes in an imaginary man in the sky, everyone will think he's crazy. It takes more than one to get a religion started.

One might have been the first to invent it but he had to convince others for it to catch on. Think about it. You're sitting around and you come up with this concept after smoking some payote and imagine how dumb your audience must have been to buy into it without any proof. Or, they had proof. When the lightening struck and burned their friend to a crisp or a lion ate him, the day before he was being mean and so they put two and two together and decided that it must have been god who punished him for being bad.

 

[Montrovant]

You really never stop, do you?

I didn't say we don't experience emotions. I asked if, absent brain impulses, we experience emotion. Are you truly unable to see the difference?

I fail to see the point. If we don't have brain impulses then we don't have ANY awareness, physical OR spiritual. We are vegetables! Brain impulses are merely an indicator of something happening, they are not the thing that is actually happening.

You say thoughts and dreams are not physical at the same time you give examples of physical evidence of thoughts and dreams. Does the brain have nothing to do with thought and emotion?

The brain has something to do with everything we perceive, physical OR spiritual. We're not talking about the brain, we're talking about non-physical things the brain helps us perceive. You can indeed have physical evidence of something non-physical, gravity is a good example. There is no material physical composition of gravity, it is a force... we can measure it and see the effects of it, but it's not physical in a material sense. How long are we going to spend debating nonsense here? Are you just going to bow up and refuse to acknowledge any damn thing I say? If so, what is the point in all of this?



Because the evidence shows that human civilizations have been spiritual since the inception of man. There is not a time in human history where man was without spirituality. It's an intrinsic thing that defines us as humans, and it has been present in our species as long as we've existed. Every Atheist I know is fully aware of human spirituality. That is what they reject, it's why they are Atheists. I don't understand what you mean "by what mechanism" people have a spiritual sense. I suppose the same mechanism by which they have common sense?



But there can be more than one "truth" here. I believe in strawberry ice cream, someone else believes in chocolate ice cream, you believe there is no such thing as ice cream. Now, you are wrong... there IS a such thing as ice cream. I don't know that there isn't a such thing as chocolate ice cream, there could be. I only believe in strawberry kind. Maybe there is all different kinds? I don't know, I can't say there isn't or that it's wrong to believe there is. At the same time, I know that there is a such thing as ice cream. I believe that is true.



Fine, then spirituality is a mental state as well. What the hell is your point? Yes, it's ridiculous for you to be arguing that a mental state is something materially physical when most rational people understand it is not.

If you do not get upset in these threads, why do you sometimes degenerate into tossing out insults, or do the message board equivalent of yelling?

I think that's a perception problem.

And again, where do you get your information that someone who is spiritually handicapped must have done it to themselves? Really, this is just one example of the bigger question of where you get any of your information about all of this.

Again, from the fact that humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self and that's what makes us different from all other living things. From the fact that you can't show me where man invented spirituality because the timeline doesn't cooperate with your theory. We find no evidence that spirituality was invented by man, it has apparently been present in man for all of our existence in some form or another. From the fact there is no Atheist who doesn't know of or isn't aware of human spirituality.

The point in asking about brain impulses is to try and understand just what you mean when you say humans can sense the spiritual, particularly that emotions are senses that let us perceive the spiritual. You have now said that thoughts and emotions are not made up of impulses in the brain, that those impulses are merely indicators of thoughts and emotions. I disagree. I believe that the evidence we have does, in fact, show that our thoughts and emotions are made up of impulses in our brains. Hence the issue; you seem to consider those things to be non-physical in nature. Do we have thoughts, and those thoughts cause the impulses in the brain? Are our thoughts and emotions spiritual?

I think you may be conflating matter with physical.

Yes, in some instances there can be more than one truth. That is not always the case. I've given multiple examples of contradictory beliefs in which both things cannot be true. I'm not arguing that is always the way things work, why do you seem to be arguing that point?

I don't think you speak for 'most rational people'. If I had to guess, I'd guess that most people believe their thoughts and emotions come from the very electrical impulses in our brain we've already discussed, which would certainly make them physically based.

I'm not asking about humans being spiritually connected. I'm asking how that leads you to think you understand what is or is not a spiritual sense, what makes you think you know all people who don't sense the spiritual are missing that sense through their own actions, etc. etc.....all the specifics for which you have given no indication where you information comes from.

 

[Boss]

Ok that's true, but if one person believes in an imaginary man in the sky, everyone will think he's crazy. It takes more than one to get a religion started.

One might have been the first to invent it but he had to convince others for it to catch on. Think about it. You're sitting around and you come up with this concept after smoking some payote and imagine how dumb your audience must have been to buy into it without any proof. Or, they had proof. When the lightening struck and burned their friend to a crisp or a lion ate him, the day before he was being mean and so they put two and two together and decided that it must have been god who punished him for being bad.

It doesn't sound to me like you have evidence or proof that man invented spirituality. It sounds an awful lot like you are speculating and opining to me. When you fantasize about how it all must have gone down, that is not scientific evaluation of any evidence, that is purely speculative opinion. But I enjoy speculating, so let me have a go at this too....

Imagine you are an advanced monkey man, sitting around the cave one day. A bolt of lightning strikes a tree and starts a fire. All the other animals clear out... they take off running, away from this "fire" thing that happens. Maybe your first instinct is to run as well, after all, it looks dangerous. But there is something inside you that tells you it's okay as long as you keep your distance. You notice that it's warm and you start thinking maybe this could be a benefit on those cold nights in the cave with your cave woman.

The next day, you are out messing around with some rocks and stuff and you notice, if you hit these certain rocks together you get this "spark" thingy... kinda reminds you of the lightning. At first, you are probably a little startled by it, but again... something tells you it will be okay to play with this some more. Pretty soon, you are actually starting a fire by yourself!

You see, what you have discovered is more important than how to control fire. You've discovered human spiritual connection with something greater than self. That thing that told you it was okay to stick around and investigate, to play with the sparking rocks, to make fire by yourself. You find that that thing is useful in telling you all kinds of things are okay, that you can do it and there is no need to fear. Other advanced monkey men are amazed at what all you can do, and they ask you what is your secret? You tell them is is this thing you've decided to call "inspiration" and you get it from this other thing that speaks to you in your head and tells you it's alright, you can do this.

Then one of the less-advanced monkey men says... awww that's a bunch of bullshit!

 

[sealybobo]

Ok that's true, but if one person believes in an imaginary man in the sky, everyone will think he's crazy. It takes more than one to get a religion started.

One might have been the first to invent it but he had to convince others for it to catch on. Think about it. You're sitting around and you come up with this concept after smoking some payote and imagine how dumb your audience must have been to buy into it without any proof. Or, they had proof. When the lightening struck and burned their friend to a crisp or a lion ate him, the day before he was being mean and so they put two and two together and decided that it must have been god who punished him for being bad.

It doesn't sound to me like you have evidence or proof that man invented spirituality. It sounds an awful lot like you are speculating and opining to me. When you fantasize about how it all must have gone down, that is not scientific evaluation of any evidence, that is purely speculative opinion. But I enjoy speculating, so let me have a go at this too....

Imagine you are an advanced monkey man, sitting around the cave one day. A bolt of lightning strikes a tree and starts a fire. All the other animals clear out... they take off running, away from this "fire" thing that happens. Maybe your first instinct is to run as well, after all, it looks dangerous. But there is something inside you that tells you it's okay as long as you keep your distance. You notice that it's warm and you start thinking maybe this could be a benefit on those cold nights in the cave with your cave woman.

The next day, you are out messing around with some rocks and stuff and you notice, if you hit these certain rocks together you get this "spark" thingy... kinda reminds you of the lightning. At first, you are probably a little startled by it, but again... something tells you it will be okay to play with this some more. Pretty soon, you are actually starting a fire by yourself!

You see, what you have discovered is more important than how to control fire. You've discovered human spiritual connection with something greater than self. That thing that told you it was okay to stick around and investigate, to play with the sparking rocks, to make fire by yourself. You find that that thing is useful in telling you all kinds of things are okay, that you can do it and there is no need to fear. Other advanced monkey men are amazed at what all you can do, and they ask you what is your secret? You tell them is is this thing you've decided to call "inspiration" and you get it from this other thing that speaks to you in your head and tells you it's alright, you can do this.

Then one of the less-advanced monkey men says... awww that's a bunch of bullshit!

How did man discover human spiritual connection with something greater than self?

So when someone figured out the wheel and how to use it, that was discovering human spiritual connection with something greater than self?

 

[Boss]

The point in asking about brain impulses is to try and understand just what you mean when you say humans can sense the spiritual, particularly that emotions are senses that let us perceive the spiritual. You have now said that thoughts and emotions are not made up of impulses in the brain, that those impulses are merely indicators of thoughts and emotions. I disagree.

Then you need to show me evidence that our brains independently and arbitrarily fire off neurons and create emotions and feelings regardless of who we are and what we believe. That we are just sitting ducks, waiting on our brains to fire off some impulses which control our animation as humans. I don't buy that, but if it's the case, that's even MORE evidence there is a God controlling every aspect of who we are and what we do.

I believe that the evidence we have does, in fact, show that our thoughts and emotions are made up of impulses in our brains. Hence the issue; you seem to consider those things to be non-physical in nature. Do we have thoughts, and those thoughts cause the impulses in the brain? Are our thoughts and emotions spiritual?

You need to show me evidence that our brains produce impulses that generate emotions independent of who we are or what we think and believe. If this were true, we'd have no control over anything we do. It would all be arbitrary and subject to our brain and it's impulses. When we have thoughts, it produces an electronic impulse in our brains that you can observe on a machine. You've somehow gotten this completely backwards and think those impulses are controlling our minds. Well okay then... where the fuck do brain impulses come from?

I think thoughts and emotions are spiritual because they effect the spirit and are produced by the spirit. And evil person has evil thoughts and emotional impulses. A thought and emotion are certainly not physical or material in nature... they are not comprised of matter.

I think you may be conflating matter with physical.

No I have specifically said "materially physical" in every statement, so as to be sure you understand exactly what I mean. We can define anything, including the practice of spirituality, as a "physical" thing, because a "physical" entity is experiencing it. When we say "materially physical" it means "comprised of matter" or physically existing in a material state. What you are trying to do is lay claim to all things physical and non-physical that we're aware of, and proclaim that "spiritual" can only mean things of fantasy and pretend.

Yes, in some instances there can be more than one truth. That is not always the case. I've given multiple examples of contradictory beliefs in which both things cannot be true. I'm not arguing that is always the way things work, why do you seem to be arguing that point?

Because it's not always the case and it's not the case with human spirituality. You're trying to insist it IS the case. That's why we're arguing.

I don't think you speak for 'most rational people'. If I had to guess, I'd guess that most people believe their thoughts and emotions come from the very electrical impulses in our brain we've already discussed, which would certainly make them physically based.

Again, if this were true, we'd see people just randomly respond to these impulses and do all kinds of irrational things because they had no control over them whatsoever. We'd all be INSANE! Our thoughts and emotions CREATE the impulses, not the other way around. Our thoughts and emotions are controlled by our mind, the collective accumulation of our life experiences and knowledge, what we believe in and our objective morality or humanity as humans.

I'm not asking about humans being spiritually connected. I'm asking how that leads you to think you understand what is or is not a spiritual sense, what makes you think you know all people who don't sense the spiritual are missing that sense through their own actions, etc. etc.....all the specifics for which you have given no indication where you information comes from.

And I am telling you, it's because of our history as a species.

 

[Boss]

How did man discover human spiritual connection with something greater than self?

I don't think man discovered it. I think it was bestowed on man by Spiritual Nature itself. If man "discovered" it, there would be no difference than if man had "invented" it. We'd see evidence pointing to a place in time where humans began practicing human spiritual connection. We see no such indicator. Humans have ALWAYS been spiritual as far as we can tell from the bones we've dug up. There is no point where spirituality was "discovered" in the history. It has always been present in man.

So when someone figured out the wheel and how to use it, that was discovering human spiritual connection with something greater than self?

Yep... Inspiration. Think about that word for a moment. "In-spir-ation"

Everything humans have accomplished has come through our ability to be inspired. We are inspired by a power or force greater than self. This is why we see humans making great strides and progress in advancement while other animals remain virtually unchanged in terms of their understanding or advancing of technology, etc. I mean, think about it... in the last 500 years, look at all man has accomplished... now look at what dolphins and apes have accomplished in the same time? Dolphins and apes are smart animals, the closest to being as smart as people... what have they done? ANYTHING? Have you ever seen a chimp attempting to make fire or invent a wheel? Hey, they have 96% of our DNA, seems they would have at least made some crude attempts at such, but NADDA!

 

[itfitzme]

Hi [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION]
I am willing to make a 10 million dollar bet with
Stephen Hawkins, Richard Dawking, and Bill Gates
that humans can form a consensus on God (ie agreeing on meanings of God and God's attributes that are real within their natural understanding)
between representative groups over the internet;
by first proving the process of reconciliation works by forgiveness
between the different groups so that nobody has to change their beliefs.
The main thing that changes is their perception of other people's beliefs
so as not to be in irreconciliable conflict any more.

I need at least 10 million to save a historic district for Vets to set up a campus
for sustainable housing and health care as part of business education and govt training.

So the money will go to a good cause.

If you are willing to be the skeptic coordinating the financial backers
and I am willing to be the coordinator of the team to try to prove
a consensus can be reached networking groups together online,
are you ready to go for it?

I think the people here alone could likely pull off a good part of the effort.
And I can throw in some other atheists and Christians, Muslims Buddhist and Bahai to
help coordinate between the diverse groups who will want to be represented.

Thanks let me know
I already have domain names set up for
Consensus on God
Consensus on Law

Are you interested or are you just bluffing yourself?

No, the truth is, nothing is proven. Science can't prove anything, it can only predict probability of possibility. Now, it may predict a very high probability of a possibility, and we may interpret that as "proof" of something, but that's not science, that is us drawing a conclusion.

Let me ask you this. Can you calculate the probability that you will wake up in the morning on Mars? Simple question, a yes or no will suffice.

I will give you $500 if you wake up on Mars tommorow. If not, you give me $20. That is pretty good odds I'm giving you. Will you take the bet? I'll give you $10,000 if God manafests itself in the next month? If not, you give me $100. Pretty goods odd. Are you willing to take that bet?

We all know that you will not take that bet. What odds are you willing to take to put your money where your mouth is?

We all know you won't back it up at any odds.

I'll take any odds you are willing and put up my current savings.

When it gets down to it, in your gut, you won't stake anything of real value to your belief. People of knowledge will and do, regularly.

Prove me wrong, make it worth the effort and I guarantee I'll come up with someone else that'll double the offer.

How much are you willing to put up to prove your belief? Talk is cheap.

And reality just isn't that complicated.

I have no doubt that there is a concensus. So? You will find the same for psychic abilities, ghosts, space aliens, life on other planets, and on and on. So?

 

[BreezeWood]

Ok that's true, but if one person believes in an imaginary man in the sky, everyone will think he's crazy. It takes more than one to get a religion started.

One might have been the first to invent it but he had to convince others for it to catch on. Think about it. You're sitting around and you come up with this concept after smoking some payote and imagine how dumb your audience must have been to buy into it without any proof. Or, they had proof. When the lightening struck and burned their friend to a crisp or a lion ate him, the day before he was being mean and so they put two and two together and decided that it must have been god who punished him for being bad.

It doesn't sound to me like you have evidence or proof that man invented spirituality. It sounds an awful lot like you are speculating and opining to me. When you fantasize about how it all must have gone down, that is not scientific evaluation of any evidence, that is purely speculative opinion. But I enjoy speculating, so let me have a go at this too....

Imagine you are an advanced monkey man, sitting around the cave one day. A bolt of lightning strikes a tree and starts a fire. All the other animals clear out... they take off running, away from this "fire" thing that happens. Maybe your first instinct is to run as well, after all, it looks dangerous. But there is something inside you that tells you it's okay as long as you keep your distance. You notice that it's warm and you start thinking maybe this could be a benefit on those cold nights in the cave with your cave woman.

The next day, you are out messing around with some rocks and stuff and you notice, if you hit these certain rocks together you get this "spark" thingy... kinda reminds you of the lightning. At first, you are probably a little startled by it, but again... something tells you it will be okay to play with this some more. Pretty soon, you are actually starting a fire by yourself!

You see, what you have discovered is more important than how to control fire. You've discovered human spiritual connection with something greater than self. That thing that told you it was okay to stick around and investigate, to play with the sparking rocks, to make fire by yourself. You find that that thing is useful in telling you all kinds of things are okay, that you can do it and there is no need to fear. Other advanced monkey men are amazed at what all you can do, and they ask you what is your secret? You tell them is is this thing you've decided to call "inspiration" and you get it from this other thing that speaks to you in your head and tells you it's alright, you can do this.

Then one of the less-advanced monkey men says... awww that's a bunch of bullshit!

You see, what you have discovered is more important than how to control fire. You've discovered human spiritual connection with something greater than self.

human spiritual connection ....


a discovery using "free will" would seem more Spiritual than believing / relying on a connection to something "else" as being necessary for an individual in their pursuit of life's rewards.

whatever happened to "your on your own, sink or swim - the day of Judgement".

need a book to read ?

.

 

[Montrovant]

The point in asking about brain impulses is to try and understand just what you mean when you say humans can sense the spiritual, particularly that emotions are senses that let us perceive the spiritual. You have now said that thoughts and emotions are not made up of impulses in the brain, that those impulses are merely indicators of thoughts and emotions. I disagree.

Then you need to show me evidence that our brains independently and arbitrarily fire off neurons and create emotions and feelings regardless of who we are and what we believe. That we are just sitting ducks, waiting on our brains to fire off some impulses which control our animation as humans. I don't buy that, but if it's the case, that's even MORE evidence there is a God controlling every aspect of who we are and what we do.

I believe that the evidence we have does, in fact, show that our thoughts and emotions are made up of impulses in our brains. Hence the issue; you seem to consider those things to be non-physical in nature. Do we have thoughts, and those thoughts cause the impulses in the brain? Are our thoughts and emotions spiritual?

You need to show me evidence that our brains produce impulses that generate emotions independent of who we are or what we think and believe. If this were true, we'd have no control over anything we do. It would all be arbitrary and subject to our brain and it's impulses. When we have thoughts, it produces an electronic impulse in our brains that you can observe on a machine. You've somehow gotten this completely backwards and think those impulses are controlling our minds. Well okay then... where the fuck do brain impulses come from?

I think thoughts and emotions are spiritual because they effect the spirit and are produced by the spirit. And evil person has evil thoughts and emotional impulses. A thought and emotion are certainly not physical or material in nature... they are not comprised of matter.



No I have specifically said "materially physical" in every statement, so as to be sure you understand exactly what I mean. We can define anything, including the practice of spirituality, as a "physical" thing, because a "physical" entity is experiencing it. When we say "materially physical" it means "comprised of matter" or physically existing in a material state. What you are trying to do is lay claim to all things physical and non-physical that we're aware of, and proclaim that "spiritual" can only mean things of fantasy and pretend.



Because it's not always the case and it's not the case with human spirituality. You're trying to insist it IS the case. That's why we're arguing.

I don't think you speak for 'most rational people'. If I had to guess, I'd guess that most people believe their thoughts and emotions come from the very electrical impulses in our brain we've already discussed, which would certainly make them physically based.

Again, if this were true, we'd see people just randomly respond to these impulses and do all kinds of irrational things because they had no control over them whatsoever. We'd all be INSANE! Our thoughts and emotions CREATE the impulses, not the other way around. Our thoughts and emotions are controlled by our mind, the collective accumulation of our life experiences and knowledge, what we believe in and our objective morality or humanity as humans.

I'm not asking about humans being spiritually connected. I'm asking how that leads you to think you understand what is or is not a spiritual sense, what makes you think you know all people who don't sense the spiritual are missing that sense through their own actions, etc. etc.....all the specifics for which you have given no indication where you information comes from.

And I am telling you, it's because of our history as a species.

Why must I show evidence that brain impulses happen independent of who we are? The point is that those impulses are what make up who we are! Our brains are the repositories of our selves, our personalities. When did I say our brains function independent of who we are?

What am I trying to insist is the case with human spirituality? This started because I said that some of your stated beliefs about god are incompatible with various religious views of god, and therefore you must believe those religions are incorrect.

Again, if we have thoughts and feelings independent of our brains, does someone with little to no brain activity still have thoughts and feelings? Would they be a sort of Johnny Got His Gun state, trapped in a body, thinking and feeling as normal, but unable to interact with the world?

And what is it that the impulses in our brains caused by our thoughts and emotions do?

I find it hard to fathom how the idea of the brain as the place our thoughts come from is so foreign to you. Whether or not you believe it, I think it's a fairly common concept; the brain is the computer which runs the machines that are our bodies.

Our history as a species tells you that people cannot be born spiritually blind? The fact that eyesight is an inherent part of humanity, yet some people are without sight, doesn't seem analogous to you? The specifics you have given about the nature of god are based on our history as a species? The specifics you have given about the nature of the spiritual are based on the history of our species? That is not much of an answer.

 

[Boss]

Why must I show evidence that brain impulses happen independent of who we are?

Because that is the claim you are making, idiot!

The point is that those impulses are what make up who we are!

No, those impulses are NOT what make up who we are! If that were the case, no human would have any control over who they are. It would all be totally and randomly dependent on what kind of impulses our brains shot out! We wouldn't be able to control our emotions, we wouldn't be able to overcome our emotions, we wouldn't have the ability to objectively reason. You're a fucking idiot if you believe this.

Our brains are the repositories of our selves, our personalities. When did I say our brains function independent of who we are?

When you claim these damn impulses control who we are! Yes, our brains are repositories of our selves and personalities, that's what I said! It is those attributes that control what we think and how we feel, not the goddamn impulses! We create the impulse when our mind works. If our mind doesn't work (as in YOUR case) then no impulse is created.

What am I trying to insist is the case with human spirituality? This started because I said that some of your stated beliefs about god are incompatible with various religious views of god, and therefore you must believe those religions are incorrect.

But I don't "therefore believe" those religions must be incorrect. I don't know. I only know what I believe, I can't speak for the correctness or incorrectness of what others believe. Like I tried to explain to you, perhaps Spiritual Nature effects people differently? I tried to explain it with an ice cream analogy... you apparently didn't get that. Let me try again... You enjoy a vacation, as do many people... You prefer going to the beach, someone else likes the mountains. They tell you they had a wonderful vacation in the mountains. Are the WRONG? Who the hell are YOU to judge that? You like the beach, it doesn't mean they can't like the mountains! Now maybe they don't like the beach and they tell you they don't like it, it's no fun for them to vacation there... are they WRONG? Is that INCORRECT? Is there some law written that everyone has to like what you like to be CORRECT? Nope!

I honestly don't know how else I can explain this to you, it's becoming quite onerous to be honest. It seems that you would have enough functional brain cells and enough neurons firing to comprehend this. But apparently, you just DON'T!

Again, if we have thoughts and feelings independent of our brains, does someone with little to no brain activity still have thoughts and feelings? Would they be a sort of Johnny Got His Gun state, trapped in a body, thinking and feeling as normal, but unable to interact with the world?

And what is it that the impulses in our brains caused by our thoughts and emotions do?

I find it hard to fathom how the idea of the brain as the place our thoughts come from is so foreign to you. Whether or not you believe it, I think it's a fairly common concept; the brain is the computer which runs the machines that are our bodies.

I'm done addressing this topic. Sorry! See my above comments.

Our history as a species tells you that people cannot be born spiritually blind? The fact that eyesight is an inherent part of humanity, yet some people are without sight, doesn't seem analogous to you? The specifics you have given about the nature of god are based on our history as a species? The specifics you have given about the nature of the spiritual are based on the history of our species? That is not much of an answer.

Eyesight is a physical sense, it's not a good example. Are there people born without the ability to think or feel emotions? I suppose there are... you certainly seem to be incapable of thought. Maybe you are right, maybe there are spiritual retards who can't think or feel things?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

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.

Firstly, we do not "know" that the Universe was not always here - it could be that it was.

If God was always here, why can't the same be held true for the Universe?

Maybe our current model of linear time is flawed and there was no beginning or end?

There is a small problem with the Universe "ending" and it has to do with this little thing In physics called "the conservation of energy."

Why does a theory like mine, automatically preclude a divine entity?

 

[Boss]

Firstly, we do not "know" that the Universe was not always here - it could be that it was.

If God was always here, why can't the same be held true for the Universe?

Maybe our current model of linear time is flawed and there was no beginning or end?

There is a small problem with the Universe "ending" and it has to do with this little thing In physics called "the conservation of energy."

Why does a theory like mine, automatically preclude a divine entity?

The problem with your theory is motion of the universe. The entire universe (space) is expanding, in a constant state of motion. If Newton's Laws of Motion are valid, there has to be something that caused or began the motion of the universe. The little thing in physics we call "laws of conservation" or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, pretty much rules out that the universe is in some kind of perpetual motion cycle. Entropy, which is also part of the laws of conservation, means the motion of the universe will eventually end.

Time is NOT linear. This was proven over 100 years ago by Einstein with his Theory of General and Special Relativity. Time is relative. It changes throughout the universe and depends on velocity of the observer. In other words, this motion of the universe (space) is connected to time itself. A space-time continuum.

What we perceive as "reality" only exists with a conscious perception of time. This is what prompted Einstein to say, "Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one."

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Firstly, we do not "know" that the Universe was not always here - it could be that it was.

If God was always here, why can't the same be held true for the Universe?

Maybe our current model of linear time is flawed and there was no beginning or end?

There is a small problem with the Universe "ending" and it has to do with this little thing In physics called "the conservation of energy."

Why does a theory like mine, automatically preclude a divine entity?

The problem with your theory is motion of the universe. The entire universe (space) is expanding, in a constant state of motion. If Newton's Laws of Motion are valid, there has to be something that caused or began the motion of the universe. The little thing in physics we call "laws of conservation" or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, pretty much rules out that the universe is in some kind of perpetual motion cycle. Entropy, which is also part of the laws of conservation, means the motion of the universe will eventually end.

Time is NOT linear. This was proven over 100 years ago by Einstein with his Theory of General and Special Relativity. Time is relative. It changes throughout the universe and depends on velocity of the observer. In other words, this motion of the universe (space) is connected to time itself. A space-time continuum.

What we perceive as "reality" only exists with a conscious perception of time. This is what prompted Einstein to say, "Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one."

Maybe the universe simply "exists" and was never created in the first place. I'm not really talking about time as explained by relativity, but a more dynamic model - one with multiple dimensions.

As far as the big-bang is concerned, that might have been a mere step in the process.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Firstly, we do not "know" that the Universe was not always here - it could be that it was.

If God was always here, why can't the same be held true for the Universe?

Maybe our current model of linear time is flawed and there was no beginning or end?

There is a small problem with the Universe "ending" and it has to do with this little thing In physics called "the conservation of energy."

Why does a theory like mine, automatically preclude a divine entity?

The problem with your theory is motion of the universe. The entire universe (space) is expanding, in a constant state of motion. If Newton's Laws of Motion are valid, there has to be something that caused or began the motion of the universe. The little thing in physics we call "laws of conservation" or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, pretty much rules out that the universe is in some kind of perpetual motion cycle. Entropy, which is also part of the laws of conservation, means the motion of the universe will eventually end.

Time is NOT linear. This was proven over 100 years ago by Einstein with his Theory of General and Special Relativity. Time is relative. It changes throughout the universe and depends on velocity of the observer. In other words, this motion of the universe (space) is connected to time itself. A space-time continuum.

What we perceive as "reality" only exists with a conscious perception of time. This is what prompted Einstein to say, "Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one."

Maybe the universe simply "exists" and was never created in the first place. I'm not really talking about time as explained by relativity, but a more dynamic model - one with multiple dimensions.

As far as the big-bang is concerned, that might have been a mere step in the process.

The multiple big bang theory makes sense for a universe that has always existed and will always exist.

One Big Bang, or were there many? | Science | The Guardian

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

The problem with your theory is motion of the universe. The entire universe (space) is expanding, in a constant state of motion. If Newton's Laws of Motion are valid, there has to be something that caused or began the motion of the universe. The little thing in physics we call "laws of conservation" or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, pretty much rules out that the universe is in some kind of perpetual motion cycle. Entropy, which is also part of the laws of conservation, means the motion of the universe will eventually end.

Time is NOT linear. This was proven over 100 years ago by Einstein with his Theory of General and Special Relativity. Time is relative. It changes throughout the universe and depends on velocity of the observer. In other words, this motion of the universe (space) is connected to time itself. A space-time continuum.

What we perceive as "reality" only exists with a conscious perception of time. This is what prompted Einstein to say, "Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one."

Maybe the universe simply "exists" and was never created in the first place. I'm not really talking about time as explained by relativity, but a more dynamic model - one with multiple dimensions.

As far as the big-bang is concerned, that might have been a mere step in the process.

The multiple big bang theory makes sense for a universe that has always existed and will always exist.

One Big Bang, or were there many? | Science | The Guardian

The current trend is to knock it because of the speeding up of the expansion, but don't go to sleep on it. Why would black holes collapse matter, if the Universe didn't itself, collapse?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Maybe the universe simply "exists" and was never created in the first place. I'm not really talking about time as explained by relativity, but a more dynamic model - one with multiple dimensions.

As far as the big-bang is concerned, that might have been a mere step in the process.

The multiple big bang theory makes sense for a universe that has always existed and will always exist.

One Big Bang, or were there many? | Science | The Guardian

The current trend is to knock it because of the speeding up of the expansion, but don't go to sleep on it. Why would black holes collapse matter, if the Universe didn't itself, collapse?

The acceleration of the universe is simply a "point in time" observation. We need far more data in order to decide what this means. The universe could have "tidal pulses" of energy that are the cause. The radiation from the trillions of stars in the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies could be heating dark matter and turning it into dark energy and that is causing the expansion of the universe. Once those stars expend their energy the dark energy could condense back into dark matter and their gravitational force would then cause a contraction of the universe. That contraction could result in another singularity and thereby the cycle would begin anew.

 

[Chuckt]

Who made god? Or are you suggesting with a straight face that he happened without direction?

why do you think God had to happen?......

Maybe they confuse the rules that God imposed upon creation with the God who has no rules posed upon Him.