How do the non-spiritual explain it?

[Hollie]

The origin of the universe and the beginning of life are by definition part of the natural world we live in. That we do not precisely understand them does not make them part of supernature. Everything we do not understand is not part of supernature. If you think it is I can see where you're coming from.

We do understand them, that's the thing. We understand physics to the point of being able to intricately measure every aspect of physical nature through mathematics and it never fails. With the exception of four places... The instant of origin for the universe, inside a black hole, at the subatomic level and the origin of life.

"Supernature" is a word you've conveniently defined as "all things which are not physical nature" ...and that's fine, but let's not then expect physical nature to prove them. That's sort of ridiculous. If supernature is that which is not nature, then nature can't verify or confirm it. If it ever does, it ceases to be "supernature" doesn't it?

So we have to first understand that what we actually have here is "physical nature" and "non-physical nature" ...everything has to be one or the other. There is not a third option. Having established that, we examine what physical nature says....

In the case of the origin of the universe, physics and science says the universe must defy physics in order to exist. It's not that there is no physical explanation, it's that the only physical explanation is non-physical, or not supportable by physics.

The same can be said for life. Biogenesis says life comes from life. All of human biological science for every living thing we know or have ever known to exist, conforms to this law and principle of science. So again, it's not a matter of what we don't know, it's what we know is certain. Origin of life has no physical explanation which does not contradict physical nature itself.

That was even more confused and convoluted than your earlier confusions and convolutions. Your invention of "non-physical nature" is a hoot. I suppose your invented supernatural spirit realms reside your invented realm of "non-physical nature" which apparently exists only in your rather vivid imagination.

Lastly, I would avoid the silly "biogenesis" references. You tip your hand at being just another Jehovah's Witness hack.

My that would explain a lot if he was a jw. A brainwashed cult member doesn't really make for interesting debate.

I agree. The Lad has exhausted all his available tripe and is now left to stomping his feet in angry tirades like a petulant child who has been sent to his room for a time out.

 

[Boss]

You are posturing. It means you know your argument is weak. Any way, my argument was sound and logical.

Your argument was totally destroyed in post #269 above. Since then, you've been whining about name calling and trying to pretend that I am calling you names because I said you're being stupid.

You've told us twice that this is boring to you and that you're done with this, but here you are still posting.... I guess you're too pathetically stupid to follow your own advice? That's really sad.

 

[Boss]

I agree. The Lad has exhausted all his available tripe and is now left to stomping his feet in angry tirades like a petulant child who has been sent to his room for a time out.

...FAP FAP FAP!

 

[Inevitable]

The origin of the universe and the beginning of life are by definition part of the natural world we live in. That we do not precisely understand them does not make them part of supernature. Everything we do not understand is not part of supernature. If you think it is I can see where you're coming from.

We do understand them, that's the thing. We understand physics to the point of being able to intricately measure every aspect of physical nature through mathematics and it never fails. With the exception of four places... The instant of origin for the universe, inside a black hole, at the subatomic level and the origin of life.

"Supernature" is a word you've conveniently defined as "all things which are not physical nature" ...and that's fine, but let's not then expect physical nature to prove them. That's sort of ridiculous. If supernature is that which is not nature, then nature can't verify or confirm it. If it ever does, it ceases to be "supernature" doesn't it?

So we have to first understand that what we actually have here is "physical nature" and "non-physical nature" ...everything has to be one or the other. There is not a third option. Having established that, we examine what physical nature says....

In the case of the origin of the universe, physics and science says the universe must defy physics in order to exist. It's not that there is no physical explanation, it's that the only physical explanation is non-physical, or not supportable by physics.

The same can be said for life. Biogenesis says life comes from life. All of human biological science for every living thing we know or have ever known to exist, conforms to this law and principle of science. So again, it's not a matter of what we don't know, it's what we know is certain. Origin of life has no physical explanation which does not contradict physical nature itself.

That was even more confused and convoluted than your earlier confusions and convolutions. Your invention of "non-physical nature" is a hoot. I suppose your invented supernatural spirit realms reside your invented realm of "non-physical nature" which apparently exists only in your rather vivid imagination.

Lastly, I would avoid the silly "biogenesis" references. You tip your hand at being just another Jehovah's Witness hack.

My that would explain a lot if he was a jw. A brainwashed cult member doesn't really make for interesting debate.

I agree. The Lad has exhausted all his available tripe and is now left to stomping his feet in angry tirades like a petulant child who has been sent to his room for a time out.

I understand the belief in supernatural phenomena, it's just that it always seems to depend on coincidence.

I used to work nights at a cemetery, alone. I was doing security, locking gates and running of intruders. Well the office the security people operated in was in the shed they cept all the equipment. And everybody that worked out there said that it was haunted. They kept referencing this thumping sound.

I heard it when I was out there. A deep low pitch thump. Almost like a heavy object hitting soft soil. Curious I walked out of the office and into the shed where they kept the equipment, where the "ghosts" were most active. I leaned up against a back hoe and listened. THUMP!!! It was the back hoe. I used to work on hydraulic equipment and after it is used and stored it tended to settle. That was the ghost.

 

[Inevitable]

You are posturing. It means you know your argument is weak. Any way, my argument was sound and logical.

Your argument was totally destroyed in post #269 above. Since then, you've been whining about name calling and trying to pretend that I am calling you names because I said you're being stupid.

You've told us twice that this is boring to you and that you're done with this, but here you are still posting.... I guess you're too pathetically stupid to follow your own advice? That's really sad.

It's funny to watch you get all ginned up over being wrong.

So it's entertaining, though I spouse about as much as bothering ants.

As far as debate goes. You aren't capable off doing it logically. So there isn't a point in that.

 

[Inevitable]

The origin of the universe and the beginning of life are by definition part of the natural world we live in. That we do not precisely understand them does not make them part of supernature. Everything we do not understand is not part of supernature. If you think it is I can see where you're coming from.

We do understand them, that's the thing. We understand physics to the point of being able to intricately measure every aspect of physical nature through mathematics and it never fails. With the exception of four places... The instant of origin for the universe, inside a black hole, at the subatomic level and the origin of life.

"Supernature" is a word you've conveniently defined as "all things which are not physical nature" ...and that's fine, but let's not then expect physical nature to prove them. That's sort of ridiculous. If supernature is that which is not nature, then nature can't verify or confirm it. If it ever does, it ceases to be "supernature" doesn't it?

So we have to first understand that what we actually have here is "physical nature" and "non-physical nature" ...everything has to be one or the other. There is not a third option. Having established that, we examine what physical nature says....

In the case of the origin of the universe, physics and science says the universe must defy physics in order to exist. It's not that there is no physical explanation, it's that the only physical explanation is non-physical, or not supportable by physics.

The same can be said for life. Biogenesis says life comes from life. All of human biological science for every living thing we know or have ever known to exist, conforms to this law and principle of science. So again, it's not a matter of what we don't know, it's what we know is certain. Origin of life has no physical explanation which does not contradict physical nature itself.

That was even more confused and convoluted than your earlier confusions and convolutions. Your invention of "non-physical nature" is a hoot. I suppose your invented supernatural spirit realms reside your invented realm of "non-physical nature" which apparently exists only in your rather vivid imagination.

Lastly, I would avoid the silly "biogenesis" references. You tip your hand at being just another Jehovah's Witness hack.

My that would explain a lot if he was a jw. A brainwashed cult member doesn't really make for interesting debate.

I agree. The Lad has exhausted all his available tripe and is now left to stomping his feet in angry tirades like a petulant child who has been sent to his room for a time out.

Funny how that occurs.

"You aren't agreeing with me so you are dumb." That is so incredibly clever, I wonder why politicos never use that debate tactic.

 

[Boss]

It's funny to watch you get all ginned up over being wrong.

So it's entertaining, though I spouse about as much as bothering ants.

As far as debate goes. You aren't capable off doing it logically. So there isn't a point in that.

You've not shown me wrong about anything. Feel free to do that any time you think you can. You wouldn't know logic if it were sitting in your lap, sucking your teat and calling you "mamma!"

You came in here, made some bonehead comment about perceptions, including such priceless gems as your belief that perception doesn't have to involve our senses. Boasted about being a Taoist, which was a lie... and since I destroyed your argument, you've been putting on this cute little show as if you have won the argument and are now just having some fun with me.

Now I see this tactic being deployed often here, and at first I wondered why. I mean, can't idiots like this understand that people can simply go back are read the conversation to see they are full of shit? How can they think they'll get away with just boldly claiming victory when there is no victory? But... this place is full of empty-headed morons like Hollie who don't bother reading. They see Inevitable (their hero) claiming victory over Boss (the enemy) and they assume this is what happened. Stupid is as Stupid does.

You've not refuted any argument of mine.
You can't refute any argument of mine.
All you can do is whine like a gay liberal pansy with hurt feelings.
And keep right on lying your ass off with every post!

 

[Inevitable]

It's funny to watch you get all ginned up over being wrong.

So it's entertaining, though I spouse about as much as bothering ants.

As far as debate goes. You aren't capable off doing it logically. So there isn't a point in that.

You've not shown me wrong about anything. Feel free to do that any time you think you can. You wouldn't know logic if it were sitting in your lap, sucking your teat and calling you "mamma!"

You came in here, made some bonehead comment about perceptions, including such priceless gems as your belief that perception doesn't have to involve our senses. Boasted about being a Taoist, which was a lie... and since I destroyed your argument, you've been putting on this cute little show as if you have won the argument and are now just having some fun with me.

Now I see this tactic being deployed often here, and at first I wondered why. I mean, can't idiots like this understand that people can simply go back are read the conversation to see they are full of shit? How can they think they'll get away with just boldly claiming victory when there is no victory? But... this place is full of empty-headed morons like Hollie who don't bother reading. They see Inevitable (their hero) claiming victory over Boss (the enemy) and they assume this is what happened. Stupid is as Stupid does.

You've not refuted any argument of mine.
You can't refute any argument of mine.
All you can do is whine like a gay liberal pansy with hurt feelings.
And keep right on lying your ass off with every post!

I have presented a logical argument that you addressed with ad hominem and other sorts of fallacy.

Clearly you have abandoned logic for adversarial conflict. You feel threatened by people that don't agree with you. So much so that you abandon discussion in order to ridicule people. I'd suggest you avoid team sports and competition.

 

[Treeshepherd]

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

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

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

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

Can our physical sciences understand this?

Quantum Entanglement: "One particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances." -wiki

Erwin Schrodinger coined the word Verschränkung (entanglement). Entangled particles "communicate" with one another outside of the dimensions of space and time.

Paradoxes exist. You and I are paradoxes in the sense that we are both individuals, and at the same time we are not separate but part of the same continuous indivisible universe. There is no actual border which separates you from not you. Everything is connected. Everything is one. Everything is in "communication" with everything else instantaneously, outside of the dimensions of time and space. Your query begins with there.

 

[MaxGrit]

You are calling names because you are a child.

I already corrected you on this, I am not calling you names. If I were calling you names, I'd start with "faggoty-ass gay bait" and I'd make fun of you being a degenerate pervert who gets off sucking men's dicks before you let them fuck you in the ass. But I didn't go there.

I called you a retard and idiot because you're acting retarded and being idiotic. I pointed out why and you've not been able to respond without making yourself appear even more idiotic and retarded. Now you're trying to get in one last shot and run away like the sissy-pants you are.

...Buh-Bye!

You shouldn't waste your time on him. He really is retarded. I tried to teach him a while ago. I initially thought he's too stupid just from reading one of his post. Even so, I tried to explain things to him. It's ended up as a big waste of time because he's simply too stupid. I ignored him for being too stupid. Did you recognize how the retard can't even comprehend what he reads?

Afterwards, I made it my standard protocol to insta-ignore anyone I think is too stupid. It works out great. I sparingly do "show ignored content" checks on my ignores. I find that I'm always accurate on recognition of retards, who gets insta-ignored for being too stupid.

A flaw of the ignore system is that tapatalk will show all posts. It sucks a lot. My ignore all retards policy turns USMB into a much better site for discussion.

 

[Boss]

I have presented a logical argument that you addressed with ad hominem and other sorts of fallacy.

Here's a synopsis...

1. You argued, if it is outside our perception it doesn't matter. I countered this with billions of things outside our perception that DO matter.
2. You argued that human "perception" doesn't necessarily involve our five senses. I countered your argument with the dictionary definition of "perception."
3. You argued that you naturally have the perception to know when you have the flu. You factually do not have this natural perception or we wouldn't need microscopes.

And from here, there has been no intelligent communications flowing from your port.

 

[Boss]

Erwin Schrodinger coined the word Verschränkung (entanglement). Entangled particles "communicate" with one another outside of the dimensions of space and time.

Paradoxes exist. You and I are paradoxes in the sense that we are both individuals, and at the same time we are not separate but part of the same continuous indivisible universe. There is no actual border which separates you from not you. Everything is connected. Everything is one. Everything is in "communication" with everything else instantaneously, outside of the dimensions of time and space. Your query begins with there.

This is brilliant.

We exist in a physical state of reality that shouldn't logically exist. The cosmological constant, if any aspect were off by .0000000000001 the universe would have no stars or planets, and certainly, no life. It's not only finely tuned, it is the epitome of finely tuned. We see people just casually dismiss this as "oh, it just so happens..." That's an illogical answer.

There is no such thing as universal reality. We are all experiencing the same dimension of time together but our realities are individual. We can experience the same exact event standing beside each other holding hands and our perception of that moment may be entirely different.

Our brains are producing electrical impulses constantly. Science says energy can't be created or destroyed, so where does this come from?

 

[Hollie]

Erwin Schrodinger coined the word Verschränkung (entanglement). Entangled particles "communicate" with one another outside of the dimensions of space and time.

Paradoxes exist. You and I are paradoxes in the sense that we are both individuals, and at the same time we are not separate but part of the same continuous indivisible universe. There is no actual border which separates you from not you. Everything is connected. Everything is one. Everything is in "communication" with everything else instantaneously, outside of the dimensions of time and space. Your query begins with there.

This is brilliant.

We exist in a physical state of reality that shouldn't logically exist. The cosmological constant, if any aspect were off by .0000000000001 the universe would have no stars or planets, and certainly, no life. It's not only finely tuned, it is the epitome of finely tuned. We see people just casually dismiss this as "oh, it just so happens..." That's an illogical answer.

There is no such thing as universal reality. We are all experiencing the same dimension of time together but our realities are individual. We can experience the same exact event standing beside each other holding hands and our perception of that moment may be entirely different.

Our brains are producing electrical impulses constantly. Science says energy can't be created or destroyed, so where does this come from?

Ah, the "finely tuned universe". Really boss, why could you not have been honest and just admitted that you're shilling for your Jehovah's Witness cult.

 

[Hollie]

I agree. The Lad has exhausted all his available tripe and is now left to stomping his feet in angry tirades like a petulant child who has been sent to his room for a time out.

...FAP FAP FAP!

Though so.

 

[Inevitable]

You are calling names because you are a child.

I already corrected you on this, I am not calling you names. If I were calling you names, I'd start with "faggoty-ass gay bait" and I'd make fun of you being a degenerate pervert who gets off sucking men's dicks before you let them fuck you in the ass. But I didn't go there.

I called you a retard and idiot because you're acting retarded and being idiotic. I pointed out why and you've not been able to respond without making yourself appear even more idiotic and retarded. Now you're trying to get in one last shot and run away like the sissy-pants you are.

...Buh-Bye!

You shouldn't waste your time on him. He really is retarded. I tried to teach him a while ago. I initially thought he's too stupid just from reading one of his post. Even so, I tried to explain things to him. It's ended up as a big waste of time because he's simply too stupid. I ignored him for being too stupid. Did you recognize how the retard can't even comprehend what he reads?

Afterwards, I made it my standard protocol to insta-ignore anyone I think is too stupid. It works out great. I sparingly do "show ignored content" checks on my ignores. I find that I'm always accurate on recognition of retards, who gets insta-ignored for being too stupid.

A flaw of the ignore system is that tapatalk will show all posts. It sucks a lot. My ignore all retards policy turns USMB into a much better site for discussion.

As I recall you were just as terrible at this as boss is.

Boss and max grit. Clearly egotistical names for mice among men.

 

[Inevitable]

I have presented a logical argument that you addressed with ad hominem and other sorts of fallacy.

Here's a synopsis...

1. You argued, if it is outside our perception it doesn't matter. I countered this with billions of things outside our perception that DO matter.

Which was incorrect. Things that have no effect on us cannot be perceived, thus they don't matter. Things that do effect us can be perceived.

2. You argued that human "perception" doesn't necessarily involve our five senses. I countered your argument with the dictionary definition of "perception."

I don't know why you thought that was a good argument. The dictionary only specifies general meanings of words and how they are used. It's a lexicon. Not definitive proof.

3. You argued that you naturally have the perception to know when you have the flu. You factually do not have this natural perception or we wouldn't need microscopes.

It doesn't have to be seen to be perceived. I can perceive love or hunger without touching, tasting, seeing, hearing, or smelling it. It wouldn't be intuitive it would be instinctual.

And from here, there has been no intelligent communications flowing from your port.

You started telling me I was retarded because you were wrong. All communication breakdown was on your end.

Maybe if you could control your temper and logically respond or better yet consider your position and perhaps adjust it maybe you'd deserve inelegant debate.

But calling people names such as retarded or idiot is what people do when they are emotionally insecure about their position. The point is my words threatened you, and you were threatened. You may call me an idiot and stupid to save face in this board, but I know the truth. Your behavior here was indicative of angst.

I forgive you for it and it could be water under the bridge in your next post, never to be spoken of again should you return to logical discussion.

 

[Inevitable]

The op seems to have done to the thread what Samson did when he killed the philistines.

 

[Treeshepherd]

This is brilliant.

We exist in a physical state of reality that shouldn't logically exist. The cosmological constant, if any aspect were off by .0000000000001 the universe would have no stars or planets, and certainly, no life. It's not only finely tuned, it is the epitome of finely tuned. We see people just casually dismiss this as "oh, it just so happens..." That's an illogical answer.

There is no such thing as universal reality. We are all experiencing the same dimension of time together but our realities are individual. We can experience the same exact event standing beside each other holding hands and our perception of that moment may be entirely different.

We exist in a superposition, multiple things at once. Individuals. Facets of a whole. Spirit. Animal. Light. Matter. Cells of the bio-sphere (Gaia). Hosts of a trillion cells.

Regarding Ed Cayce, he brings another analogy to mind. We think of our brains as the source of ideas and concepts. Brains generate consciousness? Perhaps a better analogy is to think of a brain as a type of radio which condenses consciousness from without. Ed Cayce had a powerful antennae. Or perhaps there are orders of consciousness. Cayce was said to be able to access universal consciousness.

It makes me think of bees, and how they can all decide something at the same time. They'll lose their hive and all swarm on a tree branch. Suddenly, a message is received and all receive it instantaneously (or more instantaneously than can be explained by physical transference). They exist as if in a state of quantum entanglement.

"If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there." (Psalm 139:8)

 

[Boss]

Which was incorrect. Things that have no effect on us cannot be perceived, thus they don't matter. Things that do effect us can be perceived.

This is incorrect. Things effect us all the time without our perception. I've presented examples of this but you then want to abandon the definition of perception and make your own apply.

I don't know why you thought that was a good argument. The dictionary only specifies general meanings of words and how they are used. It's a lexicon. Not definitive proof.

Dictionaries define the meaning of words we use to communicate. When someone just openly rejects the concept of language and claims words are only defined generally, we can pretty much establish this person can't be communicated with, they have mental retardation issues.

It doesn't have to be seen to be perceived. I can perceive love or hunger without touching, tasting, seeing, hearing, or smelling it. It wouldn't be intuitive it would be instinctual.

I've never said that something has to be seen to be perceived. It does have to be realized through our senses. That's the definition. That's what the word means.

Hunger falls under our sense of touch. You become hungry and your stomach growls, you feel this, it gives you the perception you are hungry. Love is something beyond our ability to perceive. It is an intuition based on our emotions. You cannot physically prove someone loves you or that you love somebody, or how much love exists or doesn't exist. It's an emotional speculation. Speculation is never perception. Words have meanings. Non-retards understand this.

 

[Boss]

Ah, the "finely tuned universe". Really boss, why could you not have been honest and just admitted that you're shilling for your Jehovah's Witness cult.

Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. This is not disputable. Even the atheist astrophysicist is perplexed by this. It is why they have now developed this "multi-verse" theory, in order to explain a finely tuned universe.

The force of gravity must be precisely as it is or the universe would not exist. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

Now any objective person knows that Stephen Hawking is not Jehovah's Witness, he's not even religious.