How did the Universe get here?

[Boss]

What they didn't do is rant on and on about some nebulous "immortal spiritual energy".

"There is a vital agent diffused through everything in the earth, a mercurial spirit, extremely subtle and supremely volatile, which is dispersed through every space."

~ Sir Isaac Newton

 

[itfitzme]

[MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]

Confusious said, "Better to take only a single step in the right direction than to walk a mile in the wrong direction."

And, man, you've jumped on the crazy train in the wrong direction."

 

[itfitzme]

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?

That's cuz you don't understand the of the scientific method and hypothesis testing.

And seem to have missed what I've said more than once. Failure to prove something doesn't exist is not proof that it might.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thinking a conscious discrete being we call God created the universe requires a complete ignorance of science. We know a lot about the universe like how stars and planets form, how atoms make up molecules and subatomic particles make up atoms, how living things are made up of cells, etc. And in all of that no whewre is there any mechanism which allows creation "just because I felt like it."

If a being calld God did create he woulda needed technology and so not have been the ghostly version most religions describe. And thus, not the all-powerful being usually thought of.

[MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]
1. who said the ghostly version is an adequate understanding of God
just because you can debunk or disprove that, does not mean you disprove God
2. why can't the universe be self-existent with no beginning and no end but just exist
many people equate God with creation or all things
what's wrong with that definition of God
3. don't the laws of the universe and nature still work the same way
regardless if God is a personified body of truth interacting with man by conscience
or God is the whole world and all laws and knowledge and truth collectively combined (regardless of any connection with man or not)

who said God did anything just because "he felt like it"
most ppl I know who believe in God as creator believe there is a higher purpose not just random
isn't that imposing our own human thinking on God either way
if you are going to say those ways are inadequate what about yours isn't that limited also

I do believe humans are a reflection of God
because we are body/mind/spirit and this is a microcosm of the world:
individual or physical level, collective level that is abstract, and the intermediary level joining the two by conscience or relationship

but it isn't fair to define God just based on that or any limited human perception.
you could take the collective of all our perceptions and knowledge
as a reflection of God but God would still be greater than the sum of the parts

so it is not possible to take just one perception
yours or mine and expect to define god much less prove god does or doesn't exist
god could always be something different or greater than what we imagine and still exist

 

[edthecynic]

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.

You just can't give a straight answer to anything.

Is the energy that is in a mass, as described by the equation e=mc2, spiritual?
Yes or no.

 

[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 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.

LMAO... Yes, and when they did speak, the same kind of muscle-headed morons we see here on this forum today, soundly rejected what they said. In Semmelweiss' case, they institutionalized him... though he was mad. They tried to run Pasteur out of France. Newton kept is work in alchemy such a guarded secret it was 200 years after his death before it was discovered. Humans don't generally adapt well to new ideas. We like to cling to the comfortable old ideas and reject new thinking as bizarre and kooky.

Aristotle proposed that things in motion slow down because they "become tired." Things have gravity because "they long to be near earth" and levity because they "wish to be in the heavens" and this was the prevailing "scientific" thought for nearly 2,000 years. People thought comets were omens and the earth was flat. It took a long time for them to adapt their thinking.

 

[itfitzme]

What they didn't do is rant on and on about some nebulous "immortal spiritual energy".

"There is a vital agent diffused through everything in the earth, a mercurial spirit, extremely subtle and supremely volatile, which is dispersed through every space."

~ Sir Isaac Newton

And how did that work out for him? Now be,specific.. What was this " vital agent" in the end of all his deliberations? What did he describe? What single thing is so well known for?


Come on, you can do it... It's right there. Instead of proving god, he proved what?

 

[itfitzme]

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.

LMAO... Yes, and when they did speak, the same kind of muscle-headed morons we see here on this forum today, soundly rejected what they said. In Semmelweiss' case, they institutionalized him... though he was mad. They tried to run Pasteur out of France. Newton kept is work in alchemy such a guarded secret it was 200 years after his death before it was discovered. Humans don't generally adapt well to new ideas. We like to cling to the comfortable old ideas and reject new thinking as bizarre and kooky.

Aristotle proposed that things in motion slow down because they "become tired." Things have gravity because "they long to be near earth" and levity because they "wish to be in the heavens" and this was the prevailing "scientific" thought for nearly 2,000 years. People thought comets were omens and the earth was flat. It took a long time for cthem to adapt their thinking.

And that means what? That you still believe in omens and deities? Cuz you definately aren't Aristotle.

And that you were commited to a mental hospital doesn't equate to you being just like Semmelweiss.

And Newton isn't renowned for his success at turning lead into gold.

 

[Boss]

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.

You just can't give a straight answer to anything.

Is the energy that is in a mass, as described by the equation e=mc2, spiritual?
Yes or no.

I've told you that I don't know, it could be both physical AND spiritual at the same time. I'm sure you are a smart enough physicist to understand what "duality" means. YOU stated that energy is physical and that proves it isn't spiritual. I have asked you for evidence of this and you've not presented anything. Now, I thought you might be on the verge of a breakthrough... you've discovered that immortality does exist and is quantifiable. That's a HUGE step to accepting spiritual nature in my humble opinion. But now you seem to want to be running away from that. *shrugs*

 

[Boss]

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.

LMAO... Yes, and when they did speak, the same kind of muscle-headed morons we see here on this forum today, soundly rejected what they said. In Semmelweiss' case, they institutionalized him... though he was mad. They tried to run Pasteur out of France. Newton kept is work in alchemy such a guarded secret it was 200 years after his death before it was discovered. Humans don't generally adapt well to new ideas. We like to cling to the comfortable old ideas and reject new thinking as bizarre and kooky.

Aristotle proposed that things in motion slow down because they "become tired." Things have gravity because "they long to be near earth" and levity because they "wish to be in the heavens" and this was the prevailing "scientific" thought for nearly 2,000 years. People thought comets were omens and the earth was flat. It took a long time for cthem to adapt their thinking.

And that means what? That you still believe in omens and deities? Cuz you definately aren't Aristotle.

It means that you sitting here calling my ideas silly and absurd makes you human. Great ideas have been rejected all throughout history, it's not something new. Humans often believe whatever they believe and nothing can change their minds.

The definition of "Faith" is belief in something not in evidence. You've been given ample space and time to convey your evidence and you've simply failed to do so... resorting to name calling and personal insults instead.

 

[emilynghiem]

That's cuz you don't understand the of the scientific method and hypothesis testing.

And seem to have missed what I've said more than once. Failure to prove something doesn't exist is not proof that it might.

I would say it even stronger
even proving something doesn't exist could still be wrong and the thing could exist!
so of course failing to prove it doesn't exist, doesn't prove that it might after all,
if succeeding in a proof could still be wrong, and isn't guaranteed either

in other words I agree with you and do not expect us to be able to prove or disprove

what we are seeking here is agreeing or aligning what we believe in as true
INDEPENDENT of what can or can't be proven. what matters is if we agree on terms.
when we align our concepts and principles, no proof is needed because we are
sticking with things we already believe in and don't require proof to us.

we could still be wrong
but at least if we agree with each other what we're talking about
we can use those terms to communicate within the same frame of reference
we both agree to use

for example if you and i both agree to use the same binary number system,
or the same alphabet to stand for the same values, we don't need to prove
the numbers or letters exist or not. what matters is the values they represent
mean the same thing to both of us so we can communicate.

 

[emilynghiem]

What they didn't do is rant on and on about some nebulous "immortal spiritual energy".

"There is a vital agent diffused through everything in the earth, a mercurial spirit, extremely subtle and supremely volatile, which is dispersed through every space."

~ Sir Isaac Newton

And how did that work out for him? Now be,specific.. What was this " vital agent" in the end of all his deliberations? What did he describe? What single thing is so well known for?


Come on, you can do it... It's right there. Instead of proving god, he proved what?

how about life?
that the laws and energy in life
followed certain patterns?

 

[itfitzme]

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.
...
I'm still not seeing this evidence you have that energy isn't spiritual.

And there in lies the very point.

That you don't see any evidence isn't proof that it might. A lack of a sign isn't a sign.

"The spirutual" is just so much bullshit.

 

[emilynghiem]

LMAO... Yes, and when they did speak, the same kind of muscle-headed morons we see here on this forum today, soundly rejected what they said. In Semmelweiss' case, they institutionalized him... though he was mad. They tried to run Pasteur out of France. Newton kept is work in alchemy such a guarded secret it was 200 years after his death before it was discovered. Humans don't generally adapt well to new ideas. We like to cling to the comfortable old ideas and reject new thinking as bizarre and kooky.

Aristotle proposed that things in motion slow down because they "become tired." Things have gravity because "they long to be near earth" and levity because they "wish to be in the heavens" and this was the prevailing "scientific" thought for nearly 2,000 years. People thought comets were omens and the earth was flat. It took a long time for cthem to adapt their thinking.

And that means what? That you still believe in omens and deities? Cuz you definately aren't Aristotle.

It means that you sitting here calling my ideas silly and absurd makes you human. Great ideas have been rejected all throughout history, it's not something new. Humans often believe whatever they believe and nothing can change their minds.

The definition of "Faith" is belief in something not in evidence. You've been given ample space and time to convey your evidence and you've simply failed to do so... resorting to name calling and personal insults instead.

Hi [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] I happen to find your references to scientists and how their discoveries were treated, as inspiring. I'm glad I'm not the only one saying that.

Maybe you deserve some honor on the level of these scientists.
If you can follow up on the premise backed by Dr. Scott Peck
that the spiritual process of deliverance from demons could be scientifically
studied and quantified as a valid form of diagnosis and treatment,
you could be the next doctor to get laughed at until you win your Nobel.

what a dual honor! If you want me to send you his book, where
he first thought these demons were not real but mental delusions
then changed his mind, but as a scientist he acknowledged the spiritual
experiences could not be proven, only the observable changes in the
minds and behavior in the patients from incureable schizophrenia
to normal working mindsets. please PM me. I am happy to work with
you to get grants to replicate and pursue formal medical research studies.

I do believe this is Nobel level work to bridge the gap between science and religion.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

You just can't give a straight answer to anything.

Is the energy that is in a mass, as described by the equation e=mc2, spiritual?
Yes or no.

I've told you that I don't know, it could be both physical AND spiritual at the same time. I'm sure you are a smart enough physicist to understand what "duality" means. YOU stated that energy is physical and that proves it isn't spiritual. I have asked you for evidence of this and you've not presented anything. Now, I thought you might be on the verge of a breakthrough... you've discovered that immortality does exist and is quantifiable. That's a HUGE step to accepting spiritual nature in my humble opinion. But now you seem to want to be running away from that. *shrugs*

Actually I told you the foremost expert on spirituality in the universe said that the spiritual is NOT physical.
Is that wrong?
How can the spiritual NOT be physical if energy is spiritual AND physical at the same time?

 

[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.
...
I'm still not seeing this evidence you have that energy isn't spiritual.

And there in lies the very point.

That you don't see any evidence isn't proof that it might. A lack of a sign isn't a sign.

"The spirutual" is just so much bullshit.

You are both right. lack of proof isn't proof of the opposite, for either side.
it remains neither proven nor disproven.
even if it was proven, either way, it could still be wrong
and the opposite could be true. big fat deal.

next?

 

[emilynghiem]

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

[MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] yes because if he didn't laugh he would cry. and the world would flood all over again....

 

[itfitzme]

"There is a vital agent diffused through everything in the earth, a mercurial spirit, extremely subtle and supremely volatile, which is dispersed through every space."

~ Sir Isaac Newton

And how did that work out for him? Now be,specific.. What was this " vital agent" in the end of all his deliberations? What did he describe? Whatv single thing is so well known for?


Come on, you can do it... It's right there. Instead of proving god, he proved what?

how about life?
that the laws and energy in life
followed certain patterns?

Gravity. He went looking for and found gravity.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

You just can't give a straight answer to anything.

Is the energy that is in a mass, as described by the equation e=mc2, spiritual?
Yes or no.

Hi [MENTION=13101]edthecynic[/MENTION]
if you CALL all life or energy in the universe spiritual
then by definition it is spiritual

it depends what level you are calling spiritual
* some people I know call all things spiritual so they would say yes
* some people I know call nothing spiritual so they would say no

question for you:
what do you call the experience where a mother
feels her son is drowning and screaming for her in the middle of the night
as if he is in the same room but she can't see him only feel his torment dying

and later she finds out he was murdered by drowning that night

would you call that just mental energy or physical
or would you call that a spiritual experience connecting people
beyond the physical present perception and empirical environment

this experience happened to a woman I know
she was very close to her son and felt when he was dying in the most traumatic way

another friend of mine and her son both had an out of body dreamlike experience
and talked to each other, arguing that she could not die but needed to live

she found out later, years after the experience, that he remembered also
each thought they had dreamed it by themselves
they both found out the other dreamed the same thing at the same time

what do you call that type of experience
is it just psychological and chemical reactions in the brain
or is there a collective level of consciousness
joining people beyond physical time and space
it's still energy but is it physical or is transcending time/space considered spiritual or collective

 

[emilynghiem]

And how did that work out for him? Now be,specific.. What was this " vital agent" in the end of all his deliberations? What did he describe? Whatv single thing is so well known for?


Come on, you can do it... It's right there. Instead of proving god, he proved what?

how about life?
that the laws and energy in life
followed certain patterns?

Gravity. He went looking for and found gravity.

OK
so he didn't prove or disprove God.
he identified this thing called gravity

can we do the same with anything important about God/Jesus etc
just find practical things like gravity we can agree work for good
and use those laws/forces/process for good

even if we can't agree or can't prove what created the forces or laws of gravity,
do we need to agree or prove it in order to use it?
no, it is not necessary to prove what created the laws of gravity and how the forces work

so why not take the same rational approach to religion?

since negative remarks were made mocking Boss when he was trying to make historic points about science,
why not do the opposite and try to achieve something equally historic for science sake. I propose the cynics and skeptics here join with Boss and me
to take on the challenge in Scott Peck's book, where he urged the medical professionals
to pursue formal research into demonic sickness and deliverance methods of diagnosis and treatment. we can take something from religion and prove it scientifically.

we don't have to prove what caused or created the demonic voices or delusions in the minds of the patients to prove they are sick or they are cured. we can still show the process works to diagnosis stages of sickness and of healing and recovery. what say we try to win a Nobel or Templeton prize and show that neither science nor religion is dead nor do they need to be divided but can both described the same process that follows quantifiable patterns. how about it?