How did the Universe get here?

[edthecynic]

So now you have argued that not only does immortality exist, it can be quantified as well.

Bravo!

Back to your Straw Men again. I argued ENERGY can be quantified.

Indeed! And previously you argued that energy can't be created or destroyed and has always existed, which makes it immortal by definition. Ergo: You have now established that immortality exists and it can be quantified. What you haven't done is prove energy isn't spiritual.

Are you denying that energy is physical?

 

[emilynghiem]

There is no experiment that proves unicorns don't exist either. Somwhat's your point?

[MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION]: Christian spiritual heaing can be proven medically to have profound effects on people and diseases that no other method can cure. Read the books on Healing by Dr. MacNutt and research by Dale Matthews and Larry Dorsey. We may not ever be able to prove what is going on spiritually but statistics and repeat studies can show patterns of healing and the process to show that it follows natural laws of science.

[MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION] good point
the difference is people generally agree that unicorns don't exist so we don't demand proof to prove it or not
when people understand what god means and how spiritual laws works
we will not ask for proof anymore because we already understand it aligns with what we already know and experience in life it is natural
it will be like understanding what people mean by dreams they had at night
or understanding that gravity works no matter what we call it or even if we don't study the laws, we use gravity anyway

when we all agree what we mean by the will or forces of god or nature
we won't need proof because we agree what we're talking about as naturally occurring

The point exactly. There is no substance to these concepts of god and spiritual. As mankind has progressed since the time of the darknages, fewerenand fewer people even consider them as having any meaning at all. They are meaningless concepts with no fondation upon which to yield any agreement.

Hi [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION]
yes and no
1. in terms of languages, once people see that all things in religion can be expressed using science and secular terms, of course, more communication will focus there; there will not be this need to push using religious terms to prove people believe or not when the science can prove the same things in religion
2. however, such use of science will prove religions true, so it will not make them go away by disproving them, but by proving they do represent universal truth
3. people will still use the religious language of their preference and cultural relations
the secular will still use science and natural laws
the Christians will still use their laws and traditions
the Buddhists and Muslims will continue their traditions
but there will not be this need to push or prove one way or another
so the religious abuses may stop but the religious traditions will continue
just like any other cultural identity

what will also end is this need to prove one way right or wrong,
by the same process it takes to some arguing over religions.
I agree that will stop, whether you call that religious, political or just human ego or selfish or what.
once it is established that these religions are just separate languages
the need to compete will stop

the universal laws for humanity are what they are regardless of expression

 

[itfitzme]

So now you have argued that not only does immortality exist, it can be quantified as well.

Bravo!

Back to your Straw Men again. I argued ENERGY can be quantified.

Indeed! And previously you argued that energy can't be created or destroyed and has always existed, which makes it immortal by definition. Ergo: You have now established that immortality exists and it can be quantified. What you haven't done is prove energy isn't spiritual.

Now that is just stupid. Really, what do you think you are talking about? People? Turtles? Asreroids? Light? Pixies? Zeus?

 

[edthecynic]

There are various ways energy is calculated, read eddy's "How energy is measured for dummies" to learn about those. Of course, his link didn't mention "dark energy" which actually comprises most of the energy in our universe.

Being able to measure energy doesn't prove it's not spiritual. I'm still waiting for that evidence to be submitted. So far, none of you have done that.

Yes it does by proving it is physical.

The Best Way to Measure Dark Energy Just Got Better | www.cfa.harvard.edu/

Maybe spiritual nature has "duality?"

Not according to the most renowned expert on spirituality in the universe, who says it is "irrational" to say that the spiritual is physical.

 

[emilynghiem]

You could say that about the Super God that created your God, and the Super Duper God that created Super God, and the Ultra Super God that created Super Duper God, and the Ultra Super Duper God that created Super Duper God. Does it seem like as weak an argument to you as it does to me?

No. It's a statement of fact.

Well, in fact, a series of experiments and observations that have definitely proven that "god" doesn't exist.

Once again, it's a matter of how the experimental method works and the formulation of the null hypothesis.

Hi [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION] what definition of god was used in these experiments and observations?

if you define God to mean the life forces/laws of Nature,
what studies have NOT proven or assumed these exist?

what has proven "life" or "laws of the universe" do not exist?
or the source of these things do not exist?

how was god defined?

 

[Boss]

Any specific answer would have sufficed?

No, any specific answer will not suffice when there are several different answers as well as some unknowns. That's YOUR PROBLEM here... your little simple mind can't handle complex thought or abstracts. You assume there are answers when there may not be answers. This leads you to draw conclusions that haven't been made.

This has been an ongoing problem with humans for all our existence. When Newton devised his theory of color and light, Sir Robert Hooke of the Royal Academy of Science said, "What are you, some kind of a nut?" When Louie Pasteur discovered microbes could live inside the human body, the same academic elite said, "You must've been out in the sun too long, you're starting to crack up!" When Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss discovered that it was a good idea to wash your hands between digging in cadavers and operating on live patients, they locked him up in the insane asylum and it wasn't until 40 years after his death, his discovery became the advent of medical hygiene. I could go on an on... From Galileo to Stephen Hawking, scientists have made controversial discoveries which took time for others to accept. Why? Because of the hubris and arrogance you are exemplifying here.

 

[Boss]

Back to your Straw Men again. I argued ENERGY can be quantified.

Indeed! And previously you argued that energy can't be created or destroyed and has always existed, which makes it immortal by definition. Ergo: You have now established that immortality exists and it can be quantified. What you haven't done is prove energy isn't spiritual.

Are you denying that energy is physical?

No, I am asking you to show evidence it isn't spiritual. As I said, perhaps it has duality?

 

[edthecynic]

Indeed! And previously you argued that energy can't be created or destroyed and has always existed, which makes it immortal by definition. Ergo: You have now established that immortality exists and it can be quantified. What you haven't done is prove energy isn't spiritual.

Are you denying that energy is physical?

No, I am asking you to show evidence it isn't spiritual. As I said, perhaps it has duality?

If energy is both physical AND spiritual, then you are arguing that the spiritual IS physical.
Thank you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes it does by proving it is physical.

The Best Way to Measure Dark Energy Just Got Better | www.cfa.harvard.edu/

Maybe spiritual nature has "duality?"

Not according to the most renowned expert on spirituality in the universe, who says it is "irrational" to say that the spiritual is physical.

why can't energy be both spiritual and physical?

when spiritual healing is used to remove "spiritual voices" through a spiritual process,
the physical mind does go through changes.

a friend of mine said that analog technology was being developed that is sensitive enough to measure these "spiritual voices" in the heads of schizophrenic patients where it isn't delusional but actual registering as waves or sound/energy on some level.

so the energy vibes or process we call spiritual can still be physical on some level beyond what we can detect with our senses, but could be measured with science as finer technology develops

people did not believe in invisible bacteria or viruses until microscopes were developed that could capture these undetectable microbes; what if spiritual energy is the same way

how long before scientists can measure the difference between the
* negative spiritual energy used in occult practices spiritism voodoo curses spells or sorcery
* positive spiritual energy in healing and recovery and group or intercessor prayer
and correlation with effects in people's health of mind body and relations with others.

we may never be able to prove some things described on a spiritual level
but can't we demonstrate the energy and changes in process using physical science
and we are actually describing the same process

why can't it be both spiritual and physical

collective life and humanity can be seen as spiritual on a global scale beyond our
immediate empirical senses and perception

yet we can quantify the relationships and effects in scientific terms based on physical data
and it is still about collective or spiritual effects on all humanity. what's wrong with that?

 

[PostmodernProph]

If a being calld God did create he woulda needed technology

???....you think God needed petri dishes?.......

 

[Boss]

Are you denying that energy is physical?

No, I am asking you to show evidence it isn't spiritual. As I said, perhaps it has duality?

If energy is both physical AND spiritual, then you are arguing that the spiritual IS physical.
Thank you.

The spiritual created the physical, so in a sense I have always argued that. The only thing I have stated contrary to that is, physical science can't examine/evaluate spiritual evidence. I have also stated as a caveat, that we may one day discover a way for physical science to verify, falsify, quantify, observe and test spiritual nature. Of course, then it will become physical and all you atheists will chortle... see, told you so, there's no such thing as spiritual!

Now.... I'm still not seeing this evidence you have that energy isn't spiritual. I submit that it could have duality. We can both see and measure it and at the same time, we can't. Just as light can be both a wave and particle. Just as an electron can be in two places at once.

 

[GISMYS]

ALMIGHTY GOD "SPOKE" CREATION INTO BEING WITH ONLY HIS WORDS!!! Pretty awesome!!!HUH???

 

[Mr Natural]

ALMIGHTY GOD "SPOKE" CREATION INTO BEING WITH ONLY HIS WORDS!!! Pretty awesome!!!HUH???

Yeah, very awesome for a fairytale.

 

[GISMYS]

ALMIGHTY GOD "SPOKE" CREATION INTO BEING WITH ONLY HIS WORDS!!! Pretty awesome!!!HUH???

Yeah, very awesome for a fairytale.

why give posters here more proof YOU ARE A FOOL??????????

 

[itfitzme]

No. It's a statement of fact.

Well, in fact, a series of experiments and observations that have definitely proven that "god" doesn't exist.

Once again, it's a matter of how the experimental method works and the formulation of the null hypothesis.

Hi [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION] what definition of god was used in these experiments and observations?

if you define God to mean the life forces/laws of Nature,
what studies have NOT proven or assumed these exist?

what has proven "life" or "laws of the universe" do not exist?
or the source of these things do not exist?

how was god defined?

Quite a few. For instance, "Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation."

Isaac Newton's religious views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His life pursuit was illuminate the mind of God. He ended up giving us calculus, gravity, and a number of nice contributions to science. His greatest contribution was in moving scence from trying to explainm "why" and focusing on what and how.

 

[emilynghiem]

The spiritual created the physical, so in a sense I have always argued that. The only thing I have stated contrary to that is, physical science can't examine/evaluate spiritual evidence. I have also stated as a caveat, that we may one day discover a way for physical science to verify, falsify, quantify, observe and test spiritual nature. Of course, then it will become physical and all you atheists will chortle... see, told you so, there's no such thing as spiritual!

Now.... I'm still not seeing this evidence you have that energy isn't spiritual. I submit that it could have duality. We can both see and measure it and at the same time, we can't. Just as light can be both a wave and particle. Just as an electron can be in two places at once.

Yes and no [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]
1. we can quantify some effects and process of what is called spiritual,
so even if we cannot prove it is spiritual, all the practical reasons and effects
can still be demonstrated, so we can agree to focus on that, and not argue if it is spiritual or not.
we can agree we are talking about the same process regardless, and it is still universal for all people.
you can call that spiritual or collective social psychology, and it means the same thing for all practical purposes.

2. this will not necessarily make everyone point to the physical and reject the spiritual.

once the process of forgiveness and healing is proven scientifically
forgiveness is still a faith based choice on a spiritual level (some may call this psychological)--
that part will not change after it is proven physically to effect consistent and natural patterns in a quantifiable process.
we don't have to agree what the collective level or process is, where some people call it spiritual, some psychological,
but other people call it life energy and see it as purely physical

it will still operate the same and the same ppl will call it spiritual and the same ppl will call it physical and natural.
the difference is we will forgive each other's differences
and not worry what the other ppl call it

 

[itfitzme]

Any specific answer would have sufficed?

No, any specific answer will not suffice when there are several different answers as well as some unknowns. That's YOUR PROBLEM here... your little simple mind can't handle complex thought or abstracts. You assume there are answers when there may not be answers. This leads you to draw conclusions that haven't been made.

This has been an ongoing problem with humans for all our existence. When Newton devised his theory of color and light, Sir Robert Hooke of the Royal Academy of Sciience said, "What are you, some kind of a nut?" When Louie Pasteur discovered microbes could live inside the human body, the same academic elite said, "You must've been out in the sun too long, you're starting to crack up!" When Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss discovered that it was a good idea to wash your hands between digging in cadavers and operating on live patients, they locked him up in the insane asylum and it wasn't until 40 years after his death, his discovery became the advent of medical hygiene. I could go on an on... From Galileo to Stephen Hawking, scientists have made controversial discoveries which took time for others to accept. Why? Because of the hubris and arrogance you are exemplifying here.

Don't flatter yourself in thinking you are in any way like Newton, Pasteur, and Semmelweiss. Before they even began to approach an original idea of their own device, they learned, practiced, and the long history of science and tradition within the scope of their field. And they could speak specifically and precisely about both that knowledge and the details of their own experience.

What they didn't do is rant on and on about some nebulous "immortal spiritual energy". it's the difference between brilliance and bullshit.

 

[itfitzme]

Any specific answer would have sufficed?

No, any specific answer will not suffice when there are several different answers as well as some unknowns. That's YOUR PROBLEM here... your little simple mind can't handle complex thought or abstracts. You assume there are answers when there may not be answers. This leads you to draw conclusions that haven't been made.

This has been an ongoing problem with humans for all our existence. When Newton devised his theory of color and light, Sir Robert Hooke of the Royal Academy of Science said, "What are you, some kind of a nut?" When Louie Pasteur discovered microbes could live inside the human body, the same academic elite said, "You must've been out in the sun too long, you're starting to crack up!" When Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss discovered that it was a good idea to wash your hands between digging in cadavers and operating on live patients, they locked him up in the insane asylum and it wasn't until 40 years after his death, his discovery became the advent of medical hygiene. I could go on an on... From Galileo to Stephen Hawking, scientists have made controversial discoveries which took time for others to accept. Why? Because of the hubris and arrogance you are exemplifying here.

I have no problem excepting that you have no answers.

 

[emilynghiem]

Quite a few. For instance, "Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation."

Isaac Newton's religious views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His life pursuit was illuminate the mind of God. He ended up giving us calculus, gravity, and a number of nice contributions to science. His greatest contribution was in moving scence from trying to explainm "why" and focusing on what and how.

I must be misreading or otherwise not getting your points.
I thought you said it was definitely proven "god does not exist."

I thought it was proven that we/humans "could not prove god exists or not."
this is not the same thing.

How does Newton's work prove that god does not exist?

Did you understand my point, [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION]
if God means the forces of life behind the laws in the universe,
doesn't the work of Newton and scientists prove these laws are consistent
and the workings of energy, matter, force etc in the world
follow consistent patterns or naturally occurring laws

so why isn't that proof there are forces of life and laws that are universal?
how is this proving god does not exist if it seems to confirm there is a
consistent force of life in the world?

 

[GISMYS]

ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS HE laughs at the "wisdom" of little man. Can't you see why??