How did the Universe get here?

[itfitzme]

No operational definition of "spiritual"?

I certainly provided enough question to start with.

No operational definition means it doesn't exist.

 

[emilynghiem]

In light of eddy's theory that energy can't be created or destroyed

As any grammar school student in an Earth science class knows, that is not my theory, in fact it is not a theory at all. It is a LAW of science, specifically the First Law of Thermodynamics. Even someone with an almighty BS in Psych should be expected to know that!

A LAW of physical science which applies to an existing physical universe. Not to something that doesn't yet exist and hasn't been created. If energy and gravity existed before the physical universe and dimensions of physical reality, then they are spiritual.

Hi Boss
1. I believe the whole process can be physical and spiritual.
the part I think we can define to be physical that no one will disagree with
is the here and now empirically experienced, and the rest can be argued as spiritual or based on faith-based memory and perception beyond what is immediately empirical
but some people may still call that something else, not spiritual, but abstract or collective or something else beyond individual empirical experience

2. it seems you and I both agree it is a matter of "terminology"
and I would like to address that and see how to align our terms

can we agree that spiritual is what you call any truth or knowledge or connection
beyond the immediate/empirical level (called physical or individual)
and known through the perceptional/psychological/mental level of conscience
where we can share perceptions/laws by conscience in relations with others.

what would you call these three levels
spiritual collective
mental psychological
individual physical

3. now when you bring up that you do not trust other people to be interested enough to open up on the idea of spiritual for level 3 or collective,
what are people willing to substitute for that level that serves a similar purpose

if you and others can agree to open up and allow for differences
in what are absolutes for us, but not for others, we can still map out
what levels we are talking about, and work around differences.

then once we agree where our limits are
we can still discuss these same points and correct misinformation
and not have to judge each other for areas that we don't change

are you okay with letting go of the insistence on others recognizing spirituality
if that is not what they call the global collective level beyond what is empirical
and which we depends on laws or agreements by conscience to establish truth about

if so, others will likely respond by letting go of their conditions

dns already has to put up with all of us talking about things that are not proven
and all of this is relative to our own knowledge and preferences of what has been proven

do you see how each person is going to have some points liek this
so if we want others to be open to change or accommodate us
that is where we may need to open up first to make it work.

to make room for change, it has to be mutual give and take
thanks [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]

 

[BreezeWood]

Not according to this

(it) can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

this has occurred previously to no avail ...

Boss provides no religion in support of his "spirituality", but a fundamentalists, scripuralist vision of supremacy for humanity at the exclusion of all other living beings that is antithetical and for the same reason for his "God" as others to not exist.

meditation in vein is a waste of time.

In light of eddy's theory that energy can't be created or destroyed (immortal), perhaps energy is God? If that is so, maybe I am wrong and God can be measured physically? Perhaps we've been doing it for years and just haven't realized it? Or maybe God has "duality" and can both exist physically and spiritually at the same time?

I am really just suggesting ideas, which is a far cry from what you are doing. Repeatedly, we see these mystic and cryptic posts from you talking about "Everlasting" but never revealing what kind of wacky religion you adhere to but rejecting any and all connotations of God that have been presented. Hinduist? Buhdist? We don't know, you never do say. For whatever reason, you don't want to disclose that information and seem to be content with popping in to bash anyone who dares to challenge an atheistic view.

Or maybe God has "duality" and can both exist physically and spiritually at the same time?


- if no response to your posts is an indication for the above, the response has been warranted.


its hard to fathom a Deity that (supposedly) created the Universe that could not create for theirself a physical presence - ????

* an individual does not exist physically and Spiritually at the same Time - which are you ?


I have stated previously, a Spirits role is Admission to the Everlasting where hopefully the (Deity) in charge - at least is similar to the Spirit that accomplishes the mission.

.

 

[Boss]

Whenever Boss states the position of others, he always misstates it to create a Straw Man he can argue against.

Science does not argue that it has proven that God does not exist, the closest they have come is the assertion that it is not NECESSARY for a God or two or three to exist.

Science can't determine if God is or isn't necessary. Science can't evaluate God. It's an assertion made by people who seek to pervert science for their own agenda. Science doesn't delve into the theological or spiritual.

Now, I am well aware science doesn't argue it has proven God doesn't exist, but you can find two posts in this thread alone by itfitzme claiming exactly that. Where are you when those outrageous claims are made? Why aren't you jumping in to correct the error? You're silent because he's "on your side" in the disbelieving of God. You let that slide because it helps promote the agenda.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/9347627-post451.html

itfitzme: 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.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/9348560-post501.html

itfitzme: Utter failure to prove god exist, over a period of 400+ years is proof that god doesn't exist.

Now that is just the two instances where the claim has outright been made that science has disproved God. There are COUNTLESS times where this is inferred by default by claiming science can support all kinds of wild-ass theories (which it can't support) and dismissing anything that spiritual evidence may have to offer.

I have no problem with "we don't know" and a real problem with "we may not know, but yeah, we kinda do!"

 

[dnsmith35]

Of course you, AKA Don Quixote, haven't established that there is any "decline of humanity" in the first place.

The only thing that remains the same is change. Change happens. When an individual doesn't like the change, it's "the decline of humanity". That opinion and $4 will get you a tasty beverage at Starbuck$.

Opinion, opinion, opinion.

"Proof" does not occur when an opinion is popular. Never has / Never will

Too bad the "boss" has defined his "purpose" for being here as being based upon nothing but his opinion.

Oh well, there is always for us normal average folks!

Yet all you have done is express it opinion under the guise of being scientific proof. Bah Humbug!

 

[Boss]

(it) can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

this has occurred previously to no avail ...

Boss provides no religion in support of his "spirituality", but a fundamentalists, scripuralist vision of supremacy for humanity at the exclusion of all other living beings that is antithetical and for the same reason for his "God" as others to not exist.

meditation in vein is a waste of time.

In light of eddy's theory that energy can't be created or destroyed (immortal), perhaps energy is God? If that is so, maybe I am wrong and God can be measured physically? Perhaps we've been doing it for years and just haven't realized it? Or maybe God has "duality" and can both exist physically and spiritually at the same time?

I am really just suggesting ideas, which is a far cry from what you are doing. Repeatedly, we see these mystic and cryptic posts from you talking about "Everlasting" but never revealing what kind of wacky religion you adhere to but rejecting any and all connotations of God that have been presented. Hinduist? Buhdist? We don't know, you never do say. For whatever reason, you don't want to disclose that information and seem to be content with popping in to bash anyone who dares to challenge an atheistic view.

Or maybe God has "duality" and can both exist physically and spiritually at the same time?


- if no response to your posts is an indication for the above, the response has been warranted.


its hard to fathom a Deity that (supposedly) created the Universe that could not create for theirself a physical presence - ????

* an individual does not exist physically and Spiritually at the same Time - which are you ?

I have stated previously, a Spirits role is Admission to the Everlasting where hopefully the (Deity) in charge - at least is similar to the Spirit that accomplishes the mission.

.

Why do you think an individual does not exist physically and spiritually at the same time? Where was this established as a fact? Who says a "deity" must exist for there to be a creator or intelligent designer? Why does spiritual nature require a "deity" or godhead? If there IS a deity, who says it hasn't created a physical incarnation of itself? Even if there isn't a deity, who says spiritual nature hasn't created a physical incarnation of itself?

You seem to be making many assumptions before running to your usual mystic revelations about Spirits and Admission to The Everlasting. And still, without any specific mention of your personal beliefs on spirituality.

 

[dnsmith35]

No operational definition of "spiritual"?

I certainly provided enough question to start with.

No operational definition means it doesn't exist.

Nope! That is as ridiculous as saying if an event can't be proved it proves the opposite. I can't prove the my imagination is more prolific than yours. It does not prove it is not. No proof is just what it says, no proof, either way, yea or nay!

 

[dnsmith35]

Whenever Boss states the position of others, he always misstates it to create a Straw Man he can argue against.

Science does not argue that it has proven that God does not exist, the closest they have come is the assertion that it is not NECESSARY for a God or two or three to exist.

Science can't determine if God is or isn't necessary. Science can't evaluate God. It's an assertion made by people who seek to pervert science for their own agenda. Science doesn't delve into the theological or spiritual.

Now, I am well aware science doesn't argue it has proven God doesn't exist, but you can find two posts in this thread alone by itfitzme claiming exactly that. Where are you when those outrageous claims are made? Why aren't you jumping in to correct the error? You're silent because he's "on your side" in the disbelieving of God. You let that slide because it helps promote the agenda.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/9347627-post451.html

itfitzme: 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.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/9348560-post501.html

itfitzme: Utter failure to prove god exist, over a period of 400+ years is proof that god doesn't exist.

Now that is just the two instances where the claim has outright been made that science has disproved God. There are COUNTLESS times where this is inferred by default by claiming science can support all kinds of wild-ass theories (which it can't support) and dismissing anything that spiritual evidence may have to offer.

I have no problem with "we don't know" and a real problem with "we may not know, but yeah, we kinda do!"

The null hypothesis of the subject would be, "God does not exist." Unfortunately or fortunately as the situation may be, his "study" does not have any statistically significance to conclude the null hypothesis is valid. He only has guess work....IE his OPINION, which is no more valid than anyone else's opinion either pro or con on the subject.

 

[emilynghiem]

No operational definition of "spiritual"?

I certainly provided enough question to start with.

No operational definition means it doesn't exist.

Hi itfitzme
instead of starting with what Boss already calls spiritual
what do you consider the collective level of truth or abstract concepts
beyond our present empirical experiences?

I offered a very loose distinction between
* individual level of physical/empirical experiences in life
* psychological or levels of perceptions of laws explaining the
connection or relations between individual knowledge and collective
* collective level of all human experiences, or all truth/laws/events in the
world/universe combined

this is very general

do you have your own terms or distinctions for these three levels?
thanks itfitzme!

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Now, I am well aware science doesn't argue it has proven God doesn't exist, but you can find two posts in this thread alone by itfitzme claiming exactly that. Where are you when those outrageous claims are made? Why aren't you jumping in to correct the error? You're silent because he's "on your side" in the disbelieving of God. You let that slide because it helps promote the agenda.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/9348560-post501.html

itfitzme: Utter failure to prove god exist, over a period of 400+ years is proof that god doesn't exist.

2. Now that is just the two instances where the claim has outright been made that science has disproved God. There are COUNTLESS times where this is inferred by default by claiming science can support all kinds of wild-ass theories (which it can't support) and dismissing anything that spiritual evidence may have to offer.

I have no problem with "we don't know" and a real problem with "we may not know, but yeah, we kinda do!"

Hi [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]
1. If we all agree to drop imperfect statements we don't agree with, this is already considered itfitzme's statement and not something to be proven or disproven by others.
people could say the same of you, that your statement unless it's proven that energy is not spiritual, how can you say it isn't, etc.
and dns has make a blanket complaint that all our statements are subject to "not proven/nobody knows" as a disclaimer on all that we are saying anyway. it's all relative and opinion from our own perspective.

if we stick to where we agree, that's faster and fewer points than disproving or proving all the other points we already don't agree on so let those go.

2. I am trying to find out what itfitzme was really trying to say.
it is clearly not perfect logic to say just because no one's ever proven god's existence, then it cannot exist. that is not perfect logic, and it is also more sensible to say god can never be proven anyway so this is an impossible condition to meet. so that cannot be relevant.

if all itfitzme is saying is "this has no meaning in my world" then that is what is meant.
itfitzme said it again "if there is no definition of spiritual it does not exist"
so I am interpreting the real meaning as this does not exist for me, and it's a dead end.

so I asked itfitzme to start from a relative perspective of what does have labels and meanings. and then try to match that system up with yours, Boss, and mine.
if your system didn't work for itfitzme, and mine is too vague and relative, let's start with itfitzme and then line ours up by the common denominators.

let's try that, shall we, and see if we can align whatever you call spiritual
or I call collective. in comparison/relation/contrast to the opposite extreme or the individual/physical level of life or perception/existence.

then we can talk about what do we call the intermediary level we use to describe relations between the other two levels. everyone calls this slightly different terms and divides the spectrum in different thresholds.

you also called spiritual something beyond the physical. because this is abstract
different people will draw the line different places and use different terms.

but it usually follows a similar enough pattern to draw the parallels and work with that framework. it does not have to be perfect.

3.

The null hypothesis of the subject would be, "God does not exist." Unfortunately or fortunately as the situation may be, his "study" does not have any statistically significance to conclude the null hypothesis is valid. He only has guess work....IE his OPINION, which is no more valid than anyone else's opinion either pro or con on the subject.

3. yes, agreed it is each of our own opinions, and we don't know the whole truth as we are not ominiscient but biased, flawed and limited in scope.

what we can do is hear out each person's systems, and their conditions and limits on what is true/proven/valid to them as a given, and what they cannot relate to.
and just try to line up our opinions or perceptions as best we can.

as I said above, it is never perfect.
(when I tried lining up my three levels of constitutional laws with another political activist, we disagreed which level aligned with which, and we were talking about the same terms.
when I tried lining up my three interpretations of the trinity in christianity with another christian, she thought the level of christ/holyspirit was the opposite of how I interpreted them as the reverse.
but it was the same three terms, so we agreed we mean "about the same thing." and our differences indicate to us to "watch out" when we are going to come across backwards to each other,
like having an accent that doesn't translate into the other person's system, and just work around that minor glitch between us when it comes up)

my basic premise is human nature is body/mind/spirit
and we each project these three levels onto how we perceive and express things in the world
so we have individual level, collective level, and some intermediary level joining the two describing laws or relations

so with civil laws or religions it is about the individual will, the collective authority, and the level of law or conscience binding the two

with psychology it is id ego and superego

with buddhism it is buddha dharma sangha for one's knowledge or perfect awareness internally by nature, the spiritual/universal laws or teachings, and the collective order or community

with christianity it is god the collective level or source of all truth love life, christ the level of laws or conscience joining god and man by justice, and the holy spirit or human spirit of harmony joining all humanity as one body in peace (my friend who saw it differently put the body of christ as the physical level of people, and placed the holy spirit as the middle level joining man and god)

for secular humanists, my friend tom wayburn had his own personal philosophy of
respect for truth - I equated this with the collective knowledge of god/universe
respect for freedom - I equated this with christ or conscience by "free will"
respect for people/environment - I equated this with the physical level of existence on earth

so i assume each person has a unique way to express these three levels of interaction and relationships in life
between individual and collective levels but focuses on different things.

NOTE what is interesting to me about the secular minds of nontheists vs the religious minds of theists
people who believe in a god creating these things and man followed, see the spiritual collective of god/christ/holyspirit as existing first and man reflects this as body/mind/spirit
while people who believe man created god see it the other way around: that man being mind/body/spirit projected this onto every religion to create a trinity pattern
so they don't see it as one god inspired all these laws as given to man divinely
they see it as humans making up religions to describe the world projecting man's image on everything including god!

to find peace between these two why not agree to line up the terms regardless which direction they came about
even if people are projecting our own opinions onto things, why can't we align those opinions and communicate regardless
and if god does have one truth expressed in all these ways, we'll agree on that in the process whether there is such a god or plan for all these different ways

so we win either way by aligning the systems we use regardless of source or reason for invention

 

[emilynghiem]

No operational definition of "spiritual"?

I certainly provided enough question to start with.

No operational definition means it doesn't exist.

Nope! That is as ridiculous as saying if an event can't be proved it proves the opposite. I can't prove the my imagination is more prolific than yours. It does not prove it is not. No proof is just what it says, no proof, either way, yea or nay!

Yes [MENTION=33777]dnsmith35[/MENTION] and [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION]
I agree this is not correct logic to say this
my interpretation then is it doesn't exist in itfitzme's world
which does not require whatever this thing is that has not been defined.

I am okay dropping this issue with itfitzme as I get the point
I am okay with dnsmith point that none of this is proven or can be proven either way
it is all opinion, theory or what we each believe
I am okay starting with what each of us believes, what we call and define
distinct levels, and trying to align those as best we can, watching out for differences

we should not be here to trip each other up but to straighten out wrinkles
so we don't trip on those

thank you
please can you post your own systems
and then see if that can be aligned with what Boss was calling spiritual
or what I call collective abstract truth or collective humanity/society
that is beyond the immediate empirical experience or present time/space

clearly if you do not use the same terms Boss uses
I want to know what you do use for the equivalent levels
and how you make distinctions between these levels. thank you!

 

[Mr. H.]

The origins of the physical universe were not point-source but rather a coalescence or "condensation" of the non-physical into the physical.

The speed at which matter moves through the now-existent physical state of space is not a product of a singularity (big bang) but rather a homogeneous and spontaneous "ignition".

Over billions of years, it has been gravity that has accelerated matter.

The "why's and wherefores" are immaterial. What matters (pun intended) is where we are today and the manner in which we interact with each other. Here. And now.

 

[dnsmith35]

The one thing of which I am certain is, we on this thread all live in one world. The second thing we all know is, we don't agree. But in the final analysis, I am not here to placate anyone, just to point out the one fact that is obvious to all but the oblivious, THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN IOTA OF PHYSICAL PROOF AS TO WHETHER OR NOT GOD EXISTS.

 

[emilynghiem]

The one thing of which I am certain is, we on this thread all live in one world. The second thing we all know is, we don't agree. But in the final analysis, I am not here to placate anyone, just to point out the one fact that is obvious to all but the oblivious, THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN IOTA OF PHYSICAL PROOF AS TO WHETHER OR NOT GOD EXISTS.

To clarify I would say even though we don't agree we can align what we do believe as true.

I AGREE there has not been proof and also AGREE God can never be proven because of the scope. To prove there is one source of all the truth life and laws of the universe
is faith based and beyond man's finite perception which is going to be biased/limited.

That's why I ask us to focus on proving a consensus can be reached by aligning what we do call the same or similar concepts/principles in life, and using that as a framework.
Proving a consensus on meanings/concepts is NOT the same as trying to prove those things exist which we are both saying cannot be done.

No, we cannot prove this system of alignment "proves anything exist" that it seeks to represent.

but we can agree what things do have MEANING or relevance for each of us, then these are the laws/variables we use to define it, and they align as universally inclusive of all people participating that we could represent. and anything conflicting we agreed how to resolve those things so it does not introduce contradictions.

Since we can do that, but can never prove the actual things like God exist,
why not just prove the process of how consensus is reached and apply that system.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No operational definition of "spiritual"?

I certainly provided enough question to start with.

No operational definition means it doesn't exist.

It is impossible to have an operational definition of an unprovable subject. Only varying opinions of it, and the inevitable and dynamic popularity contests that surround such opinions.


Without empirical proof (repeatability and/or overwhelming evidence and documentation), there ain't no defining anything.

For example: Pictures, or it didn't happen! ​

 

[AVG-JOE]

The origins of the physical universe were not point-source but rather a coalescence or "condensation" of the non-physical into the physical.

The speed at which matter moves through the now-existent physical state of space is not a product of a singularity (big bang) but rather a homogeneous and spontaneous "ignition".

Over billions of years, it has been gravity that has accelerated matter.

The "why's and wherefores" are immaterial. What matters (pun intended) is where we are today and the manner in which we interact with each other. Here. And now.

​

 

[AVG-JOE]

The one thing of which I am certain is, we on this thread all live in one world. The second thing we all know is, we don't agree. But in the final analysis, I am not here to placate anyone, just to point out the one fact that is obvious to all but the oblivious, THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN IOTA OF PHYSICAL PROOF AS TO WHETHER OR NOT GOD EXISTS.

To clarify I would say even though we don't agree we can align what we do believe as true.

I AGREE there has not been proof and also AGREE God can never be proven because of the scope. To prove there is one source of all the truth life and laws of the universe
is faith based and beyond man's finite perception which is going to be biased/limited.

That's why I ask us to focus on proving a consensus can be reached by aligning what we do call the same or similar concepts/principles in life, and using that as a framework.
Proving a consensus on meanings/concepts is NOT the same as trying to prove those things exist which we are both saying cannot be done.

No, we cannot prove this system of alignment "proves anything exist" that it seeks to represent.

but we can agree what things do have MEANING or relevance for each of us, then these are the laws/variables we use to define it, and they align as universally inclusive of all people participating that we could represent. and anything conflicting we agreed how to resolve those things so it does not introduce contradictions.

Since we can do that, but can never prove the actual things like God exist,
why not just prove the process of how consensus is reached and apply that system.

There IS one way for proof of God to be found. One and only one...

God could prove Himself.​

I think I'd go with pillars of fire blocking a few abortion clinics and gay bars, but I'm probably more cynical than God.

Ass-U-Me-ing God IS, that is.

​

 

[Boss]

Hi @Boss
1. If we all agree to drop imperfect statements we don't agree with, this is already considered itfitzme's statement and not something to be proven or disproven by others.
people could say the same of you, that your statement unless it's proven that energy is not spiritual, how can you say it isn't, etc.
and dns has make a blanket complaint that all our statements are subject to "not proven/nobody knows" as a disclaimer on all that we are saying anyway. it's all relative and opinion from our own perspective.

if we stick to where we agree, that's faster and fewer points than disproving or proving all the other points we already don't agree on so let those go.

So your idea is for us to abandon our positions on this because we can't prove them empirically, but at the same time, accept ifitzme's position because we can't disprove it? And by doing this, we are going to somehow reach a universal consensus? No... what that is called is conceding your argument and accepting an idiotic point for the sake of getting along. I'm not interested in that. Good luck to you, if that is the strategy you want to try.

2. I am trying to find out what itfitzme was really trying to say.

Well let me help you out with that. He is trying to say that science has disproved God. He sees 400+ years of physical science not being able to examine, evaluate or falsify that which is spiritual, as empirical evidence the spiritual doesn't exist. You want to accept that premise so we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya. Again... Good luck, I am not interested in such a strategy.

 

[Boss]

There IS one way for proof of God to be found. One and only one...
God could prove Himself.

I think I'd go with pillars of fire blocking all of the abortion clinics and gay bars, but I'm probably more cynical than God. Ass-U-Me-ing God IS, that is.

Yes, you are cynical. I think energy and gravity should reveal themselves to us and let us know they are not spiritually inspired. They could start by not being immortal, by being creatable and destroyable... like other physical things. Why can't they just do that and then we could put this whole argument to rest?

I mean... If gravity is SO great, why does it have to kill so many innocent people. They fall off a building or ladder, and gravity just kills them for no reason. It should be like a giant marshmallow, when they hit the ground it could change it's characteristics to break the fall! And energy, it mercilessly kills people too! Electricity, for instance, should be more benevolent and caring, give us a little warning before it unleashes it's power on an unsuspecting individual. We should be able to stick our tongue in a light socket and maybe get a really sour taste or bitter... yeah, bitter would be best... then we'd know it was present and wouldn't die trying to taste it!

So here is what I propose... I will have a talk with God about proving Himself to you, and you have a talk with energy and gravity! Maybe we can even get emily involved as a mediator? Together, we can all be happy in a perfect little world!!

 

[AVG-JOE]

​