How do the non-spiritual explain it?

[amrchaos]

It is kind of hard to get away from the notion that God is made up by man.

To many different examples of God, definitions of God and so on. It seems like if God really wanted man to know God, there would be only one universal example,definition, what have you to keep man clear of what he should worship.

Of course, there is the possibility that man is assuming something that God didn't ask for--but that idea would tear down every religion in the pure metaphysical sense.

 

[sealybobo]

It is kind of hard to get away from the notion that God is made up by man.

To many different examples of God, definitions of God and so on. It seems like if God really wanted man to know God, there would be only one universal example,definition, what have you to keep man clear of what he should worship.

Of course, there is the possibility that man is assuming something that God didn't ask for--but that idea would tear down every religion in the pure metaphysical sense.

First question I'm going to ask god when I meet him is which one are you? Which religion was right? Then I'd ask why he went through such great length to hide from us?

Why is a god hiding?

 

[Boss]

And he says non of what you say proves anything.

Again.... Hate to have to keep setting the record straight here, but it's not ME who is claiming proof of something. I can never prove a spiritual God to someone who doesn't believe in spiritual nature. So there is a definitive statement from me declaring that I cannot possibly do what you and others continue to insist I am trying to do.

All I have done is refute your claims or inference that science has disproved God. Carl Sagan is disagreeing with YOU!

 

[sealybobo]

And he says non of what you say proves anything.

Again.... Hate to have to keep setting the record straight here, but it's not ME who is claiming proof of something. I can never prove a spiritual God to someone who doesn't believe in spiritual nature. So there is a definitive statement from me declaring that I cannot possibly do what you and others continue to insist I am trying to do.

All I have done is refute your claims or inference that science has disproved God. Carl Sagan is disagreeing with YOU!

You are re defining god. Are you referring to the Abraham god that visits or your generic god?

 

[sealybobo]

And he says non of what you say proves anything.

Again.... Hate to have to keep setting the record straight here, but it's not ME who is claiming proof of something. I can never prove a spiritual God to someone who doesn't believe in spiritual nature. So there is a definitive statement from me declaring that I cannot possibly do what you and others continue to insist I am trying to do.

All I have done is refute your claims or inference that science has disproved God. Carl Sagan is disagreeing with YOU!

You're right. Can't prove Joseph smiths stories arent real.

 

[Hollie]

It is kind of hard to get away from the notion that God is made up by man.

To many different examples of God, definitions of God and so on. It seems like if God really wanted man to know God, there would be only one universal example,definition, what have you to keep man clear of what he should worship.

Of course, there is the possibility that man is assuming something that God didn't ask for--but that idea would tear down every religion in the pure metaphysical sense.

Valid points. Everyone's concept of gawd comes from various books written by men. It's just so convenient that gawds display all the attributes of humanity (our wants, desires, frailties, fears and superstitions) in texts we know are written by humans.

These human defined religions pre-define the supernatural (including gawd(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm where the gawds are presumed to be beyond any constraints of nature. At the theistic level, it's "religious belief". At the level of reason and rationality, it's utter delusion.

 

[Boss]

It is kind of hard to get away from the notion that God is made up by man.

To many different examples of God, definitions of God and so on. It seems like if God really wanted man to know God, there would be only one universal example,definition, what have you to keep man clear of what he should worship.

Of course, there is the possibility that man is assuming something that God didn't ask for--but that idea would tear down every religion in the pure metaphysical sense.

Which explains why I am a Spiritualist.

I believe that what man calls "God" is something we are simply unable to wrap our minds around. It is a metaphysical force present in our universe... What Isaac Newton called a "mercurial spirit" which we can't explain. You can think of it like Jupiter before man created telescopes and observed it... like microbes before man created microscopes to see them... like the Higgs boson... dark matter... black holes... etc... you get the point. God is simply our of our ability to detect physically at this time, we're not smart enough or advanced enough to observe God.

We are blessed with an inherent spiritual connection we cannot deny. It is not by fluke, it isn't some paranoid invention of man, it's not mass delusion. It's real, it's there and it's responsible for making us everything humans are. One of the prime examples of our inherent spirituality is the formation of religions. These are the culmination of our spiritual connection meeting with our inspired imaginations. We imagine this God thing we can't understand to have humanistic attributes we can relate to. I think that's where we mess up. We're flawed and fucked up human beings with very limited perception, but we think we know everything.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It is kind of hard to get away from the notion that God is made up by man.

To many different examples of God, definitions of God and so on. It seems like if God really wanted man to know God, there would be only one universal example,definition, what have you to keep man clear of what he should worship.

Of course, there is the possibility that man is assuming something that God didn't ask for--but that idea would tear down every religion in the pure metaphysical sense.

Which explains why I am a Spiritualist.

I believe that what man calls "God" is something we are simply unable to wrap our minds around. It is a metaphysical force present in our universe... What Isaac Newton called a "mercurial spirit" which we can't explain. You can think of it like Jupiter before man created telescopes and observed it... like microbes before man created microscopes to see them... like the Higgs boson... dark matter... black holes... etc... you get the point. God is simply our of our ability to detect physically at this time, we're not smart enough or advanced enough to observe God.

We are blessed with an inherent spiritual connection we cannot deny. It is not by fluke, it isn't some paranoid invention of man, it's not mass delusion. It's real, it's there and it's responsible for making us everything humans are. One of the prime examples of our inherent spirituality is the formation of religions. These are the culmination of our spiritual connection meeting with our inspired imaginations. We imagine this God thing we can't understand to have humanistic attributes we can relate to. I think that's where we mess up. We're flawed and fucked up human beings with very limited perception, but we think we know everything.

I just figured out who you remind me of. Do you remember Unfrozen Cave Man Lawyer?

https://screen.yahoo.com/unfrozen-cave-man-lawyer-1-223412426.html

 

[Hollie]

It is kind of hard to get away from the notion that God is made up by man.

To many different examples of God, definitions of God and so on. It seems like if God really wanted man to know God, there would be only one universal example,definition, what have you to keep man clear of what he should worship.

Of course, there is the possibility that man is assuming something that God didn't ask for--but that idea would tear down every religion in the pure metaphysical sense.

Which explains why I am a Spiritualist.

I believe that what man calls "God" is something we are simply unable to wrap our minds around. It is a metaphysical force present in our universe... What Isaac Newton called a "mercurial spirit" which we can't explain. You can think of it like Jupiter before man created telescopes and observed it... like microbes before man created microscopes to see them... like the Higgs boson... dark matter... black holes... etc... you get the point. God is simply our of our ability to detect physically at this time, we're not smart enough or advanced enough to observe God.

We are blessed with an inherent spiritual connection we cannot deny. It is not by fluke, it isn't some paranoid invention of man, it's not mass delusion. It's real, it's there and it's responsible for making us everything humans are. One of the prime examples of our inherent spirituality is the formation of religions. These are the culmination of our spiritual connection meeting with our inspired imaginations. We imagine this God thing we can't understand to have humanistic attributes we can relate to. I think that's where we mess up. We're flawed and fucked up human beings with very limited perception, but we think we know everything.

Actually, you're just a wannabe christian with all the same self loathing that derives from the original sin episode.

 

[Hollie]

It is kind of hard to get away from the notion that God is made up by man.

To many different examples of God, definitions of God and so on. It seems like if God really wanted man to know God, there would be only one universal example,definition, what have you to keep man clear of what he should worship.

Of course, there is the possibility that man is assuming something that God didn't ask for--but that idea would tear down every religion in the pure metaphysical sense.

Which explains why I am a Spiritualist.

I believe that what man calls "God" is something we are simply unable to wrap our minds around. It is a metaphysical force present in our universe... What Isaac Newton called a "mercurial spirit" which we can't explain. You can think of it like Jupiter before man created telescopes and observed it... like microbes before man created microscopes to see them... like the Higgs boson... dark matter... black holes... etc... you get the point. God is simply our of our ability to detect physically at this time, we're not smart enough or advanced enough to observe God.

We are blessed with an inherent spiritual connection we cannot deny. It is not by fluke, it isn't some paranoid invention of man, it's not mass delusion. It's real, it's there and it's responsible for making us everything humans are. One of the prime examples of our inherent spirituality is the formation of religions. These are the culmination of our spiritual connection meeting with our inspired imaginations. We imagine this God thing we can't understand to have humanistic attributes we can relate to. I think that's where we mess up. We're flawed and fucked up human beings with very limited perception, but we think we know everything.

Oh gawd. He's rattling on with his "spiritual connection" slogan again.

 

[amrchaos]

OK--I am going to try and guess Bossy secrets to popular thread topics.


I think the trick is to present a quasi-sensational topic that few may feel strongly about, and then argue with those few people about why you support your opinion.

Never present too hard of an argument to follow, and try to use the oppositions "facts" to support your case.

Oh--and try not to get bogged down in an exchange of insults--it tends to destroy the thread!

 

[Hollie]

OK--I am going to try and guess Bossy secrets to popular thread topics.


I think the trick is to present a quasi-sensational topic that few may feel strongly about, and then argue with those few people about why you support your opinion.

Never present too hard of an argument to follow, and try to use the oppositions "facts" to support your case.

Oh--and try not to get bogged down in an exchange of insults--it tends to destroy the thread!

You're right on many levels. Bossy is just an average religious fundamentalist who gets the majority of his argumentation from christian fundamentalist websites.

His "what are the chances" arguments for the interaction between natural forces in universe which he claims are the result of his partisan gawds comes directly from the ICR, the Disco'tute and similar christian fundamentalist websites. Steven Meyer of the Disco'tute is the chief propagandist promoting the "what Are the chances" argument for biological evolution. Bossy has taken that cue and become the chief propagandist for the "what are the chances" argument regarding natural forces that affect the universe.

It's comical to read his his silly "but..... but...... but...... but if the force of gravity was .000000001% less than it is, planets could not have formed".

Well, no. There's no reason to accept that as true, especially coming from a christian fundamentalist who has an obvious agenda to promote partisan gawds as opposed to facts.

 

[Taz]

How do the non-spiritual explain it?

I'm going where I'm going, like everyone else. And I was dead a long time before I lived, and it doesn't seem to bother me that I've been dead already. Probably several times.

It's fine to believe that but you do realize this contradicts science, right?

Biogenesis states that all living things come from other living things. Whatever you may believe you were before, it had to be organic or you can't be a living thing. In other words, if you are living now, you've always been alive in some form. Even after your physical body expires you are still alive, still organic. You may be consumed by worms and other living organisms to produce energy and continue to sustain life. Your decaying organism could provide fertilization for a tree and thus your organic cells live on far past your death.

The whole life and death thing is a source of much confusion to atheists, I believe. The concept of eternal life is dismissed, even though science indicates life is an eternal process.

I lean towards reincarnation. I'm agnostic, I see no proof that reincarnation is run by a god, nor do I see proof for the need for reincarnation to be run by a god in the first place.

 

[edthecynic]

We know that gravitational force is weak. In relation to other forces, it is among the weakest. The force of gravity is determined by a gravitational constant. If the force of gravity were a tad stronger or weaker, electrons could not exist. No electrons, no chemistry-- No chemistry, no life.

Speak for YOUR own stupidity. Gravity is actually the strongest force on a UNIVERSAL scale!

On astronomical scales, gravity does dominate over the other forces. There are two reasons for this: 1) gravity has a long range, and 2) there is no such thing as negative mass. Each force dies off as the two objects experiencing the force become more separated. The rate at which the forces die off is different for each force. The strong and weak nuclear forces are very short ranged, meaning that outside of the tiny nuclei of atoms, these forces quickly drop to zero. The tiny size of the nuclei of atoms is a direct result of the extreme short range of the nuclear forces. Two particles that are nanometers apart are far too distant from each other to exert an appreciable nuclear force on each other. If the nuclear forces are so weak for two particles only nanometers apart, it should be obvious that the nuclear forces are even more negligible on astronomical scales. For instance, the earth and sun are far too distant from each other (billions of meters) for their nuclear forces to reach each other.

 

[edthecynic]

Psychology is science

Everything tries to pass itself off as a science, they even call "boxing" "The Sweet Science."

Psychology is not a pure science and you are not a scientist any more than a boxer is a scientist.

Well take it up with Academia, they recognize Psychology as the Science of human behavior. This dovetails nicely with my earlier point about how long would it take an atheist to abandon science if science suggests they are wrong about God. As we see, Eddy is ready to dismiss Psychology as "invalid" science. Ultimately, this applies to all science which threatens Ed's atheist beliefs.

Curiously, this standard of evaluation doesn't apply to atheist opinions and unfounded theories. Those are considered "scientific facts" even though they can't be supported with science.

Fundamental science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Basic science includes fundamental physics and many special sciences—natural sciences like astrophysics, biology, chemistry, geology, and perhaps cognitive sciences, too, but generally excluding behavioral sciences like psychology and social sciences like economics—and excludes engineering, medical sciences, and epidemiology, for instance, which are applied sciences, set apart from the basic/pure/fundamental science.[10][11][13][14][15][16]

Thanks for confirming Psychology is science.

Thanks for confirming your stupidity.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the thread is directed by a partisan appeal for humanities exclusivity to Spiritualism as a design of the Creators the same as Arabic and other self gratifying religions ... repetitious centuries old indulgences.

.

 

[Boss]

I lean towards reincarnation. I'm agnostic, I see no proof that reincarnation is run by a god, nor do I see proof for the need for reincarnation to be run by a god in the first place.

I see a computer in front of me. I am obviously the only person running it. I've looked inside the box and there is no little human in there running the computer. I am the one pushing the keys, opening the windows, executing applications. This is MY computer, I see no evidence any other human is involved. That is my observation.

Now.... All that said, a person with any common sense will understand, some human must have created the computer I am running. At some point, many humans are responsible for this computer being here. Engineers, programmers, technicians, designers.... they all played a role in making this computer happen. I can sit here in naive stupidity and refuse to acknowledge their contributions, stubbornly insisting I don't need any explanation involving other humans. Does that make me right?

Hey... I have no problem with the concept of reincarnation, but I think it only adds another complicated layer of awe-inspiring phenomenon that simply doesn't seem possible as the result of randomness and chance. So there is no "master plan" here? Our spiritual beings are flowing from one physical life to the next and there is no guiding force or intelligent design to the system? It just so happens to be that way? Bizarre!

You see, I don't have to build a shrine and worship Bill Gates to acknowledge people had something to do with my computer's existence. There is a broad range between worshiping Bill Gates and acknowledging Bill Gates must exist. My refusing to acknowledge Bill Gates is never going to make Bill Gates unreal. Insisting my computer can and does exist as a matter of random circumstance and not because it was designed and created, does not change the truth.

 

[Boss]

We know that gravitational force is weak. In relation to other forces, it is among the weakest. The force of gravity is determined by a gravitational constant. If the force of gravity were a tad stronger or weaker, electrons could not exist. No electrons, no chemistry-- No chemistry, no life.

Speak for YOUR own stupidity. Gravity is actually the strongest force on a UNIVERSAL scale!

On astronomical scales, gravity does dominate over the other forces. There are two reasons for this: 1) gravity has a long range, and 2) there is no such thing as negative mass. Each force dies off as the two objects experiencing the force become more separated. The rate at which the forces die off is different for each force. The strong and weak nuclear forces are very short ranged, meaning that outside of the tiny nuclei of atoms, these forces quickly drop to zero. The tiny size of the nuclei of atoms is a direct result of the extreme short range of the nuclear forces. Two particles that are nanometers apart are far too distant from each other to exert an appreciable nuclear force on each other. If the nuclear forces are so weak for two particles only nanometers apart, it should be obvious that the nuclear forces are even more negligible on astronomical scales. For instance, the earth and sun are far too distant from each other (billions of meters) for their nuclear forces to reach each other.

INCORRECT!

Actually, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. Ordered from strongest to weakest, the forces are 1) the strong nuclear force, 2) the electromagnetic force, 3) the weak nuclear force, and 4) gravity. If you take two protons and hold them very close together, they will exert several forces on each other. Because they both have mass, the two protons exert gravitational attraction on each other. Because they both have a positive electric charge, they both exert electromagnetic repulsion on each other. Also, they both have internal “color” charge and thus exert attraction via the strong nuclear force. Because the strong nuclear force is the strongest at short distances, it dominates over the other forces and the two protons become bound, forming a helium nucleus (typically a neutron is also needed to keep the helium nucleus stable). Gravity is so weak at the atomic scale that scientists can typically ignore it without incurring significant errors in their calculations.

However, on astronomical scales, gravity does dominate over the other forces. There are two reasons for this: 1) gravity has a long range, and 2) there is no such thing as negative mass. Each force dies off as the two objects experiencing the force become more separated. The rate at which the forces die off is different for each force. The strong and weak nuclear forces are very short ranged, meaning that outside of the tiny nuclei of atoms, these forces quickly drop to zero. The tiny size of the nuclei of atoms is a direct result of the extreme short range of the nuclear forces. Two particles that are nanometers apart are far too distant from each other to exert an appreciable nuclear force on each other. If the nuclear forces are so weak for two particles only nanometers apart, it should be obvious that the nuclear forces are even more negligible on astronomical scales. For instance, the earth and sun are far too distant from each other (billions of meters) for their nuclear forces to reach each other. In contrast to the nuclear forces, both the electromagnetic force and gravity have infinite range and die off in strength as 1/r2.

If both electromagnetism and gravity have infinite range, why is the earth held in orbit around the sun by gravity and not by the electromagnetic force? The reason is that there is no such thing as negative mass, but there is such thing as negative electric charge. If you place a single positive electric charge near a single negative electric charge, and then measure their combined force on another, distant charge, you find that the negative charge tends to cancel out the positive charge somewhat. Such an object is called an electric dipole. The electromagnetic force caused by an electric dipole dies off as 1/r3 and not 1/r2 because of this canceling effect. Similarly, if you take two positive electric charges and two negative charges and place them close together properly, you have created an electric quadrupole. The electromagnetic force due to an electric quadrupole dies off even more rapidly, as 1/r4, because the negative charges do such a good job of canceling the positive charges. As you add more and more positive charges to an equal number of negative charges, the range of the electromagnetic force of the system gets shorter and shorter. The interesting thing is that most objects are made out of atoms, and most atoms have an equal number of positive and negative electric charges. Therefore, despite the fact that the raw electromagnetic force of a single charge has an infinite range, the effective range of the electromagnetic force for typical objects such as stars and planets is much shorter. In fact, neutral atoms have an effective electromagnetic range on the order of nanometers. On astronomical scales, this leaves only gravity. If there were such a thing as negative mass (antimatter has positive mass), and if atoms generally contained equal parts of positive and negative mass, then gravity would suffer the same fate as electromagnetism and there would be no significant force at the astronomical scale. Fortunately, there is no negative mass, and therefore the gravitational force of multiple bodies close together is always additive. In summary, gravity is the weakest of the forces in general, but it is the dominant one at astronomical scales because it has the longest range and because there is no negative mass.

Why is gravity the strongest force Science Questions with Surprising Answers

 

[Boss]

It's comical to read his his silly "but..... but...... but...... but if the force of gravity was .000000001% less than it is, planets could not have formed".

It's called Physics, you stupid bitch.

 

[Hollie]

I lean towards reincarnation. I'm agnostic, I see no proof that reincarnation is run by a god, nor do I see proof for the need for reincarnation to be run by a god in the first place.

I see a computer in front of me. I am obviously the only person running it. I've looked inside the box and there is no little human in there running the computer. I am the one pushing the keys, opening the windows, executing applications. This is MY computer, I see no evidence any other human is involved. That is my observation.

Now.... All that said, a person with any common sense will understand, some human must have created the computer I am running. At some point, many humans are responsible for this computer being here. Engineers, programmers, technicians, designers.... they all played a role in making this computer happen. I can sit here in naive stupidity and refuse to acknowledge their contributions, stubbornly insisting I don't need any explanation involving other humans. Does that make me right?

Hey... I have no problem with the concept of reincarnation, but I think it only adds another complicated layer of awe-inspiring phenomenon that simply doesn't seem possible as the result of randomness and chance. So there is no "master plan" here? Our spiritual beings are flowing from one physical life to the next and there is no guiding force or intelligent design to the system? It just so happens to be that way? Bizarre!

You see, I don't have to build a shrine and worship Bill Gates to acknowledge people had something to do with my computer's existence. There is a broad range between worshiping Bill Gates and acknowledging Bill Gates must exist. My refusing to acknowledge Bill Gates is never going to make Bill Gates unreal. Insisting my computer can and does exist as a matter of random circumstance and not because it was designed and created, does not change the truth.

What "spiritual beings" are you babbling about?

Secondly, was that rambling screed supposed to address some point?