Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...

[BreezeWood]

The physical universe requires creating because it's a physical thing. Spiritual things don't need to be created because they don't have physical existence. There is no "plead of immunity" but spiritual things are not physical and never will be... sorry you don't get that.

but spiritual things are not physical and never will be... sorry you don't get


just curious how you then believe the spiritual is responsible for the creation of the physical, or why the spiritual would not develop a physical presence if so desired. what is physiology.

birth is not the creation of a new Spirit.

 

[MarkDuffy]

.

there you go with the human thing, surly you do not reserve consciousness to humanity alone ...

No I don't, but I don't want to start an argument over it. More precisely, there are levels of consciousness & I put humans at the top.

on top of what ... destroying Earth with an A-Bomb.

I did not put a value judgement on it. As a matter of fact, I have posted many times that there is absolutely zero evidence that intelligence is a positive selective trait.

is it possible then for a Spiritual coefficient to consciousness that precludes self destruction that is relevant to the "discussion".

You would have to ask the believers. I don't agree that spirits exist, especially spirits who can control science by magic.

 

[Boss]

The physical universe requires creating because it's a physical thing. Spiritual things don't need to be created because they don't have physical existence. There is no "plead of immunity" but spiritual things are not physical and never will be... sorry you don't get that.

but spiritual things are not physical and never will be... sorry you don't get


just curious how you then believe the spiritual is responsible for the creation of the physical, or why the spiritual would not develop a physical presence if so desired. what is physiology.

birth is not the creation of a new Spirit.

Are you not reading the thread? I've already discussed this. I believe spiritual nature is responsible for creation of physical nature because of the paradox. Physical nature cannot create itself.

Second part of your question... If a spiritual entity imbibes itself into something physical, by definition, it becomes something physical. And I've never said birth is the creation of a new spirit. That's McDuff's claim that I rejected.

 

[BreezeWood]

You would have to ask the believers. I don't agree that spirits exist, especially spirits who can control science by magic.

believers ... anything but a christian.

I don't agree that spirits exist

I'm not convinced a consciousness is how the cicada transforms from a terrestrial to avian being, going from one to another ...

 

[MarkDuffy]

You would have to ask the believers. I don't agree that spirits exist, especially spirits who can control science by magic.

believers ... anything but a christian.

I don't agree that spirits exist

View attachment 147040


I'm not convinced a consciousness is how the cicada transforms from a terrestrial to avian being, going from one to another ...

During development in the womb, we go from a fish to a lizard to human.

 

[BreezeWood]

You would have to ask the believers. I don't agree that spirits exist, especially spirits who can control science by magic.

believers ... anything but a christian.

I don't agree that spirits exist

View attachment 147040


I'm not convinced a consciousness is how the cicada transforms from a terrestrial to avian being, going from one to another ...

During development in the womb, we go from a fish to a lizard to human.

.

During development in the womb, we go from a fish to a lizard to human.

what does ... consciousness, I would think by your definition that remains the same and unalterable for just humans their specific type. the cicada is an example of the deployed being making their own transformation from one living physical form to another, yours is not yet a being.

do you monitor your heart rate, the sub conscious, you are claiming to have a role regulating basic physiology. autopilot and pilot are not the same.

 

[BreezeWood]

I believe spiritual nature is responsible for creation of physical nature because of the paradox. Physical nature cannot create itself.

the intermediary, physiology could be responsible for both ...

If a spiritual entity imbibes itself into something physical, by definition, it becomes something physical. And I've never said birth is the creation of a new spirit.

If a spiritual entity imbibes itself into something physical, by definition, it becomes something physical.

I'm not sure why they would not both retain their own unique quality when absorbed into eachother - the spirit turning itself into its own physical shape would make more sense. as what I would expect the spirit to be capable of when necessary.

 

[Boss]

I believe spiritual nature is responsible for creation of physical nature because of the paradox. Physical nature cannot create itself.

the intermediary, physiology could be responsible for both ...

Physiology is the scientific study of normal mechanisms, and their interactions, which works within a living system. - cr: Wikipedia

Physical things cannot create themselves. Repeat that to yourself a few times if you need to. It is a paradoxical argument that a physical thing can create itself because it would logically have to first exist in order to create itself. If it exists already, it's not creating itself because it already exists. I don't really know how to dumb that down any more for you, if you want to mindlessly argue that it could do this or that, it's up to you... it can't do anything until it exists. That's just basic logic.

If a spiritual entity imbibes itself into something physical, by definition, it becomes something physical. And I've never said birth is the creation of a new spirit.

If a spiritual entity imbibes itself into something physical, by definition, it becomes something physical.

I'm not sure why they would not both retain their own unique quality when absorbed into eachother - the spirit turning itself into its own physical shape would make more sense. as what I would expect the spirit to be capable of when necessary.

By definition, if something is physical, it is not spiritual. Likewise, if something is spiritual, it is not physical. Can something physical have spirituality? Sure! But it is, by definition, something physical. We are physical creatures who have spirituality. You can argue that we are spirits who have physiology but having physiology makes us physical beings.

 

[RWS]

Is that spiritual part of the physical being weightless? Or is that 21 or 28 grams?

And then what causes the difference between one organism having a "spirit", and another not having one? What is necessary physically to have a spirit?

Or do bacteria have spirits too? Because if they don't, there's a difference between organisms that have a spirit, and those who don't. And that will be a physical trait that science can then determine. And then we can get into the deep down science of what causes that trait to create a spirit.

 

[ding]

Is that spiritual part of the physical being weightless? Or is that 21 or 28 grams?

And then what causes the difference between one organism having a "spirit", and another not having one? What is necessary physically to have a spirit?

Or do bacteria have spirits too? Because if they don't, there's a difference between organisms that have a spirit, and those who don't. And that will be a physical trait that science can then determine. And then we can get into the deep down science of what causes that trait to create a spirit.

You're quibbling. His point was not in defining what spiritual is. His point was in making the distinction of materialism versus spiritualism. By definition spiritualism is unseen. Discussing it's attributes like you are trying to do is meaningless. If it isn't material it is spiritual. That's the only definition you need. Communism is based on materialism. Good luck with your material world.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Does Earth have a shadow biosphere? | Aeon Essays

 

[MarkDuffy]

You would have to ask the believers. I don't agree that spirits exist, especially spirits who can control science by magic.

believers ... anything but a christian.

I don't agree that spirits exist

View attachment 147040


I'm not convinced a consciousness is how the cicada transforms from a terrestrial to avian being, going from one to another ...

During development in the womb, we go from a fish to a lizard to human.

.

During development in the womb, we go from a fish to a lizard to human.

what does ... consciousness, I would think by your definition that remains the same and unalterable for just humans their specific type. the cicada is an example of the deployed being making their own transformation from one living physical form to another, yours is not yet a being.

do you monitor your heart rate, the sub conscious, you are claiming to have a role regulating basic physiology. autopilot and pilot are not the same.

Of course the fetus is a being. I was letting you know that transformation is a normal thing with most if not all life. Lower organisms especially go through a larval stage. Ours mainly happen in the womb. Our brain growth and complexity occurs mainly outside the womb. This is an evolutionary response to the birth canal being too small. Humans use neoteny.

Neoteny - Wikipedia

Neoteny in humans - Wikipedia

Your insect does not require consciousness to change from larval stage to butterfly. They all do it.

 

[MarkDuffy]

In writings by God spiritualists, don't you find it interesting that their spirit God appears to know nothing more than the people did? Apparently teaching new knowledge was not on the agenda. God could have at least taught them to write.

This evidence is that the reason for this dumb God, is he was the best man could invent at the time. Man did not know how to write, so neither could God.

Once man learns to write, shazaam, we have God writing the Ten Commandments on stone.

 

[MarkDuffy]

I believe spiritual nature is responsible for creation of physical nature because of the paradox. Physical nature cannot create itself.

the intermediary, physiology could be responsible for both ...

Physiology is the scientific study of normal mechanisms, and their interactions, which works within a living system. - cr: Wikipedia

Physical things cannot create themselves. Repeat that to yourself a few times if you need to. It is a paradoxical argument that a physical thing can create itself because it would logically have to first exist in order to create itself. If it exists already, it's not creating itself because it already exists. I don't really know how to dumb that down any more for you, if you want to mindlessly argue that it could do this or that, it's up to you... it can't do anything until it exists. That's just basic logic.

If a spiritual entity imbibes itself into something physical, by definition, it becomes something physical. And I've never said birth is the creation of a new spirit.

If a spiritual entity imbibes itself into something physical, by definition, it becomes something physical.

I'm not sure why they would not both retain their own unique quality when absorbed into eachother - the spirit turning itself into its own physical shape would make more sense. as what I would expect the spirit to be capable of when necessary.

By definition, if something is physical, it is not spiritual. Likewise, if something is spiritual, it is not physical. Can something physical have spirituality? Sure! But it is, by definition, something physical. We are physical creatures who have spirituality. You can argue that we are spirits who have physiology but having physiology makes us physical beings.

Bold assertions as truths with zero evidence that conveniently never need explanation.

Translation ~ He is clueless. To believe in the creator God is to turn your brain off.

 

[ding]

To believe in the creator God is to turn your brain off.

That's a pretty bold statement considering that it is atheism which is intellectually dead. It doesn't require any intellect to say no. It takes intellect to examine the possibility.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Is that spiritual part of the physical being weightless? Or is that 21 or 28 grams?

And then what causes the difference between one organism having a "spirit", and another not having one? What is necessary physically to have a spirit?

Or do bacteria have spirits too? Because if they don't, there's a difference between organisms that have a spirit, and those who don't. And that will be a physical trait that science can then determine. And then we can get into the deep down science of what causes that trait to create a spirit.

You're quibbling. His point was not in defining what spiritual is. His point was in making the distinction of materialism versus spiritualism. By definition spiritualism is unseen. Discussing it's attributes like you are trying to do is meaningless. If it isn't material it is spiritual. That's the only definition you need. Communism is based on materialism. Good luck with your material world.

Was he now? You mean his definition.

Spiritualism - Wikipedia

Soul - Wikipedia

Reincarnation - Wikipedia

 

[ding]

Is that spiritual part of the physical being weightless? Or is that 21 or 28 grams?

And then what causes the difference between one organism having a "spirit", and another not having one? What is necessary physically to have a spirit?

Or do bacteria have spirits too? Because if they don't, there's a difference between organisms that have a spirit, and those who don't. And that will be a physical trait that science can then determine. And then we can get into the deep down science of what causes that trait to create a spirit.

You're quibbling. His point was not in defining what spiritual is. His point was in making the distinction of materialism versus spiritualism. By definition spiritualism is unseen. Discussing it's attributes like you are trying to do is meaningless. If it isn't material it is spiritual. That's the only definition you need. Communism is based on materialism. Good luck with your material world.

Was he now? You mean his definition.

Spiritualism - Wikipedia

Soul - Wikipedia

Reincarnation - Wikipedia

Yes, he was quibbling, and now so are you.

 

[MarkDuffy]

When, where and how do spirit and material interact?

James Kent, Programmer, Writer, author of Psychedelic Information Theory
Answered May 25, 2016

By most definitions spirit is something that is invisible and cannot be measured, and therefore it cannot interact with matter. If something can be measured that means it has physical properties that interact with matter, if something is invisible then it by definition can not interact with physical things. Furthermore, if something is defined as being invisible and non-material, that is just a fancy way of saying it is imaginary and does not actually exist. So, by extrapolation, the only place where spirit and matter can interact is in the human imagination and fiction.

https://www.quora.com/When-where-and-how-do-spirit-and-material-interact

LOL, If spirit can interact with physical, it is by definition, NOT spiritual.

 

[ding]

Zhou Weiqun, chairman of the Committee on Ethnic and Religious Affairs of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference understands the distinction between spiritual and material.

He blasted Chinese academics who suggest that Communist Party members can also adhere to any religion.

"This prohibition against religion has been a “consistently upheld principle” since Mao Zedong, the founder of the People’s Republic of China, declared Zhou. “It’s impossible to have another choice besides the dialectical materialist worldview.”

China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism

 

[MarkDuffy]

If God created the universe, then why was it necessary to get Noah to build an ark? God could have easily shazaamed an ark. Much easier to make an ark than Adam.