Is There A God ???

[Plato232]

whether you believe in a certain religion or you believe in spirituality or you may be an athiest or you may be agnostic. I ask everyone to air their views

Noone is right and noone is wrong. This is the one topic that can't be proved or disproved. All I ask is that you express your views without trying to dismiss others outrightly.

Noone can prove either way and so this is the absolute topic of debate.
all i ask is for everyone entering this debate, please enter it with anopen mind as one side cannot disprove the other.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think there is a Creative Force behind the existence of the Universe. Having been out-of-body on several occasions and knowing how this can be done fairly simply I have come to think that my consciouness is not irrevocably tied to my physical body.

I don't ask anyone else to believe the things I think are true, I have no dogma, I have no rules that others are required to follow, I have no building where I am required to go once a week. The journey I have made is open to anyone with an inquiring mind--it's neither difficult nor expensive. I live to the best of my ability by my personal code of HARM NONE because it seems right to me, but I do not prescribe it for others.

[numinus]

I think there is a Creative Force behind the existence of the Universe. Having been out-of-body on several occasions and knowing how this can be done fairly simply I have come to think that my consciouness is not irrevocably tied to my physical body.

This is perhaps the most honest answer one can expect, considering its source.

I don't ask anyone else to believe the things I think are true, I have no dogma, I have no rules that others are required to follow, I have no building where I am required to go once a week. The journey I have made is open to anyone with an inquiring mind--it's neither difficult nor expensive. I live to the best of my ability by my personal code of HARM NONE because it seems right to me, but I do not prescribe it for others.

You do not abide even by the rules of logic?

And how, pray tell, do you follow your personal code? Do you have an exclusive knowledge on what is harmful to each and every person you meet?

[bewitched]

was there a God of dinosaurs?

[Popeye]

was there a God of dinosaurs?

According to that new Creationism theme park, back in Kentucky, dinosaurs and humans, like Adam and Eve, hung out together.

It's obviously ridiculous, and really makes one wonder about the overall intelligence of fundamentalist Christians.

[9sublime]

Its what happens when faith overtakes proof and logic.

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is perhaps the most honest answer one can expect, considering its source.
You do not abide even by the rules of logic?
And how, pray tell, do you follow your personal code? Do you have an exclusive knowledge on what is harmful to each and every person you meet?

You have long since removed yourself from any discussion with me. If you had paid attention to the original post you would know better than to have written this.

[numinus]

You have long since removed yourself from any discussion with me. If you had paid attention to the original post you would know better than to have written this.

Quite right!

It is beneath anyone to respond to opinions not based on facts and logic.

[DavidHenry]

Noone is right and noone is wrong. This is the one topic that can't be proved or disproved.
Noone can prove either way and so this is the absolute topic of debate.
.

Nonsense actually, ie, there's no evidence of God's existence, so there's nothing to disprove, God is an imaginary concept.

[Jenifer Johnson]

The only way I can get someone to do what I want is to provide a positive benefit. "God said" is nothing more than a con-game to get someone to do something they want without having to justify asking. A criminal act.

[Segep]

The only beef I have with the above two posts is that God is a concept, and all concepts are in some ways imaginary by definition in that they are conceived by the brain. And buying into the God con game isn't always a criminal act, IMO.

[DavidHenry]

The only beef I have with the above two posts is that God is a concept, and all concepts are in some ways imaginary by definition in that they are conceived by the brain. And buying into the God con game isn't always a criminal act, IMO.

That's not what I meant....I'm an Objectivist philosopher of sorts, so when I speak about things like definitions and concepts etc, I have very specific and valid meanings behind them....so in the case of God vs mathematics for example, we need to be aware that the basis of mathematics is the unit of one, and in particular, a reference point to reality.....now compare that to the imaginary concept of God.

[Jenifer Johnson]

And buying into the God con game isn't always a criminal act, IMO.

It all comes down to what is the basis for right from wrong. "God Said" can only be subjective using a sock puppet as a con, which is a direct violation of one's individual rights and sovereignty, a criminal act. The difference between being controlled by truth or lies.

[DavidHenry]

What I want to know is where's the proof of God's existence?

[9sublime]

What is your definition of God first, because there is some proof for some kind of creating power, but no proof apart from 'faith' and word of mouth for any of the organized religion's interpretations of God.

[Mare Tranquillity]

What I want to know is where's the proof of God's existence?

I'm not a religious person so please do not think I am trying to convince you of anything. I am curious if you have attempted to find God? I don't know how of course, but I have heard that we must each find Him/Her/It in our own way.

Having learned how to lift my consciousness out of my physical body, I have come to think that "I" am not my physical body and that my consciousness is separate from it in some way. Have you ever experimented with anything like that? There is a fairly simple technique for leaving one's body outlined in Robert Monroe's JOURNEYS OUT OF BODY, which is available for a few bucks from Amazon. Stanislav Groff did some interesting work at Harvard and wrote about a breathing technique that allowed a person to do something very similar to out of body travel.

Another very different kind of work is Daniel Pinchbeck's BREAKING OPEN THE HEAD in which he talks about the plant/drug Iboga and it's effects. I don't know about the existence of god or God, but I do know that there are a lot of interesting things going on for which we have no rational explanation and it's fascinating to learn about them.

[DavidHenry]

What is your definition of God first, because there is some proof for some kind of creating power, but no proof apart from 'faith' and word of mouth for any of the organized religion's interpretations of God.

If you're speaking to me Sublime....I don't have a definition for God other than what each person nominates, at which point I can enquire as to whether there's a factual basis to their God concept.

[Jenifer Johnson]

What I want to know is where's the proof of God's existence?

There is no proof the "Bible God" exists, but only proof that the "Bible God" is a lie.

Real god is Truth.

[9sublime]

Try smoking saliva divinorium, a herb from the amazon (I am NOT a new age hippy). This stuff is legal in most of the world and blows you away into full on hallucinations, but within two or three minutes you are back on your feet wondering what the hell just happened.

I've felt and seen some things which I didn't think were physically possible, like believing I was inside inanimate objects.

[DavidHenry]

I. I am curious if you have attempted to find God?
.

Hi Mare.

My question to you is "what is God"....it would make life a lot easier if I knew what I was looking for.
Also, without trying to come across as hostile in anyway...I reject the implication that there's such a thing as human consciousness other than it's physical/electrical/chemical relationship to the brain/CNS.

I don't smoke or drink any alcohol....my worse offence is probably a bit too much caffeine from time to time, but otherwise I'm drug free.....so I can't really relate to some of the experiences you might have had, nor am I aware of any value to them in most cases.

[DavidHenry]

There is no proof the "Bible God" exists, but only proof that the "Bible God" is a lie.


I can live with that:)

[9sublime]

Fair dos about the drugs (although I love to drink!).

You need your own definition of what God is, even if its very loose, otherwise your debating is this or that organized religion true, and the answer is always no.

[DavidHenry]

.

I've felt and seen some things which I didn't think were physically possible, like believing I was inside inanimate objects.

Yeah but did you gets me any science whilst you were in there.....?

[DavidHenry]

Fair dos about the drugs (although I love to drink!).

You need your own definition of what God is, even if its very loose, otherwise your debating is this or that organized religion true, and the answer is always no.

Being that God's definition typically relates to organized religion, I thought it proper to designate it to that area of human belief.
Remember, I have no idea of what God is other than what people try and tell me.....:eek:

[Jenifer Johnson]

"what is God.


There are only two states of being, true or false. You exist, therefore your creator is truth. To deny truth, one would have to deny their own existence. The search for truth and understanding is the discovery of what god is, Truth. We were created as sovereign human being with the ability to discern between truth and false, Reality.

[DavidHenry]

We were created as sovereign human beings with the ability to discern between truth and false, Reality.

I tend to see truth as a subset of reality, ie, any coherent aspect of reality, of course the terms are almost synonymous in that reality is truth and all truth equals reality……I have a problem when religious folk try and hijack the term and symbiotically attach the term to God, as such, non religious folk are deemed as “lacking” some fundamental and valuable spiritual knowledge which religious people supposedly have access to.

[numinus]

Nonsense actually, ie, there's no evidence of God's existence, so there's nothing to disprove, God is an imaginary concept.

Great!

Another half-baked atheist who doesn't know any better.

You cannot see the evidence all around you? Where do you suppose everything came from, eh? I'll make it a multiple choice type of question so you wouldn't hurt yourself unnecessarily.

a. Everything came from nothing
b. Everything has always existed and will always exist.
c. Everything was created by a creator.

(Hint: 2 of the choices are illogical to the point of absurdity.)

[numinus]

That's not what I meant....I'm an Objectivist philosopher of sorts, so when I speak about things like definitions and concepts etc, I have very specific and valid meanings behind them....so in the case of God vs mathematics for example, we need to be aware that the basis of mathematics is the unit of one,

Duh uh.

The basis of mathematics is SET THEORY - the axioms that govern the operations and membership of like things - or sets. By DEFINITION, set theory is FORMAL AND RIGOROUS LOGIC.

and in particular, a reference point to reality.....

Mathematics exists in EUCLIDEAN SPACE - something that has NO parallel concept in physical reality, and in fact, is valid only within the realm of ideas.

now compare that to the imaginary concept of God.

The concept of god is the INEVITABLE conclusion to any physical field of inquiry.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Hi Mare.

My question to you is "what is God"....it would make life a lot easier if I knew what I was looking for.
Also, without trying to come across as hostile in anyway...I reject the implication that there's such a thing as human consciousness other than it's physical/electrical/chemical relationship to the brain/CNS.

I don't smoke or drink any alcohol....my worse offence is probably a bit too much caffeine from time to time, but otherwise I'm drug free.....so I can't really relate to some of the experiences you might have had, nor am I aware of any value to them in most cases.

Yeah, I'm not into drugs and things either. I've been a vegan for more than half my life, I don't smoke or drink at all. But I am intensely curious, so when a friend told me about Monroe's JOURNEYS OUT OF BODY I thought it sounded interesting enough to buy the book and try it. It doesn't take any drugs, it's a mental process that requires some practice--a few weeks in my case. Until I experienced being out of body I would have agreed with you that it wasn't possible--or at least it's unlikely--but I did it several times and it seems to work. I'm not making the news, I'm just reporting it.

Your comment about rejecting the idea of a separate human consciousness is only valid if you do the research for yourself, anybody can say something's impossible--Hell, for centuries people said that heavier than air craft could not be made. Of course you cannot relate to my experiences, and I'm not asking you to do so. I am saying that if you are curious enough you can do the same experiments that I have. I don't have any axe to grind here, it's immaterial to me whether you believe or not, I just thought you sounded like a curious person so I shared some of the things that my curiousity has uncovered for me.

You asked "what is God"? I don't know, I don't have any proof of a god or proof of no god. I will continue to look at the things I don't know about, I will continue to examine and experiment with the things that look interesting--even if others tell me that it's impossible. Life is journey of discovery and I intend to look into all the corners.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mr. Henry,
You will discover while discussing with your friend and mine, Mr. Numinus, that you can't prove anything to someone else. Even if you sprinkle your posts with scientific sounding words which you bold and underline, it still won't be proof. All one can do is look, listen, read, and experiment to discover what reality is to YOU, there will always be people who will disagree, call you names, and use impolite noises to cast aspersions unless you agree with them. Don't let your search be derailed by preconceived notions or the naysayers.
Mare


Duh uh.

The basis of mathematics is SET THEORY - the axioms that govern the operations and membership of like things - or sets. By DEFINITION, set theory is FORMAL AND RIGOROUS LOGIC.

Mathematics exists in EUCLIDEAN SPACE - something that has NO parallel concept in physical reality, and in fact, is valid only within the realm of ideas.

The concept of god is the INEVITABLE conclusion to any physical field of inquiry.

[bewitched]

a. Everything came from nothing
b. Everything has always existed and will always exist.
c. Everything was created by a creator.

the only logical answer is B.

[9sublime]

Thats a logical answer? That everything has always existed and always will?

[bewitched]

Thats a logical answer? That everything has always existed and always will?

ummm. yeah.
all elements will always remain.
and when humans are gone... so will be God... and everything will still be there.
unless you think God will be sitting in the clouds playing with some other race of creatures like evolved kangaroos who believe that eucalyptus is the root of all evil.

[9sublime]

So you do not believe the universe to be finite?

[bewitched]

So you do not believe the universe to be finite?

ummm. I don't care. I just know there is no God that is omnipresent, omnipotent or omnimous. we are on our own.

[Jenifer Johnson]

Great!

Another half-baked atheist who doesn't know any better.



One doesn't have to be an atheist to know the "Bible God" is a fraud. The concept of God is the answer to all the questions, therefore God is truth.

[9sublime]

ummm. I don't care. I just know there is no God that is omnipresent, omnipotent or omnimous. we are on our own.

I agree that whatever created us is certainly not all of those. This leads me to believe that Christianity in particular is a sham.

However, I believe there is sufficient indication around us to suggest that something outside of our existence and certainly our knowledge may have created us.

[Divine Love]

Hi, I'm new to this forum.
Aftering having read all the replies to this topic I have a l lot to say:


... Having learned how to lift my consciousness out of my physical body, I have come to think that "I" am not my physical body and that my consciousness is separate from it in some way. Have you ever experimented with anything like that ...

That’s true.
It makes sense that when we say: “I” or “Me” we’re not actually referring to our body or a part of it . not even our heart nor our brain. We feel that there is a supreme being in us that we refer it by saying “I” or “me”. This supreme being is what is known or at least called as spirit or ghost or whatever.
You must have read or heard about people who have experienced “Temporarily Death”. These people have reported that they have seen their bodies left apart from them on the hospital bed and they were wondering who that guy is sleeping on that bed. In most cases, at first they are not aware that this is their body lying on the bed. Why? because they don’t feel any connection between that dead body and THEMSELVES.
“If that guy left apart on that bed is me. So who am I? I’m thinking, I’m seeing, I’m hearing people around me”. This is the time when they realize that their body was a load of meat and blood and bones. Things that they have always thought of parts of their being.
And yeah, these stuff can’t be explained by science. Because science is far too weak to explain things when they come to Metaphysics. I’m so much passionate to continue this but first I want to have your ideas about them.

[Segep]

However, I believe there is sufficient indication around us to suggest that something outside of our existence and certainly our knowledge may have created us.

That is very well put. As long as you stick with "may", I agree with that.

[bewitched]

I agree that whatever created us is certainly not all of those. This leads me to believe that Christianity in particular is a sham.

However, I believe there is sufficient indication around us to suggest that something outside of our existence and certainly our knowledge may have created us.
so who created the dinosaurs? the same outside thing-of-magig?
if someone created women then he wouldn't make us have a period, that's the most ridiculious thing ever. I wanna talk to this outside guy cuz I'm pissed.

[DavidHenry]

Great!

Another half-baked atheist who doesn't know any better.

You cannot see the evidence all around you? Where do you suppose everything came from, eh? I'll make it a multiple choice type of question so you wouldn't hurt yourself unnecessarily.


I don't discuss philosophy with idiots......if you ever manage to grow up, get back to me:rolleyes:

[DavidHenry]

the only logical answer is B.


Correct.....it's A and C that are the illogical choices.

[USMC the Almighty]

I don't discuss philosophy with idiots......if you ever manage to grow up, get back to me:rolleyes:

DH, what did I say here http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=27741&postcount=43?

It's okay to attack the message, but not the messenger.

[DavidHenry]

Your comment about rejecting the idea of a separate human consciousness is only valid if you do the research for yourself,

You asked "what is God"? I don't know, I don't have any proof of a god or proof of no god. .

Just so you know Mare, I think you're probably a very nice and gentle person, and I do appreciate those qualities in people, but when I discuss philosophy/the science of philosophy, I also consider that others might be reading it, and I'm in the "truth telling" business, so that means I'm going to be disagreeing with you all over the place.

The biggest problem I have with your claim of out of body experience is that I don't believe it can be independently and rationally verified.....now you'll probably re-issue me with the challenge to test it myself, but how do I know I've left my body rather than imagined it?.....also, what are the benefits to doing this anyway?

I certainly prefer agnostics to theists on most occasions, however, atheism is the only valid/logical belief we can hold, ie, there's no proof that God exists, and for that matter, God is undefined and subsequently beyond disproving.....I can't even begin to try and disprove something that is undefined.....but if someone could provide me with one physical characteristic of their God, I'd be willing to analyse it.

I accept that there's mystery in the universe, ie, we don't know everything about how it functions, but whatever knowledge we do eventually acquire, it will be in scientific form, not mystical.

I don't dislike people like you Mare, but if you're genuinely interested in the truth, you should read Objectivism/the science of philosophy and also read an article or 2 on what Objective science is......all of this will take you months if not yrs if you're serious.

[DavidHenry]

DH, what did I say here http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=27741&postcount=43?

Another half-baked atheist who doesn't know any better.

You cannot see the evidence all around you? Where do you suppose everything came from, eh? I'll make it a multiple choice type of question so you wouldn't hurt yourself unnecessarily.

Duh uh.

These are the immature and unproductive comments to which I was retaliating against......did you miss them, or is numnuts a HofP attack dog of some form?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Just so you know Mare, I think you're probably a very nice and gentle person, and I do appreciate those qualities in people, but when I discuss philosophy/the science of philosophy, I also consider that others might be reading it, and I'm in the "truth telling" business, so that means I'm going to be disagreeing with you all over the place.

The biggest problem I have with your claim of out of body experience is that I don't believe it can be independently and rationally verified.....now you'll probably re-issue me with the challenge to test it myself, but how do I know I've left my body rather than imagined it?.....also, what are the benefits to doing this anyway?

I certainly prefer agnostics to theists on most occasions, however, atheism is the only valid/logical belief we can hold, ie, there's no proof that God exists, and for that matter, God is undefined and subsequently beyond disproving.....I can't even begin to try and disprove something that is undefined.....but if someone could provide me with one physical characteristic of their God, I'd be willing to analyse it.

I accept that there's mystery in the universe, ie, we don't know everything about how it functions, but whatever knowledge we do eventually acquire, it will be in scientific form, not mystical.

I don't dislike people like you Mare, but if you're genuinely interested in the truth, you should read Objectivism/the science of philosophy and also read an article or 2 on what Objective science is......all of this will take you months if not yrs if you're serious.

I have a college education, Mr. Henry, I studied Oceanography, Marine Biology, Seamanship, Mathematics, and my minor was Anthropology. I am firmly grounded in the sciences.

First the issue of god/God. No proof one way or the other, no way to obtain proof one way or the other. The existence of god/God is moot, why discuss it?

Second, your condescending tone is hardly called for, is it? I've studied something that you have not, I don't intend to have anything to say to you about your reluctance to examine the subject. My position is that the job of science is to investigate the unexplained not explain the uninvestigated. If you have never had the experience then how can you know if it has value? I had never had the experience either, but I was curious enough to look at something new and it changed my perspective. You seem to want a guarantee of ultimate value before you put yourself out to look at something new. I can't give you that guarantee, the world is full of weird things, look at them, don't look at them, it makes no difference to me. Suit yourself, the world is full of willfully ignorant people who are too comfortable or too frightened to look beyond the edges of their current experience.

The only way you'll ever be able to decide if out of body consciousness is real or a hallucination is to experience it for yourself. I did not say that it was real, just like god/God, I don't know if it was real, but it certainly seemed real. In one instance I was able to access information that was not available to me from any readily recognizable source, and I verified the accuracy of the information as well. Proof? Nope, but it was an interesting experience that I will accept at face value until I have some reason not to.

Mystical just means that science hasn't figured it out yet. Don't put words in my mouth or meanings in my posts that are not there. Objective science is fine as far as it goes, but it breaks down at some point. Even quantum physics is beyond objective science. The whole business of a particle not having a real existence until someone measures or looks at it seems to put objectivity in a very different light. Objectivity is simply one way of seeing/interacting with the Universe and nothing precludes the possibility of there being other modes of interaction.

[DavidHenry]

First the issue of god/God. No proof one way or the other, no way to obtain proof one way or the other. The existence of god/God is moot, why discuss it?

Suit yourself, the world is full of willfully ignorant people who are too comfortable or too frightened to look beyond the edges of their current experience.



Sounds like you're just bored with old fashioned science.
If you can't give me a compelling reason to experiment with your odd idea's, then I'm going to assume there's no value to them apart from the novelty.

Religion is all over the place, if you can't see the value in determining the truth of God's existence, then I'm inclined to give up on you.

Even quantum physics is beyond objective science

LOL, aspects of quantum physics aren't just beyond objective science, but at loggerheads with it.

Btw, I completely misjudged you....I thought you were a earthy crunchy type of person, but it turns out you're a bored technician....your curiosity is a reaction to your boredom, however, you've overshot IMO, you need to go back to where you started, and find out what science is, otherwise you wouldn't have confused quantum physics and objective science in the manner in which you did.

Being that my last reply was sincere, I can only imagine how upsetting this response must be to you, so maybe you should drop out from the conversation, rather than just throw a minor tantrum on top of attempting to throw a spanner in the works for speculation's sake.

[USMC the Almighty]

These are the immature and unproductive comments to which I was retaliating against......did you miss them, or is numnuts a HofP attack dog of some form?

David, you're already on thin ice. Don't push it. You have been warned to be careful about personal attacks. Don't worry about what other people are doing.

To answer your question though, at least numinus' insults were accompanied something relating to the topic. Your post contained nothing but childish namecalling.

It's not so big a deal if you goad someone with a line or two at the end or beginning of a substantial post. But posts exclusively designed to call names are not needed here.

[DavidHenry]

David, you're already on thin ice. Don't push it. You have been warned to be careful about personal attacks. Don't worry about what other people are doing.

It's not so big a deal if you goad someone with a line or two at the end or beginning of a substantial post. But posts exclusively designed to call names are not needed here.

You still seem to be overlooking the fact that I was retaliating......also, I have no intention of discussing high level subjects with utter ****wits of any description, other than to make asses of their arrogance and stupidity.

Btw, it's just your opinion that it's no big deal to act like a immature brat.....what a hilarious and irresponsible position for a mod to adopt......and yes, yes, I know you're looking for an excuse to ban me whilst appearing to be the good guy.

[USMC the Almighty]

You still seem to be overlooking the fact that I was retaliating......also, I have no intention of discussing high level subjects with utter ****wits of any description, other than to make asses of their arrogance and stupidity.

Btw, it's just your opinion that it's no big deal to act like a immature brat.....what a hilarious and irresponsible position for a mod to adopt......and yes, yes, I know you're looking for an excuse to ban me whilst appearing to be the good guy.

Jesus H. Christ, David. Retaliating would have been deconstructing his philosophy, not calling him some names. And I really don't want to ban you. I want everyone here to just debate in a civil manner. If you're unwilling to do that, then there is no need for you to be here.

Enough of this. Go play.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Sounds like you're just bored with old fashioned science.

What a narrow, judgmental thing to say. I am fascinated by the advances being made by science, old fashioned science is old, I've studied it, my interest lies in what we are learning about NOW. Boring old fashioned science is a good foundation from which to spring into the future, Mr. Henry, but it is not the place for me to live.

If you can't give me a compelling reason to experiment with your odd idea's, then I'm going to assume there's no value to them apart from the novelty
You have the right to assume that ANYONE'S research into unfamiliar areas has no value. This strikes me as kind of a religiously oriented attitude though. One of the problems that sciences faces today is just what you have posted: before one can do the research it has to be PROVEN to have value. Pure science is done for the learning, not for the profit. I study things that interest me, I don't care whether you think they have value or not. Here you are on this thread posting about the existence of God and yet you aren't even interested enough in the question to discover whether you have the ability to lift your consciousness out of your physical body when the experiment is easy and cheap. If you already know everything you need to know, then you and I have nothing to discuss.


Religion is all over the place, if you can't see the value in determining the truth of God's existence, then I'm inclined to give up on you.
Religion and God are not the same thing, in fact there is no proof that there is even a connection between the two. Instead of trying to start at the ultimate end of the problem, I decided to start where I was and use the tools I had at hand. Consciousness is available in every person I meet (okay, maybe not George Bush), but in pretty much everyone else. If people discover that they are not their physical bodies, then that suggests the possibility that there may be other entities who exist without physical bodies... can you say God? What I "can't see the value in" is arguing about something for which there is no unimpeachable evidence. People have been arguing about religion for thousands of years, what will it accomplish for me to do it some more? Better for me to examine the things I have at hand than to spend my time arguing imponderables.

LOL, aspects of quantum physics aren't just beyond objective science, but at loggerheads with it.

Btw, I completely misjudged you....I thought you were a earthy crunchy type of person, but it turns out you're a bored technician....your curiosity is a reaction to your boredom, however, you've overshot IMO, you need to go back to where you started, and find out what science is, otherwise you wouldn't have confused quantum physics and objective science in the manner in which you did.
You are still misjudging me. Why judge me at all? Why do you feel that you know me well enough to state that I am a bored technician? How do you know the genesis of my curiousity? You come across as being very supercillious, speaking down to the "crunchy" proles. The term "objective science" certainly has more than one simple meaning, and for you to announce that I was "confused" without providing any explanation or proof seems pretty arrogant. In fact most of your post seems arrogant.

Being that my last reply was sincere, I can only imagine how upsetting this response must be to you, so maybe you should drop out from the conversation, rather than just throw a minor tantrum on top of attempting to throw a spanner in the works for speculation's sake.
Is this to imply that my post was not sincere? How do you know that your post will be upsetting to me? You haven't done anything yet except sort of parade around with your tumescent ego sticking out in front of you like the cowcatcher on a train. Your accusations of throwing tantrums and spanners is totally without substantiation. I can see how you and Nums would bang heads, he writes kind of like you do, but he uses more bolds and underlines.

[DavidHenry]

. If you already know everything you need to know, then you and I have nothing to discuss.

then that suggests the possibility that there may be other entities who exist without physical bodies...

Mare....your response made me laugh, but unfortunately, it's apparent that you're a garden variety mystic, and I'm not going to waste my time discussing this with you anymore.
The basis of mysticism is the rejection of reality as absolute, ie, that which exists.

I think you're wrong, but I don't dislike you.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare....your response made me laugh, but unfortunately, it's apparent that you're a garden variety mystic, and I'm not going to waste my time discussing this with you anymore.
The basis of mysticism is the rejection of reality as absolute, ie, that which exists.

I think you're wrong, but I don't dislike you.

Well at least you are speaking from firm position of knowledge of the subject. :)

[DavidHenry]

Remember folks, there's no so such thing as God as typically defined, and it's quite illogical to be agnostic.
As was mentioned{and rubbished} previously, the only logical view we can hold WRT the universe is that it's eternal, it neither popped into existence out of thin air, nor did a powerful being of any form create it.

God is an imaginary concept which has no physical reference point........as such, all religious doctrines are the thoughts of men, irrational and unscientific men.

[9sublime]

How is it illogical to be agnostic? It just shows you can strike a balance between hopping on the bandwagon of whatever your father and his father before him or the wierd guy from the cult told you to believe in, or being so closed minded you wont accept any kind of creating force?

[numinus]

the only logical answer is B.

You wouldn't know what's logical if it bit you in the ass.

Science is WAY PAST contemplating a steady state universe - thanks to hawkins. In fact, the classical notion of time has been proven to be FALSE, thanks to einstein's special and general relativity.

Try again.

[numinus]

ummm. I don't care. I just know there is no God that is omnipresent, omnipotent or omnimous. we are on our own.

So, by your own admission, you DO NOT base your opinions on facts and logic. No one is a bit surprised.

[numinus]

One doesn't have to be an atheist to know the "Bible God" is a fraud. The concept of God is the answer to all the questions, therefore God is truth.

I am not inclined to contemplate god's existence based on the bible - unless such a contemplation proceeds from the understanding that the bible is an ALLEGORICAL device.

[numinus]

I don't discuss philosophy with idiots......if you ever manage to grow up, get back to me:rolleyes:

Apparently, you can't discuss mathematics as well. I wonder how you are with cosmology and differential geometry?

[Segep]

hey num, you seem well versed in cosmology.

Have you ever heard of the Electric Universe, and what do you think of it?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/

I know it sounds like tinfoil hat stuff, but I've seen all the videos and done some snooping on the 'net and I can't come up with anything concrete to refute it. It makes sense to me.

[numinus]

Correct.....it's A and C that are the illogical choices.

Duh uh.

Ever heard of the big bang? Try keeping up with the rest of us in the 21st century.

[numinus]

These are the immature and unproductive comments to which I was retaliating against......did you miss them, or is numnuts a HofP attack dog of some form?

The only retaliation I find relevant is one with an INTELLECTUAL substance. And intellectualism, as far as EVERYONE is concerned, is based on FACTS AND LOGIC.

I have been called far worse names by other morons and they are STILL morons for the effort.

[numinus]

Remember folks, there's no so such thing as God as typically defined, and it's quite illogical to be agnostic.
As was mentioned{and rubbished} previously, the only logical view we can hold WRT the universe is that it's eternal, it neither popped into existence out of thin air, nor did a powerful being of any form create it.

God is an imaginary concept which has no physical reference point........as such, all religious doctrines are the thoughts of men, irrational and unscientific men.

Are you even aware of 20th century cosmology???? The entire branch of physics launched by einstein's theory of relativity????

The only thing worse than a moron is a moron vainly trying to talk science!

[numinus]

hey num, you seem well versed in cosmology.

Have you ever heard of the Electric Universe, and what do you think of it?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/

I know it sounds like tinfoil hat stuff, but I've seen all the videos and done some snooping on the 'net and I can't come up with anything concrete to refute it. It makes sense to me.

There isn't any contradiction at all.

Maxwell's equations describes any inverse-square law in terms of flux. One can imagine electric, magnetic or gravitational field as lines radiating to or from a point source in a linear, homogenous, isotropic medium much like euclidean space (or what people thought of vacuum prior to relativity). The flux would be the integral of these 'lines' passing through a differential or a closed gaussian surface.

Einstein's field equation describes all these in terms of the curvature of space-time. By definition, anything that has energy and momentum affects space-time, thus is intimately related to relativity.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Remember folks, there's no so such thing as God as typically defined, and it's quite illogical to be agnostic.
As was mentioned{and rubbished} previously, the only logical view we can hold WRT the universe is that it's eternal, it neither popped into existence out of thin air, nor did a powerful being of any form create it.

God is an imaginary concept which has no physical reference point........as such, all religious doctrines are the thoughts of men, irrational and unscientific men.

It's always nice to see a man of science speaking through his hat.:eek:

[Segep]

There isn't any contradiction at all.

Maxwell's equations describes any inverse-square law in terms of flux. One can imagine electric, magnetic or gravitational field as lines radiating to or from a point source in a linear, homogenous, isotropic medium much like euclidean space (or what people thought of vacuum prior to relativity). The flux would be the integral of these 'lines' passing through a differential or a closed gaussian surface.

Einstein's field equation describes all these in terms of the curvature of space-time. By definition, anything that has energy and momentum affects space-time, thus is intimately related to relativity.

OK, most of that went over my head, but I gather that you don't think it's impossible, right?

[DavidHenry]

Duh uh.

Ever heard of the big bang? Try keeping up with the rest of us in the 21st century.

DUMMY.....the big bang is just the mainstream version modern cosmology promotes, there are many other cosmologists looking into the question of the universes origin, but they'll all be wrong unless they accept that it's eternal.
The trouble with the big bang is that it assumes something can come from nothing, and that's impossible.

[DavidHenry]

It's always nice to see a man of science speaking through his hat.:eek:


Get back to me when YOUcan provide a single piece of physical evidence for God's existence, heck, even some logical evidence would be a treat:eek:

[DavidHenry]

How is it illogical to be agnostic?

Because there's no evidence for God's existence, and the manner that he's typically defined grants him/it certain extraordinary powers such as being the creator of the universe and hanging out in a supernatural realm, problem is that there's no evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm, anymore than there is for God's existence.

The agnostic essentially says, "I'm unsure, and I'm waiting on compelling evidence to sway me"....however, once you understand that the concept of God and the supernatural were never possible, then it's pointless adopting this stance and it's illogical.

Suggesting that God created the universe actually explains nothing, ie, who created God etc, etc.....IOW, you open yourself to an infinite regress, and that's known as a logical fallacy, something that Numnuts is clearly oblivious to, LOL.

Asserting the universe to be eternal regardless of its dynamic form is the only logical deduction we can reach, ie, I don't expose myself to any logical fallacies when I make this assertion.....whereas ole mate Numnuts, believes something can come from nothing, and that infinite regresses are cool and highlight one's intellectual standing{laugh}

[DavidHenry]

OK, most of that went over my head, but I gather that you don't think it's impossible, right?

It's a tactic known as hiding behind complexity:rolleyes:

[Jenifer Johnson]

Ever heard of the big bang? .

Yes, religion posing as science.

[Jenifer Johnson]

The only thing worse than a moron is a moron vainly trying to talk science!

Or a preacher trying to pass off religion as science.

[Jenifer Johnson]

OK, most of that went over my head, but I gather that you don't think it's impossible, right?

That is because if he can't dazzle you with brilliance, he will baffle you with bull ****. The sign of intelligence is the ability to explain the complex in its simplest terms.

[DavidHenry]

That is because if he can't dazzle you with brilliance, he will baffle you with bull ****. The sign of intelligence is the ability to explain the complex in its simplest terms.


MAGNIFICENT!!!!

[Mare Tranquillity]

Get back to me when YOUcan provide a single piece of physical evidence for God's existence, heck, even some logical evidence would be a treat:eek:

I haven't claimed to have any proof of God, have I? Hello? Are you dim? I have no way to know whether there is a god/God any more than anyone else.

Reading your posts and ol' Nums' posts, I have come to the conclusion that you two deserve each other.:)

[DavidHenry]

I haven't claimed to have any proof of God, have I? Hello? Are you dim? I have no way to know whether there is a god/God any more than anyone else.

Reading your posts and ol' Nums' posts, I have come to the conclusion that you two deserve each other.:)

Clearly you have nothing to contribute to the thread, other than a lame attempt to talk crap about mysticism......maybe time for a voluntary exit huh :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Btw, if you bother to read the thread, I just explained why agnosticism is illogical, so you do have a way of knowing for certain,..... but you might be a bit dense:eek:

[Mare Tranquillity]

Clearly you have nothing to contribute to the thread, other than a lame attempt to talk crap about mysticism......maybe time for a voluntary exit huh :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Btw, if you bother to read the thread, I just explained why agnosticism is illogical, so you do have a way of knowing for certain,..... but you might be a bit dense:eek:

Calling me names hardly qualifies as a scientific rebuttal, DH, and just because you call me a mystic (which of course you have not defined) doesn't mean I am one anymore than when you called me "crunchy" earlier. Jesu F. Christo! If you have something to say, why not just say it? Why all the bullshooting and name calling? Keep it up and there will be two people who have earned the Numnutz Award.


I don't see that either you or Nums has presented anything definitive. I still think that looking at the source of consciousness is a valuable thing to do--and funny thing, there are a lot of scientists out there doing just that. Did you ever bother to read Julian Jaynes' THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND? Consciousness isn't what we generally think that it is and so far we have no firm grip on what or where it comes from.

[DavidHenry]

I wrote this elsewhere, but it still relates to this topic.......

Good ole Kant huh, LOL….I’ll tell you a true story,….when I was 17, I thought I’d give philosophy a red hot go, so I asked around, and the name Kant kept getting mentioned, so I whizzed down to the impressive new state library that had just been built, and I sought out some of his books…..however, upon reading that he felt “the moral imperative” meant/implied that you never lie, even in a bid to protect your loved one’s from intruders, I put the book down and gave philosophy the ass for a good 15yrs.

I returned to philosophy about 6-7 yrs ago, at which point I was quickly confused and always assumed that I hadn’t properly understood what I’d just read…I kept assuming it was a complicated subject{which it is}, and that if I just kept reading it, I’d eventually make heads or tails of it…..but I always had this feeling that certain obvious things we’re being relegated to being uncertain/unknowable.

Because I was an adult{33 at the time}, I was somewhat more persistent on this occasion, and with the aid of the net, I eventually stumbled across Objectivism, and it all started to make sense, especially the fact that Objectivism is very anti-Kant/mysticism…..so with some effort on my part, Objectivism began to alleviate most of my doubts, and actually teach me how to create the framework for a society operating with objectively formulated ethics.

Put simply, all we need as a starting point is the recognition that we need ethics to survive and prosper amongst others….so it’s actually the reality of the human condition that forces us to develop ethics, otherwise we place ourselves at the mercy of anyone who wants to harm or exploit us…..now if you say that’s just my opinion, what you’re really saying is that I’m free to do whatever I want to you or anyone you care about, and that you won’t stop me, or seek retribution.

Since reality forces us to create ethics, if we’re fair dinkum about creating a fair ethical system, then we have to ensure that our basic axiom/s don’t discriminate against anyone at ground level, ie, we want to be able to reduce all our ethical codes back to our base moral axiom/s….of course, this relationship is what gives any individual the moral high ground even if many others object…..ignorance, apathy and stupidity don’t have moral authority over properly developed objective ethical codes.

You mentioned the universal of “don’t kill”…..sounds good, and when we consider it’s value, we quickly realise that if we didn’t support this code, then whilst we’d have the freedom to kill whoever we wanted to, so would everyone else, and we’d be in jeopardy, subsequently making a mockery of the reality of our existence, which happens to be a life cycle.

Epistemology is really the science of knowledge, and because objectivism{and logic} reject the idea of God, supernatural, Kantian realms and so on, we have no choice but to create the ethics ourselves, and as long as we don’t discriminate against anyone, then our ethics are objective in that I’m not the only beneficiary, it’s not just my opinion, it’s also yours……only a fool would reject an axiom that protected and sought to advance their well being in favour of an alternative that threatened them and sought to destroy/exploit them…..but then again, some people appear to be rather comfortable with a master slave relationship.

As I mentioned, the integrity of our objective ethical codes rests on our ability to reduce them back to basics, signifying the codes are accurate in an objective sense….however, once we learn that God/Judaism/religion is flawed at a basic level, ie, that God doesn’t exist, then it should dawn on us that any ethical codes derived from this belief are most likely suspect….in fact, you’d have no choice but to logically analyse them, and determine their merit on their own 2 feet, which of course, is exactly what objective ethics propose.

So when we’re attempting to determine right from wrong, you better believe we need to rely on philosophy/epistemology/ethics for guidance, and being that most existing ethics are heavily related to religion/religious ideals, we’re in deep **** straight up….ie, God doesn’t exist, as such, the doctrines supposed moral authority disappears, and it’s left to logical analysis to determine any merit the doctrine might contain, knowing in advance, that it’s premise is flawed.

No one has the right to violate other people’s individual rights, specifically, you don’t have the right to distress, harm or kill an innocent person…..the penalty for this breach is relative to the crime, but moral authority always rests with the innocent law abiding individual.

As JJ frequently alludes to, you guys would do well to investigate some of the idea’s of America’s founding fathers, eg, the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness….of course, all this goes out the window if someone rejects the very basic moral axiom/s, because unless we value the right to life{man’s life and his well being}, there’s no real compulsion to follow up with property rights and all the rest, cause we’ve entered into a master slave relationship.

[ArmChair General]

whether you believe in a certain religion or you believe in spirituality or you may be an athiest or you may be agnostic. I ask everyone to air their views

Noone is right and noone is wrong. This is the one topic that can't be proved or disproved. All I ask is that you express your views without trying to dismiss others outrightly.

Noone can prove either way and so this is the absolute topic of debate.
all i ask is for everyone entering this debate, please enter it with anopen mind as one side cannot disprove the other.

god lives inside my pants.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I wrote this elsewhere, but it still relates to this topic.......
...the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness….of course, all this goes out the window if someone rejects the very basic moral axiom/s, because unless we value the right to life{man’s life and his well being}, there’s no real compulsion to follow up with property rights and all the rest, cause we’ve entered into a master slave relationship.

Okay, I don't much trouble with that. And I'll have even less trouble with that once we can prove that the basis for consciousness lies in the machine and not with the "ghost" in the machine. Right now I suspect that we are a gestalt, but if science can prove that wrong, then I'm okay with that too.

[DavidHenry]

Okay, I don't much trouble with that. And I'll have even less trouble with that once we can prove that the basis for consciousness lies in the machine and not with the "ghost" in the machine. Right now I suspect that we are a gestalt, but if science can prove that wrong, then I'm okay with that too.

What evidence do you have that the "ghost in the machine" analogy is even worth pursuing?

[Mare Tranquillity]

What evidence do you have that the "ghost in the machine" analogy is even worth pursuing?

That's the wrong question. People tend to study what interests them, what they don't know about, not just what has obvious value.

I have explained at least twice why I think this is a useful direction of study and you have been unpleasant to me each time--will you do that again? You don't know the genesis of what we call "consciousness", no one does, but we have wondered about consciousness arising in computers once they are large and complex enough. Before that happens it might be nice to know more about the subject.

And--at the risk of more verbal abuse from you--I must say again that I have had more than one out of body experience. No, I can't prove it's real, but it SEEMS real enough to make we want to know more about it. I'm curious about all kinds of things that don't earn me money and people have given me grief about that since I was in grade school.

A good thing to remember when using logic and reason to assess things is that one's information may not be complete. I recall that at one time French peasants brought some funny-looking rocks to French scientists and told the scientists that the rocks had fallen from the sky into their farm fields. The scientists assured them that this was not possible, but the farmers were steadfast in their assertions. At this point the scientists took the farmers outside and had them look up into the sky and then told them it was impossible for rocks to fall from the sky because you could look up and see that there were no rocks up in the sky. Bio-feedback, acupuncture, homeopathy, herbal medicine, chiropractic medicine, and even guided imagery were pooh-poohed by the people who used "logic" to prove that there was nothing there worth studying. Heavier than air craft were logically impossible too. At one time the Postmaster General said that airmail was a gimmick and would never amount to anything. ANYTHING we learn can have value.

[Mare Tranquillity]

What evidence do you have that the "ghost in the machine" analogy is even worth pursuing?

If we did nothing but PROVE that there was NO GHOST in the machine, then we could lay to rest another of the superstitions that contols so many people's lives.

[Jenifer Johnson]

Mare,

All truth exists, but we are not cognitive of them because we are limited by our five senses and knowledge base. One's consciousness is the sum total of the ability of their senses which is the only link to reality. Our consciousness uses a constant test of truth (objectivity), therefore, truth is the only thing that is important in life. The understanding of the complexity of the world is limited by our five senses, not by reality or truth. What is false has dire consequences; so if one needs a test for truth, step in front of a train going sixty.

Think of reality as a circle and all we have is our five senses to experience reality, which is independent of everyone else's ability. I don't rely on your inability to function in reality and you don't rely on my inability. If you have out of body experiences and I don't only means I don't have one of your senses. If you can benefit from or utilize that sense to find truth then you are better off than the rest of us. My only encouragement is to facilitate it so that it is beneficial in your life.

[DavidHenry]

A Bio-feedback, acupuncture, homeopathy, herbal medicine, chiropractic medicine,

I'm not a fan of orthodox medicine and it's reductionist* mentality{I do support trauma care and the use of drugs on occasion}, but I can be considered as a fan of Naturopathic medicine.
Don't confuse the machinations of big pharma with objective science.

Also, since you claim to be scientifically literate, give me an outline of the control experiments you propose to prove/disprove your ideas on
consciousness?

* I can explain this if anyone's interested.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare,

Think of reality as a circle and all we have is our five senses to experience reality, which is independent of everyone else's ability. I don't rely on your inability to function in reality and you don't rely on my inability. If you have out of body experiences and I don't only means I don't have one of your senses. If you can benefit from or utilize that sense to find truth then you are better off than the rest of us. My only encouragement is to facilitate it so that it is beneficial in your life.

Only partly true, it may very well be that you simply have not been exposed to the knowledge of HOW to achieve an out of body experience. I found Robert Monroe's book JOURNEYS OUT OF BODY to be useful, I've read Stanislav Grof's works to and find some of the things he talks about to be insightful as well. Julian Jaynes' work was excellent for background information on consciousness in general and the research that has been done on it.

[DavidHenry]

and the research that has been done on it.

Don't you mean speculation....?
Consciousness is an attribute of the brain/CNS....it cannot exist without the machinery that created it.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I'm not a fan of orthodox medicine and it's reductionist* mentality{I do support trauma care and the use of drugs on occasion}, but I can be considered as a fan of Naturopathic medicine.
Don't confuse the machinations of big pharma with objective science.

Also, since you claim to be scientifically literate, give me an outline of the control experiments you propose to prove/disprove your ideas on
consciousness?

* I can explain this if anyone's interested.

As soon as I get the grant check from you I'll be happy to let you in on the parameters of my research, until then you are just another person looking to horn in on, and benefit from, my work without paying your way. Sorry, but research these days is cut-throat because everybody wants to make sure there's a pot a' gold at the end of every research rainbow.

Conversely, I note that even though you claim to be scientifically literate that you haven't provided any outline of how you are going to go about proving your position either. And you have also been arguing against pure research into the fascinating and mostly unknown field of the genesis of consciousness--why is that?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Don't you mean speculation....?
Consciousness is an attribute of the brain/CNS....it cannot exist without the machinery that created it.

You can't prove the above statement, nobody can, it's all speculation at this point. The truth is that WE DON'T KNOW where consciouness arises, so we ASSUME that it has to have a material basis, but there is no proof that it cannot reside in complex energy fields.

Have you read Michael Crichton's book TRAVELS? It's autobiographical and at the end is an interesting speech he wrote to give to the CISCOP folks (you know, the one's who debunk everything) and he makes some interesting observations about things we know happen, but for which we don't have any ready explanation. Another source I found to be intriguing was THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE by Michael Talbot in which he details the work of Karl Pribram and David Bohm suggesting that the reality we experience is a holographic construct arising from a deeper level of reality. It suggests some explanations for things that up until now we've not known how to deal with rationally. Some of the cutting-edge thinkers like Fritjof Capra are suggesting that consciousness is something very different than what we have heretofore been willing to consider.

The truth is that NO ONE KNOWS and if someone is throwing out any idea, then they are doing it out of ignorance not knowledge.

[DavidHenry]

As soon as I get the grant check from you I'll be happy to let you in on the parameters of my research,
Conversely, I note that even though you claim to be scientifically literate that you haven't provided any outline of how you are going to go about proving your position either. And you have also been arguing against pure research into the fascinating and mostly unknown field of the genesis of consciousness--why is that?

Consciousness is the faculty of awareness…..that you’d refuse to stand in front of a train doing 60 proves you’re aware of the consequences, including the FACT that you can’t escape your physical body…..or isn’t that a grand enough experiment, would you prefer to dodge bullets?

You’re actually a garden variety mystic, no ifs or buts, ie, you reject reality as absolute and do so because you’ve been brainwashed by the antiquated religious paradigm, you’re essentially dissatisfied with reality, the reality of the human condition and the constraints that places upon you.

FYI, I only support Objective science and projects that have an objective basis, ie, some relationship to reality, otherwise I know I’m just going to get a bunch of speculation for my money.

Btw, directing me to read a series of fairy tales and telling me nuthin doesn’t equate to serious discussion,….it’s really an act of evasion….so I suggest you snuggle up to one of those fairy tales and the leave the truth and objectivity business to me.

How dare you mention the name of science wrt your fantasies, especially when you don’t have a single piece of independently verifiable evidence.....you’re not a scientist, you’re a mystic and perhaps an amateur magician as well.

[Jenifer Johnson]

Mare : it may very well be that you simply have not been exposed to the knowledge

I agree.

In my dream state, I have only experienced being locked in my body due to fear, but thinking I was totally conscious. Do you think I was starting the beginning of a out of body experience, but due to fear was constrained? I guess what I'm asking is, how do I induce an out of body experience?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Consciousness is the faculty of awareness…..that you’d refuse to stand in front of a train doing 60 proves you’re aware of the consequences, including the FACT that you can’t escape your physical body…..or isn’t that a grand enough experiment, would you prefer to dodge bullets?

You’re actually a garden variety mystic, no ifs or buts, ie, you reject reality as absolute and do so because you’ve been brainwashed by the antiquated religious paradigm, you’re essentially dissatisfied with reality, the reality of the human condition and the constraints that places upon you.

FYI, I only support Objective science and projects that have an objective basis, ie, some relationship to reality, otherwise I know I’m just going to get a bunch of speculation for my money.

Btw, directing me to read a series of fairy tales and telling me nuthin doesn’t equate to serious discussion,….it’s really an act of evasion….so I suggest you snuggle up to one of those fairy tales and the leave the truth and objectivity business to me.

How dare you mention the name of science wrt your fantasies, especially when you don’t have a single piece of independently verifiable evidence.....you’re not a scientist, you’re a mystic and perhaps an amateur magician as well.

It seems that for all your self-proclaimed scientific acumen you still have not provided a single shred of proof of your contention. All you have done is attack me for things I haven't even said. This is science?

I don't know what consciousness is, you keep talking like you do know, but where is your proof? Where are your peer review journal articles? Where are your double-blind studies? I mentioned the science that I've read about, I know that there are a lot researchers working on this issue and so far none of them have come forward with the hard and fast statements you have posted right on this site. C'mon, David, pony up, you are verbally abusing me and intimating that I have said that THERE IS A GHOST IN THE MACHINE, when if fact I have NOT said that. You attribute things to me and then attack me for them--that's not science.

You don't do the research because you already know the truth, that's religion not science.

Oh yeah, why don't you define the word "mystic" so we will all know what you are accusing me of being.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare : it may very well be that you simply have not been exposed to the knowledge

I agree.

In my dream state, I have only experienced being locked in my body due to fear, but thinking I was totally conscious. Do you think I was starting the beginning of a out of body experience, but due to fear was constrained? I guess what I'm asking is, how do I induce an out of body experience?

Robert Monroe wrote a book about it, I can't distill his whole book down into a few sentences. Get a copy of the book, in the back he explains the process. Some people can use drugs and do it too, but I think that's a less reliable process and perhaps more dangerous. Monroe's book is available on Amazon.

[DavidHenry]

It seems that for all your self-proclaimed scientific acumen you still have not provided a single shred of proof of your contention. .


So what you're telling me is that you think our ability to play tennis has nothing to do with consciousness?
As for your side of the story.....you've got no evidence and subsequently, anyone with any credibility wouldn't bother pursuing it....but hey, some people find it interesting and book sales are a possibility, just as you frequently advertise.

Are you able to provide one piece of independently verifiable evidence...if not, what could be your motivation other than a mystical basis...it can't be scientific, as you have NO EVIDENCE BOYO....:rolleyes:

[Jenifer Johnson]

Mare,

I understand that the process would be complex and involved, but what is the gateway? I have heard a lot of radio programs about OFB, where it is all induced from the dream state. My problem is, I hardly dream any more. If one could induce it from total consciousness then I might have a chance, also, it would be taken more seriously if there was proof of its relevance.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare,

I understand that the process would be complex and involved, but what is the gateway? I have heard a lot of radio programs about OFB, where it is all induced from the dream state. My problem is, I hardly dream any more. If one could induce it from total consciousness then I might have a chance, also, it would be taken more seriously if there was proof of its relevance.

It needn't be done from a dream state, relaxed, still, but fully awake. Monroe talks about the sensations that one feels and points out the ones that should be concentrated on and manipulated.

[DavidHenry]

It needn't be done from a dream state, relaxed, still, but fully awake. Monroe talks about the sensations that one feels and points out the ones that should be concentrated on and manipulated.


Appropriate choice of word.

[Mare Tranquillity]

So what you're telling me is that you think our ability to play tennis has nothing to do with consciousness?
As for your side of the story.....you've got no evidence and subsequently, anyone with any credibility wouldn't bother pursuing it....but hey, some people find it interesting and book sales are a possibility, just as you frequently advertise.

Are you able to provide one piece of independently verifiable evidence...if not, what could be your motivation other than a mystical basis...it can't be scientific, as you have NO EVIDENCE BOYO....:rolleyes:

I don't know what you are talking about, you call me names, you claim I say things I haven't said, you demand evidence which I have repeatedly said that no one has. You denigrate the sources I do provide without ever examining them. And you use words that you don't/can't define. What is it you want from me?

You haven't provided any of the things you are demanding of me. You haven't presented a shred of proof of your position--in fact you are the only one making statements that you claim are facts, I've said all along that so far the research has not given ANY definitive answers.

For a supposedly scientifically oriented person you seem very reluctant to look at anything that might conflict with your position. You are apparently unable to address the questions I have asked you, so I am forced to accept that you are arguing for the sake of it.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Appropriate choice of word.

Even massage is referred to as "manipulation". I gather that you are arguing for the sake of it since you refuse to offer anything substantive to support your position. I, on the other hand, have given sources and information that would allow any thinking person to examine the subject and make a decision for themselves.

[DavidHenry]

I, on the other hand, have given sources and information that would allow any thinking person to examine the subject and make a decision for themselves.

Actually, you've provided reference material that would be nuthin but a bunch of speculation, unless you can provide me with one single piece of independently verifiable evidence......what is that?

You've decided that because we don't know everything possible to know about consciousness, that opens the door to a mystical possibility, even though there is no evidence for this belief other than a starting point of mysticism.

You suggest I'm reluctant to sign off on something that lacks a shred of independently verifiable evidence.....it's essentially the same as saying, "well, we have no proof that a 50 ton elephant lives on the moon, but let's investigate anyway".

You should have become a cosmologist, most of them are religious/mystics as well.

Everything we know suggests that consciousness is an attribute of the brain/CNS....this is the proven model that any serious scientist should pursue, not some fairy tale.
One can clearly see that the more advanced the brain/CNS, the more advanced consciousness is....there's an obvious pattern that supports consciousness as an attribute, but no independently verifiable evidence to support your mystical position.

Btw, I'm just speaking bluntly to you....you're not a stupid person, but you're on the wrong track.
I'm a fan of objective science, but I despise junk science in all forms, and I relish the opportunity to expose its flaws.....so don't take it personally, for all I know, some of your views on social issues might be quite reasonable.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Actually, you've provided reference material that would be nuthin but a bunch of speculation, unless you can provide me with one single piece of independently verifiable evidence......what is that?
You have not looked at a single word of any of the sources I have presented. You have not even attempted to experiment with yourself around this subject.

You've decided that because we don't know everything possible to know about consciousness, that opens the door to a mystical possibility, even though there is no evidence for this belief other than a starting point of mysticism.
What I know is that we know almost nothing about the genesis of consciousness and that your comment about not knowing "everything possible" is a deliberate over-statement of the state of the art in consciousness research. There is a vast fund of evidence that things connected to what we loosely call "consciousness" are non-physical (perhaps only in the sense that radio waves are non-physical). Had you looked at the sources I presented you would have the chance to examine some of the scientific evidence that things are happening that don't fit into our "objective" view of the world.

You suggest I'm reluctant to sign off on something that lacks a shred of independently verifiable evidence.....it's essentially the same as saying, "well, we have no proof that a 50 ton elephant lives on the moon, but let's investigate anyway".
I don't believe that I have asked you to sign off on anything. You are comfortable that you already know all that is necessary to know about human consciousness and you deny that there is anything else to look at or look for. Fine, no one is asking you to pay for the research or to look at the things that make you uncomfortable.

You should have become a cosmologist, most of them are religious/mystics as well.
Calling people names is hardly scientific. Cosmology is a field of scientific endeavor, it contributes to the fund of human knowledge, doesn't it? Or are you saying that cosmology--like religion--has produced nothing of value?

Everything we know suggests that consciousness is an attribute of the brain/CNS....this is the proven model that any serious scientist should pursue, not some fairy tale.
This is a good paragraph. "Everything we know..." which does not address what we don't know, and that's a lot according to the scientists who are actually doing the research. The "proven" model to which you refer is a theory which is in no way proven beyond the meager amount of information that we currently have on this subject. But my favorite is "...any serious scientist SHOULD pursue..." (my emphasis). Anytime someone tells scientists what they should pursue that implies that there are avenues that they should NOT pursue, that kind of thinking stifles pure research. Remember when Soviet scientists were forced to accept Lysenko's work?

One can clearly see that the more advanced the brain/CNS, the more advanced consciousness is....there's an obvious pattern that supports consciousness as an attribute, but no independently verifiable evidence to support your mystical position.
I'm not arguing that evidence doesn't exist for the position that you are presenting, I'm just saying that I think there is more to it than what we currently know.

Btw, I'm just speaking bluntly to you....you're not a stupid person, but you're on the wrong track.
I'm a fan of objective science, but I despise junk science in all forms, and I relish the opportunity to expose its flaws.....so don't take it personally, for all I know, some of your views on social issues might be quite reasonable.
I'm not much of a fan of Junk Science either, but I won't throw out the baby or the bath water. For much too long arrogant people have assumed that they knew far more than they actually did and science has been set back dramatically because of it. Had Heaviside not trashed Maxwell's work we would be perhaps a century further advanced in electrical theory than we currently are. Science can be just as blindly dogmatic as religion.

There is no way to tell if I'm on some kind of "wrong track" until I work it to the end, you don't know what will be found in ANY field of endeavor ahead of time. Now that we have managed to teleport matter, we've blown another hole in a cherished scientific theory. What's next? I'll keep an open mind and look at all the options.

[Mare Tranquillity]

David,
I find it curious that you are so adamant about this. If I'm wrong and we discover nothing new about consciousness, you get to have some "I told you so's" and I look silly. If we continue our research and find out new and interesting things about consciousness, then we all win and we're smarter for the effort. Either way you aren't injured, so why fight this so hard?

Your arguments sound like fear, but I don't know why. Science goes down deadends now and then, so what, in his day, DaVinci's helicopter was a dead end too. There is a really weird kind of lightning that strikes up from the tops of clouds to the edge of space and then splits and comes back down around the central upward strike producing a lightning bolt pattern that looks like the skeleton of an umbrella. Pilots have been reporting this since we had jets able to fly high enough to see it. Scientists have pooh-poohed it for years, but a NASA plane with high-speed cameras has finally photographed this exact lightning strike pattern. Ball lightning can't exist either even though people have been reporting seeing it for hundreds of years. Two scientists have finally produced it under laboratory conditions.

"Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax." – English scientist William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, 1899
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." - Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

I have a good intellect, I intend to use it by continuing to look carefully at everything that comes my way. If you choose to live your life another way, then that's fine: to your own self be true.

[Jenifer Johnson]

Mare: Now that we have managed to teleport matter

Wow, this is news to me, when did this happen?

I also agree that the collectivist paradigm of controlled thinking stunts one's growth and has no place truth seeking.

I think what David's concern is that religion is being passed of as truth, where you see it as proving a theory.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare: Now that we have managed to teleport matter

Wow, this is news to me, when did this happen?

I also agree that the collectivist paradigm of controlled thinking stunts one's growth and has no place truth seeking.

I think what David's concern is that religion is being passed of as truth, where you see it as proving a theory.

I've no use for organized religion, I'm not trying to pass anything off as truth, but rather I'm hoping that people will begin to look and think for themselves without relying on religious dogma or scientific dogma either.

The US Air Force has been working on teleporting and so have many labs around the world. The best job of it that I know of is a couple of labs on opposite sides of the Thames River who are teleporting small quantities of material back and forth. The process is based on quantum entanglement somehow, I don't begin to pretend to understand the math. But this is just another break-through like speeding up and stopping light, both of which have been accomplished. Some very weird and wonderful things happening in the world of science.

[Jenifer Johnson]

I'm hoping that people will begin to look and think for themselves without relying on religious dogma or scientific dogma either.


The biggest threat to the collectivist paradigm is individuals thinking for themselves.

[DavidHenry]

Mare.

The basis of your motivation is mysticism, otherwise you could’ve directed me to just one piece of physical evidence that supports the idea that consciousness can exist independently of the host….not only can’t you do that, but more often than not, I suspect people who support/flirt with these strange idea’s have done so under the influence of mind altering substances, IOW, hallucinations led to inspiration {bizarre, but then again, most people are scientifically and philosophically illiterate}.

Science deals with rationality, pattern recognition, physical evidence and repeatable experiments……you lack all of that, yet ask me what would be wrong with launching a scientific investigation into the subject!!!!!!!!

You then ask what would be wrong with studying it anyway, just in case you accidentally discovered something worthwhile, IOW, if you learnt something scientific, something that could be verified…..well, how about studying something with a physical basis for its existence, you might then intentionally discover something worthwhile!

Anyway, knock yourself out, I think you’re dreaming, but my opinions not only won’t sway you, but will further enhance the idea that you’re onto a good thing….ie, you have a problem with rationality, objectivity and reality at a basic level.

I’m done btw, so if you choose to reply, make it short and sweet, because if it’s a recycling of what you’ve already said, I most likely won’t respond.

One more thing, despite the apparent tone of my writing, I don’t know you well enough to deem you unworthy of further discussions, but not on this subject.

All the best.

[r0beph]

Mare: Now that we have managed to teleport matter

Wow, this is news to me, when did this happen?

I also agree that the collectivist paradigm of controlled thinking stunts one's growth and has no place truth seeking.

I think what David's concern is that religion is being passed of as truth, where you see it as proving a theory.


Don't take <b>matter</b> as being that amazing. It's not like Jeff Goldblum in the fly transporting from hither and fro. Typically when you hear "teleportation" it's referent to quantum teleportation, entanglement, et al. Typically it's information and not true matter that is transported. There are some theories out there that hold a lot of water, and move away from the information teleportation and more into actual matter transference, again though, this isn't really something we can say "we've done"....



As for God, gods, goddesses, and supernatural in general; There is simply no ability for us, given our abilities as they are, to provide beyond theorem, and explanation for why we're here, how we're here, if we were intelligently designed or if nature itself is intelligent as per our definition. Simply put, no matter how sure the most extreme of the religious are, the fact remains there is not truly tangible proof for this assertion. On the other hand, the most militant of the atheists cannot prove to anyone that an intelligence does NOT exist. We just cannot, we haven't the ability to test all the possibilities that are. I myself am not very religious in the typical sense and I can't discount it anymore than I can believe it. Arguing about whether something unprovable exists is an exercise in futility, however I'll happily point and prod, and argue anyones "facts" that they assert proves god(s).

[Jenifer Johnson]

r0beph,

So actual matter isn't being teleported.

What I have heard is, through the use of nanotechnology, they are able to built from the ground up. So, teleportation would be having a scanner on one end and a printer on the other, then recreating the object through the nano information.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare.

The basis of your motivation is mysticism, otherwise you could’ve directed me to just one piece of physical evidence that supports the idea that consciousness can exist independently of the host….not only can’t you do that, but more often than not, I suspect people who support/flirt with these strange idea’s have done so under the influence of mind altering substances, IOW, hallucinations led to inspiration {bizarre, but then again, most people are scientifically and philosophically illiterate}.

Science deals with rationality, pattern recognition, physical evidence and repeatable experiments……you lack all of that, yet ask me what would be wrong with launching a scientific investigation into the subject!!!!!!!!

You then ask what would be wrong with studying it anyway, just in case you accidentally discovered something worthwhile, IOW, if you learnt something scientific, something that could be verified…..well, how about studying something with a physical basis for its existence, you might then intentionally discover something worthwhile!

Anyway, knock yourself out, I think you’re dreaming, but my opinions not only won’t sway you, but will further enhance the idea that you’re onto a good thing….ie, you have a problem with rationality, objectivity and reality at a basic level.

I’m done btw, so if you choose to reply, make it short and sweet, because if it’s a recycling of what you’ve already said, I most likely won’t respond.

One more thing, despite the apparent tone of my writing, I don’t know you well enough to deem you unworthy of further discussions, but not on this subject.

All the best.

Your amateur psychoanalyzing is hardly profound, David, you have misread me on more than one occasion and you continue to do so. Fine, if your arrogant attitude makes you feel superior, then I'm happy for you because you obviously need it.

I'm not sure how one would provide physical evidence of the hypothetical ghost in the machine since it is by definition non-physical--Hello? Using your "objective" viewpoint I suppose that you believe that love doesn't exist either since you can't see, smell it, or put it in a petri dish. Many things are non-physical, mathematics can be written down but the concepts are non-physical, what about imaginary numbers?

You keep demanding, demanding, demanding, why? It doesn't matter what sources I give you they aren't worth your looking at them. Yeah, and your drug accusation, I like that. All the cosmologists in history were on drugs. I notice that you never answer my questions, why is that?

You don't converse, David, you simply argue and you don't even do that very well, your name calling and idiotic drug references coupled with your somewhat dim demands for physical evidence of a non-physical experience suggest to me that you are a troll. I have enough trolls in my life without adding another to the list. Thanks for playing, but I do know you well enough to deem you unworthy of further discussion, please jerk off with someone else from now on.

[Jenifer Johnson]

love doesn't exist either since you can't see,



Love/hate is only one's perception of the subjective value of the truth, which only exists in one's mind. I can not feel for you and you can not feel for me, so yes, emotions do not physically exist. Your value for x has no value to me. We have to create standards of value for exchange.

Once on a winery tour, a person asked the tour guide what was the difference between an expensive wine and cheep wine. The tour guide said it is a matter of taste. She also said, if you prefer the cheep wine consider yourself lucky.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Love/hate is only one's perception of the subjective value of the truth, which only exists in one's mind. I can not feel for you and you can not feel for me, so yes, emotions do not physically exist. Your value for x has no value to me. We have to create standards of value for exchange.

Once on a winery tour, a person asked the tour guide what was the difference between an expensive wine and cheep wine. The tour guide said it is a matter of taste. She also said, if you prefer the cheep wine consider yourself lucky.

Is subjective reality any less real because you experience it differently than others?

[Jenifer Johnson]

Is subjective reality any less real because you experience it differently than others?



I would use subjective value to reality, rather than subjective reality, because there is only one reality. The only reality we share is that which we agree on. Because you can not do my thinking for me, there is no way for you to know what I am thinking or have my perception of reality. Only by agreement, which is why agreement is the basis for right from wrong.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I would use subjective value to reality, rather than subjective reality, because there is only one reality. The only reality we share is that which we agree on. Because you can not do my thinking for me, there is no way for you to know what I am thinking or have my perception of reality. Only by agreement, which is why agreement is the basis for right from wrong.

I don't think anyone has ever proven that there is only one reality, I think that there are some things that our realities share, but only ONE? I don't think so. Part of this would hinge on the definition of "reality". Since the observer interacts with whatever is being observed, I don't think there is any "objective" place to stand to look at "reality" objectively, is there? What if Pribram and Bohm are correct and our "reality" is simply a holographic construct mediated by our complex brain but actaully arises from a deeper level of reality? Is our reality the same reality that a "God" would experience? How could it be if the "God" existed outside of time and space?

In the end, there may be only ONE reality, but like the blind men examining the elephant I think that we each see only our own little part. How do we put all these little parts together and see the whole? I don't know, science seems to be our best bet right now. But as with Mr. Henry, there are portions of reality that are off-limits, things we cannot research or look at, so how complete can science be?

[top gun]

"Reality" is the preponderance of the evidence at hand in my opinion.

Much like comparing horse & buggy days to a space shot to the moon we are always growing, learning, evolving... teaching ourselves new things.

God or religion is something completely different. It's totally faith based. There's nothing really wrong with something being totally faith based as long as it's all good and beneficial.

The problem arises when something that is faith based is pushed as an absolute and forced on people that want to be indifferent to it. After all the fact that something is faith based means the individual would have to want to believe in it I would assume :).

So it seems as science is an ever evolving search for testable knowledge that is built on positive definitive results in the past it has the credibility edge over blind faith.

It's like if you were in front of an old musket fireing squad and your choices were pure faith (Oh God please don't let those bullets kill me) or science based (I soaked their powder in water so it won't fire) one is repeatedly more likely to actually have proven better consequences.

I think I could have faith in that ;).

[numinus]

OK, most of that went over my head, but I gather that you don't think it's impossible, right?

No. Maxwell and einstein were talking about different ways of explaining the same thing.

[numinus]

DUMMY.....the big bang is just the mainstream version modern cosmology promotes, there are many other cosmologists looking into the question of the universes origin, but they'll all be wrong unless they accept that it's eternal.

The universe is EXPANDING according to hubble separation.

This expansion was predicted in einstein's field equation and independently derived by freidmann (minus the cosmological constant fudge factor). It was experimentally verified by hubble.

A steady-state universe in the field of cosmology is analogous to mein kampf in political philosophy. NOT ONLY ARE THEY RELEGATED TO OBSOLESCENCE, THEY ARE PROVEN TO BE PATENTLY WRONG.

Stop talking like a moron. It is useless on rational people in this forum.

The trouble with the big bang is that it assumes something can come from nothing, and that's impossible.

Not an assumption - it is the INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION.

[numinus]

It's a tactic known as hiding behind complexity:rolleyes:

It's undergraduate level physics, moron. If segep can understand the sources he provided, then my reply wouldn't be totally beyond his comprehension.

[numinus]

Yes, religion posing as science.

Anything you don't understand is religion, eh?

As expected.

[numinus]

Or a preacher trying to pass off religion as science.

No need for a preacher since everything I said can be found in any standard college physics textbook.

[numinus]

That is because if he can't dazzle you with brilliance, he will baffle you with bull ****. The sign of intelligence is the ability to explain the complex in its simplest terms.

That is as simple as it gets, I'm afraid. That is precisely why they do not accept morons to college.

[9sublime]

OK well done numinus you learnt a new word, moron. Now you've learnt it, chalk it up to experience and stop calling everyone it.

[numinus]

OK well done numinus you learnt a new word, moron. Now you've learnt it, chalk it up to experience and stop calling everyone it.

You don't like how the word rolls in your mouth when you chastise someone who is clearly a chair short of a picnic?

[Plato232]

Well here I am again. I posted this topic because I wanted the debators of this forum to air their opinions. After 121+ replies I can see that this is the same as most forums.

most of the replies on this forum are non-sensical. Debators have detached themselves from what I originally asked them to state and debate against and have instead turned it into another 'whos who in debating prowess' instead of addressing the question at heart.

All I asked was to state your opinion, less than 5% of the debators herein have done that.

So I ask again. Put your ego aside and for the interests of a guest reading these threads please act in the following manner.

State your opinion.
argue others opinions

but do so in a logical and well thought out manner.

most of this topic is worthy of the recycle bin. I expected much more on probably the biggest topic that could be debated.

I have just come from zeitgeistdebate.com and even though there are only 5+ debators on that site. they at least have logic and reason to their threads....

[9sublime]

Sorry if this forum isnt up to your standards matey. Don't get all arsey because we didn't give you some of the most profound answers in history while you waltzed between forums giving people average debate fodder. You think quite highly of yourself, don't you?

[vyo476]

Well here I am again. I posted this topic because I wanted the debators of this forum to air their opinions. After 121+ replies I can see that this is the same as most forums.

most of the replies on this forum are non-sensical. Debators have detached themselves from what I originally asked them to state and debate against and have instead turned it into another 'whos who in debating prowess' instead of addressing the question at heart.

All I asked was to state your opinion, less than 5% of the debators herein have done that.

Ask yourself if the best way to get what you want is to insult the people you want it from.

So I ask again. Put your ego aside and for the interests of a guest reading these threads please act in the following manner.

State your opinion.
argue others opinions

but do so in a logical and well thought out manner.

Good to see that you're guest moderating. Thanks. It isn't appreciated.

For the record my stance on "God" is that absent empirical evidence no firm decision can or should be made. Therefore no belief is "incorrect" and no one belief is "correct."

In terms outside organized religion I believe all things exist at levels of complexity yet to be explored; at one of these levels you might indeed find "God." Then again, maybe not.

In other words I'm an agnostic.

most of this topic is worthy of the recycle bin. I expected much more on probably the biggest topic that could be debated.

You are kind of high on yourself, aren't you? Not only are our posts not good enough for you, you assume that your topic is "probably the biggest that could be debated." I challenge this assertion. As the existence of an actual "God" is unqualifiable the topic is unworthy of a great deal of attention.

And not to get too picky, but this is a political forum, not a theological one. While we do have threads pertaining to a wide vareity of societal topics aside from standard political ones, assuming that your own non-political topic is going to stir up amazing debate in a place like this was just an act of setting yourself up for disappointment and then blaming us for it after the fact. Smooth.

I have just come from zeitgeistdebate.com and even though there are only 5+ debators on that site. they at least have logic and reason to their threads....

If they are so wonderful, why bother coming here?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare.
The basis of your motivation is mysticism, otherwise you could’ve directed me to just one piece of physical evidence that supports the idea that consciousness can exist independently of the host….not only can’t you do that, but more often than not, I suspect people who support/flirt with these strange idea’s have done so under the influence of mind altering substances, IOW, hallucinations led to inspiration {bizarre, but then again, most people are scientifically and philosophically illiterate}.

Science deals with rationality, pattern recognition, physical evidence and repeatable experiments……you lack all of that, yet ask me what would be wrong with launching a scientific investigation into the subject!!!!!!!!

You then ask what would be wrong with studying it anyway, just in case you accidentally discovered something worthwhile, IOW, if you learnt something scientific, something that could be verified…..well, how about studying something with a physical basis for its existence, you might then intentionally discover something worthwhile!

Anyway, knock yourself out, I think you’re dreaming, but my opinions not only won’t sway you, but will further enhance the idea that you’re onto a good thing….ie, you have a problem with rationality, objectivity and reality at a basic level.

I’m done btw, so if you choose to reply, make it short and sweet, because if it’s a recycling of what you’ve already said, I most likely won’t respond.

One more thing, despite the apparent tone of my writing, I don’t know you well enough to deem you unworthy of further discussions, but not on this subject. All the best.

I don't agree with David Henry and Nums about us knowing all there is to know about consciousness and the human mind. Here's an article that contibutes a bit of information suggesting that we may not know as much as some of us loudly proclaim. The salient point is that we just don't know how the mind and consciousness work, it's something that needs more study and less verbal abuse.

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsmir1224,0,1622123.story

[numinus]

Well here I am again. I posted this topic because I wanted the debators of this forum to air their opinions. After 121+ replies I can see that this is the same as most forums.

most of the replies on this forum are non-sensical. Debators have detached themselves from what I originally asked them to state and debate against and have instead turned it into another 'whos who in debating prowess' instead of addressing the question at heart.

All I asked was to state your opinion, less than 5% of the debators herein have done that.

So I ask again. Put your ego aside and for the interests of a guest reading these threads please act in the following manner.

State your opinion.
argue others opinions

but do so in a logical and well thought out manner.

most of this topic is worthy of the recycle bin. I expected much more on probably the biggest topic that could be debated.

I have just come from zeitgeistdebate.com and even though there are only 5+ debators on that site. they at least have logic and reason to their threads....

If you can grasp the most rudimentary concepts of physical cosmology and the mathematics behind it, you would realize that the only logical conclusion is a created universe.

And if you do not find any sense in physics, have it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe, the topic is simply way over your head?

[WileE]

The only way I can get someone to do what I want is to provide a positive benefit. "God said" is nothing more than a con-game to get someone to do something they want without having to justify asking. A criminal act.

Is it the singer or the song?:)

Oops! I just went back and found that JJ is banned. Oh well. Maybe someone else feels the same way.

[WileE]

whether you believe in a certain religion or you believe in spirituality or you may be an athiest or you may be agnostic. I ask everyone to air their views

Noone is right and noone is wrong. This is the one topic that can't be proved or disproved. All I ask is that you express your views without trying to dismiss others outrightly.

Noone can prove either way and so this is the absolute topic of debate.
all i ask is for everyone entering this debate, please enter it with anopen mind as one side cannot disprove the other.

I am a Christian by environmental tradition, but I take the Buddhist view that the universe has no beginning nor end, but operates according to a "devine reason" that is infallable. The universe can do nothing that is wrong, evil, or self-defeating. We humans are nothing but one infinitesimally small part of what the universe is "up to", at the moment, and when we do anything that is contrary to devine reason, because we fail to realize that we're all made of the same stuff as the universe, we usually pay the price. Buddists resist putting a name on this "divine reason", such as: God or Allah, because they feel it is belittling to that "devine reason", as though we were trying to bring it down to our level where we can see it and feel it, to make sure it's real. Those of us who are more familiar with the Judeo-Christian tradition should have no problem using the name, "God" as long as we constantly bear in mind that we all come from the same "Father".:)

[purplebarney]

I've read through this entire thread. Plato has a real point and I can't believe the moderators on this site are so quick to shoot him down. Most of the threads on this topic are without real thought. but when he outlined this suddenly people start talking sense. This is the biggest topic humans can ever debate and I agree most of the replies on this are very immature.

my take :

regardless its just an opinion. you or I can't prove or disprove god.

but (forgetting the ID approach)

the universe conforms to rules. the universe has an architecture. the big bang theory is laughable. (and i am no stephenhawking) but I do see that when we can't explain the reality we come up with a non logical solution.

hence religion hence big bang. both are incredulous

[9sublime]

I am a Christian by environmental tradition, but I take the Buddhist view that the universe has no beginning nor end, but operates according to a "devine reason" that is infallable.

Before chatting to numinus, I believed the cosmological argument to be quite poor, but now I think it goes some way to proving that the universe is not everlasting.

1. Everything in the universe has a cause. Nothing is independent of everything else. Nothing is here by its own accord, but was put into existence by something else e.g. you are here because of your mother and father producing you, and