How did the Universe get here?

[dnsmith35]

None of the above assertions prove there is a God, and none of the above assertions prove there is NO GOD! This whole discussion proves only that some people believe in God and others don't. It is totally ridiculous to argue for or against an issue which cannot be proved.

The argument has been adequately ridiculed.

 

[edthecynic]

In fact, much of what you consider to be physical is spiritually manifested. Like energy and gravity.

You are way off base there, they are purely physical and can be measured physically.

Remember:

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

Yes, God can't be measured physically. Only physical things can be measured physically. That doesn't mean that physical things can ONLY be measured physically. Spiritual created physical, it is manifest in everything physical by that aspect alone. Your son is not you. However, your son couldn't exist without you and you are a part of your son. You are not your son, never will be. This doesn't change the fact your son couldn't exist without you and part of you is in your son.

There you go again spinning up a Straw Man. We are not talking about physical things being measured spiritually, even though that is questionable in spite of your pontification.

You said if the spiritual could be measured physically it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

Music is spiritual. The music business is not.
- Van Morrison

 

[Boss]

None of the above assertions prove there is a God, and none of the above assertions prove there is NO GOD! This whole discussion proves only that some people believe in God and others don't. It is totally ridiculous to argue for or against an issue which cannot be proved.

The argument has been adequately ridiculed.

And yet, the argument rages on. Hundreds of pages on this board alone, thousands of posts, tens of thousands of views. It is probably the single most argued question in the history of man. I really don't understand what pointing out that neither side can "prove" their case is supposed to do. If either side had definitive proof, there would be no debate.

In that regard, the best approach to this that I've seen is emily's. We should agree to disagree on "God" and focus on areas we can find common agreement for the betterment of humanity.... but no one wants to do that. There is no thrill involved.

I was thinking about this the other day, I don't know how many here were around back in the 70s when the CB radio craze hit. For several years, everyone was into CB radio. Some people spent untold thousands for state-of-the-art rigs, massive power boosters and antennas, dedicated rooms of their houses, etc. CB allowed people to get to know one another in a quasi-anonymous manner. As on the internet, CB radio sometimes encouraged the worst characteristics of anonymity. It ultimately became a victim of it's own popularity. You couldn't turn it on without hearing some idiot drunk guy giving his profound opinion on something. After a while, people just got tired of the same old crap every day.

I wonder if that's where this will eventually lead? We'll remember back to the days we used to argue nonsense all day on the Internet. Spending all our time yammering our opinions back and forth at each other like a bunch of fools, never accomplishing anything in the process. We are strange ******* creatures.

 

[Boss]

You said if the spiritual could be measured physically it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

Well okay... THINK about that for a hot second. What is meant by "spiritual" and what is meant by "physical" in common parlance? If something is thought to be "spiritual" and we found some way to "physically" explain it, would it still be "spiritual" after that? Or would we say that it used to be thought of as spiritual but now it's physical because it was explained by physics?

It's the nature of the words and how we use them to define "spiritual" versus "physical" that is the issue. And that is the point I am making with the quote you are now taking way out of context. We may very well have defined things as "physical" that are indeed spiritual nature at work... like gravity and energy for example. How would we know? We presume something is physical when we can physically explain it. Does that mean it can't possibly be spiritual? Or maybe it can be both? Is there some law written somewhere that says it can't be?

I believe the spiritual created the physical, so in essence, everything has a spiritual component. That does not mean all things spiritual are physical.

 

[Montrovant]

You said if the spiritual could be measured physically it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

Well okay... THINK about that for a hot second. What is meant by "spiritual" and what is meant by "physical" in common parlance? If something is thought to be "spiritual" and we found some way to "physically" explain it, would it still be "spiritual" after that? Or would we say that it used to be thought of as spiritual but now it's physical because it was explained by physics?

It's the nature of the words and how we use them to define "spiritual" versus "physical" that is the issue. And that is the point I am making with the quote you are now taking way out of context. We may very well have defined things as "physical" that are indeed spiritual nature at work... like gravity and energy for example. How would we know? We presume something is physical when we can physically explain it. Does that mean it can't possibly be spiritual? Or maybe it can be both? Is there some law written somewhere that says it can't be?

I believe the spiritual created the physical, so in essence, everything has a spiritual component. That does not mean all things spiritual are physical.

Do you not see the contradictions in your statements? You say if something can be measured physically, it can't be spiritual. Then you say that energy may be spiritual. Are you trying to say energy cannot be measured?

 

[Montrovant]

So we see, that yes, you use logic in your arguments. It's just circular logic, which you have no problem with and think is somehow valid in a discussion.

Yes, billions of people have believed in something spiritual.

No, they have practiced spirituality. They believe in something beyond the physical that is greater than self. Call it whatever kind of logic you please, if you can't accept something exists you can't accept evidence for it.

Of course, those same billions have believed in something different from you, and most would likely scoff at your explanations of the spiritual. It's convenient that you can both dismiss or denigrate their beliefs as misguided at the same time you try to use those beliefs as evidence of your own.

They didn't believe in something different, they believed in the same something greater than self, beyond the physical. They have had different incarnations and connotations of that thing, because humans have imagination. The fact there is no universal definition of a car doesn't mean automobiles don't exist. There are Fords, Chevys, Toyotas.... none of them are exactly the same. It is not "convenient" that I can say they are all cars.



What the hell? What do you mean I can't decide? They certainly do interact and effect each other. We're physical beings practicing spirituality! Spiritual created Physical! Some things can be both physical and spiritual at the same time, like light can be both a particle and wave and an electron can be in two places at once.



Well how else would you define spiritual? Metaphysical? Okay, we can go with that if it makes you feel any better. Humans make a connection to the metaphysical. Happy?

You talk about spiritual evidence being something other than physical evidence, then use physical examples as evidence of the spiritual.

That's because spiritual created physical. Everything physical is spiritually created.

As per usual, your evidence and explanations boil down to 'because I say so'.

I've never said anything was "because I say so" Duhla! I've backed up every argument I've made with examples, historical data, archeological evidence, reason and logic. You continue to shoot down all of my arguments with what amounts to "because I say not!"

So billions of people have practiced spirituality but have not believed in something spiritual? Again, we see your lack of definition. What is the spiritual? If it's the non-physical, and most religions consider god(s) to not be physical, wouldn't that mean billions of people have believed in something spiritual?

You don't simply believe in something greater than self. You have particulars about that something. You don't believe it to be the gods of any organized religions. You think it behaves a certain way, it connects with you, etc. etc. Are you telling me you think all the Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc. of the world would agree with the things you believe? Do you think they would all accept your analogy that their beliefs are just a model of car, but it's all a car?

If the physical and spiritual interact and affect each other, why do you say that the spiritual cannot be measured with the physical? Why couldn't it be measured by its effect on the physical?

How would I define the spiritual? I wouldn't try to define what you believe in, since you keep it so unclear and sometimes contradictory. Sure, in very general terms, you can say it is non-physical forces that people believe exist. However, when you start discussing specifics, a more detailed definition(s) becomes important. This is particularly true when you talk about something that cannot be directly observed.

Here's another definition problem. What, precisely, do you mean by 'spiritual evidence'? Are you talking about evidence made up of the spiritual, or evidence of the spiritual? Can something physical be spiritual evidence if it shows an effect of the spiritual on the physical world? You talk about physical evidence and spiritual evidence as though they are completely different things.

Do you understand the phrase 'boils down to'? It doesn't mean I'm giving a direct quote. You've backed things up with flimsy evidence and data, at best, and often used circular logic (you have to believe in something before you accept evidence for it). Perhaps you don't yet understand, after all this time, that I haven't been arguing against your premise so much as the nature of the evidence you provide for that premise. You may well be right about spirituality. I don't think so, but maybe you are. Even if you are, though, most of your arguments in favor of your particular beliefs have been far from the convincing, unassailable positions you make them out to be.

 

[Boss]

You said if the spiritual could be measured physically it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

Well okay... THINK about that for a hot second. What is meant by "spiritual" and what is meant by "physical" in common parlance? If something is thought to be "spiritual" and we found some way to "physically" explain it, would it still be "spiritual" after that? Or would we say that it used to be thought of as spiritual but now it's physical because it was explained by physics?

It's the nature of the words and how we use them to define "spiritual" versus "physical" that is the issue. And that is the point I am making with the quote you are now taking way out of context. We may very well have defined things as "physical" that are indeed spiritual nature at work... like gravity and energy for example. How would we know? We presume something is physical when we can physically explain it. Does that mean it can't possibly be spiritual? Or maybe it can be both? Is there some law written somewhere that says it can't be?

I believe the spiritual created the physical, so in essence, everything has a spiritual component. That does not mean all things spiritual are physical.

Do you not see the contradictions in your statements? You say if something can be measured physically, it can't be spiritual. Then you say that energy may be spiritual. Are you trying to say energy cannot be measured?

Again. Read my explanation and THINK about it for a moment before you respond. I did not say "If something can be measured physically it CAN'T be spiritual." IF you somehow misinterpreted what I said, I apologize... maybe I stated it incorrectly! That is not what I meant. If something can be measured physically, we no longer define it as "spiritual" because there is a physical explanation. It becomes known as physical and not spiritual. You can't prove spiritual things physically without them becoming understood as physical. That doesn't mean they aren't spiritual or CAN'T be spiritual.

You spend an amazing amount of time trying to argue semantics here. I don't understand it. Are you really this obtuse? Does life suck so bad for you that this is the only way you can find satisfaction? It's really kind of pathetic if you ask me. You know what I mean, I've clarified it several times. Still, you want to pretend that you've cornered me and somehow relegated everything I've ever said as irrelevant because you took something out of context. All you are doing is being extremely annoying.

 

[Boss]

So billions of people have practiced spirituality but have not believed in something spiritual?

Where the **** did you spin this up from what I've said????

 

[edthecynic]

Well okay... THINK about that for a hot second. What is meant by "spiritual" and what is meant by "physical" in common parlance? If something is thought to be "spiritual" and we found some way to "physically" explain it, would it still be "spiritual" after that? Or would we say that it used to be thought of as spiritual but now it's physical because it was explained by physics?

It's the nature of the words and how we use them to define "spiritual" versus "physical" that is the issue. And that is the point I am making with the quote you are now taking way out of context. We may very well have defined things as "physical" that are indeed spiritual nature at work... like gravity and energy for example. How would we know? We presume something is physical when we can physically explain it. Does that mean it can't possibly be spiritual? Or maybe it can be both? Is there some law written somewhere that says it can't be?

I believe the spiritual created the physical, so in essence, everything has a spiritual component. That does not mean all things spiritual are physical.

Do you not see the contradictions in your statements? You say if something can be measured physically, it can't be spiritual. Then you say that energy may be spiritual. Are you trying to say energy cannot be measured?

Again. Read my explanation and THINK about it for a moment before you respond. I did not say "If something can be measured physically it CAN'T be spiritual." IF you somehow misinterpreted what I said, I apologize... maybe I stated it incorrectly! That is not what I meant. If something can be measured physically, we no longer define it as "spiritual" because there is a physical explanation. It becomes known as physical and not spiritual. You can't prove spiritual things physically without them becoming understood as physical. That doesn't mean they aren't spiritual or CAN'T be spiritual.

You spend an amazing amount of time trying to argue semantics here. I don't understand it. Are you really this obtuse? Does life suck so bad for you that this is the only way you can find satisfaction? It's really kind of pathetic if you ask me. You know what I mean, I've clarified it several times. Still, you want to pretend that you've cornered me and somehow relegated everything I've ever said as irrelevant because you took something out of context. All you are doing is being extremely annoying.

You said it "WOULDN"T" be spiritual, to be exact.

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

 

[Boss]

You said it "WOULDN"T" be spiritual, to be exact.

Again, I am going to repost this so it penetrates your thick head...

IF you somehow misinterpreted what I said, I apologize... maybe I stated it incorrectly! That is not what I meant. If something can be measured physically, we no longer define it as "spiritual" because there is a physical explanation. It becomes known as physical and not spiritual. You can't prove spiritual things physically without them becoming understood as physical. That doesn't mean they aren't spiritual or CAN'T be spiritual.

Pay close attention... IF you somehow misinterpreted what I said, I apologize... maybe I stated it incorrectly! That is not what I meant.

Have you got that? Do I need to repeat it again for you?

 

[Boss]

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

To expound further, just so you are completely clear on what was said... In the above quote, I am talking specifically about God. When I say "it can't be measured physically" it's not referring to all things spiritual, but specifically to God. What I am saying is, if God could be physically measured or quantified, God would no longer be considered spiritual in nature. God would henceforth be considered something physical that was physically provable by physical measurement.

So we see that what I said and what you claim I said are two entirely different things. You've taken what I said out of context, and you do this all the time, ed. It's a real problem in trying to communicate with you. It's difficult to make any kind of progress in dialogue when we have to stop every other post to rectify an error you've made in interpreting things I say. I don't understand your purpose in doing this, maybe you're too stupid to comprehend basic English. You seem like a bright enough guy, so I don't think that is the case. Is this some kind of debate strategy? Are you just so hungry for a win and desperate to prove me wrong on something that you must resort to this sort of thing? What's the deal?

 

[Mac1958]

How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?

And if you believe there are multiple universes, then how did the Multiverse get here?

We know the Universe wasn't always here, and will end sometime in the future.

How did everything begin, and what happens after the end?

I'm looking for an answer from those of you who say God definitely does not exist.

I have no idea.

I have no idea whether there is a God.

Seems kinda narcissistic for someone to think they're sure of any of it.

.

 

[sealybobo]

There is no "most primitive part" to our brain. Our entire brain has been with us the whole time. One part is not more primitive than another. There is no point at which we developed spirituality, and you've never demonstrated this. You continue to repeat absolute nonsensical garbage you've read at some atheist blog.

Boy how little you know.

What an amazing thing to be able to dig so deep into one’s own psyche that one can get to the core of the programming in the brain – beyond the programming in the ‘Modern Brain’ and into the primitive brain and the genetically implanted instinctual self.
We have put together a schematic diagram showing the central role of the Amygdala in producing instinctually-sourced emotional responses according to the work of LeDoux in investigating the pivotal role of the Primitive Brain in inducing fear.

These are not from my atheist sites. These are scientific.

This diagram forms the scientific neuro-biological basis of what it is we are doing on the wide and wondrous path to Actual Freedom. LeDoux empirically investigated the pivotal role of the amygdala in producing the feeling of fear, in particular the relationship between the thalamus (relay centre), the amygdala (feelings) and the neo-cortex (modern brain/thoughts).
The most significant of LeDoux’ experimentation with regard to fear is that the sensory input to the brain is split at the thalamus into two streams – one to the amygdala and one to the neo-cortex. The input stream to the amygdala is quicker – 12 milliseconds as opposed to 25 milliseconds to the neo-cortex. Less information goes to the amygdala quicker – it operates as a quick scan to check for danger.
Indeed LeDoux regards the amygdala as the alarm system, for bodily safety – hence the necessity for a quick scan and an almost instantaneous instinctive (thoughtless) response. This ‘quick and dirty processing pathway’ results not only in a direct automatic bodily response to either an actual or a perceived danger, but because the amygdala also has a direct connection to the neo-cortex – it causes us to emotionally experience the feeling of fear – i.e. we feel the feeling of fear a split-second later than the bodily reaction.

Not only is the primitive brain’s response ‘quick and dirty’, it is also very powerful in that it primes the whole body for action – which is precisely why instinctual reactions and the resulting instinctual passions are ultimately so hard to keep in control.

Now, these are things we all know well from personal experience as well as from observation of others but it is fascinating that scientific investigation of the ‘hardware’ of the human brain is now providing the biological evidence of how what is known as ‘human nature’ operates.

Schematics – Our Animal Instincts in the Primitive Brain

So they even know what part of your brain makes you so dumb and which part makes you so stubborn.

 

[sealybobo]

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

To expound further, just so you are completely clear on what was said... In the above quote, I am talking specifically about God. When I say "it can't be measured physically" it's not referring to all things spiritual, but specifically to God. What I am saying is, if God could be physically measured or quantified, God would no longer be considered spiritual in nature. God would henceforth be considered something physical that was physically provable by physical measurement.

So we see that what I said and what you claim I said are two entirely different things. You've taken what I said out of context, and you do this all the time, ed. It's a real problem in trying to communicate with you. It's difficult to make any kind of progress in dialogue when we have to stop every other post to rectify an error you've made in interpreting things I say. I don't understand your purpose in doing this, maybe you're too stupid to comprehend basic English. You seem like a bright enough guy, so I don't think that is the case. Is this some kind of debate strategy? Are you just so hungry for a win and desperate to prove me wrong on something that you must resort to this sort of thing? What's the deal?

No it can't be measured physically but your brain can which is where god comes from.

The sympathetic nervous system is in charge of our survival response. The part of our brain called the hypothalamus (which is a very primitive part of the brain) triggers our sympathetic nervous system to react when it perceives danger.

 

[sealybobo]

How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?

And if you believe there are multiple universes, then how did the Multiverse get here?

We know the Universe wasn't always here, and will end sometime in the future.

How did everything begin, and what happens after the end?

I'm looking for an answer from those of you who say God definitely does not exist.

I have no idea.

I have no idea whether there is a God.

Seems kinda narcissistic for someone to think they're sure of any of it.

.

True. The only thing I'm 100% sure of is that Muslims Jews and Christians are wrong.

 

[sealybobo]

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

To expound further, just so you are completely clear on what was said... In the above quote, I am talking specifically about God. When I say "it can't be measured physically" it's not referring to all things spiritual, but specifically to God. What I am saying is, if God could be physically measured or quantified, God would no longer be considered spiritual in nature. God would henceforth be considered something physical that was physically provable by physical measurement.

So we see that what I said and what you claim I said are two entirely different things. You've taken what I said out of context, and you do this all the time, ed. It's a real problem in trying to communicate with you. It's difficult to make any kind of progress in dialogue when we have to stop every other post to rectify an error you've made in interpreting things I say. I don't understand your purpose in doing this, maybe you're too stupid to comprehend basic English. You seem like a bright enough guy, so I don't think that is the case. Is this some kind of debate strategy? Are you just so hungry for a win and desperate to prove me wrong on something that you must resort to this sort of thing? What's the deal?

Pink unicorns fly all around me all day long. I can't prove it but you can't prove they are not. They aren't physical so they can't be measured/proven. You'll just have to take my word for it.

Why do I believe? Because of electricity and energy man. Smoke another one Boss. THat's deep.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ok [MENTION=49804]AtheistBuddah[/MENTION] you can try to scare me.

I've heard just about anything and everything at this point.
I am just as confident that anyone with any beliefs or no beliefs
can reconcile with anyone else, as long as people are willing to forgive differences
and try to work on points of agreement. Of course our views and language
will vary with our diverse perception and experiences.

Each person is unique and each relationship/communication between
two people is unique to them. If each person has their own religion,
then when you put any two people together, they form a third religion, so what?

I think that is fascinating! I think it is cool that enough people
share the same language to have an organized religion.

Do you believe in mind/body/spirit?
how about individual and collective, and what do you call the level of
laws/conscience/perception/psychology joining the individual to the collective level?

What do YOU naturally call these levels and how do YOU define the relationship?

I find the concepts and constructs follow the same pattern, whether theist or nontheist.
I just like to explore the different languages and learn different ways of expression.

What terms do you prefer?

I'm going to utter three words that for some reason scare the crap out of religious people when it comes to this question. We. Don't. Know. We just don't have enough information yet to put forth a solid, defensible, provable hypothesis for what set existence into motion. Science put forth the big bang theory but that still doesn't say what caused the big bang. That still isn't an answer to the question of our origin and the origin of space and time. But most people can't accept the "We don't know" answer. The unknown scares them. So does ceasing to exist. These fears couple with the compulsion to find patterns even when there are none and tell stories about them is why we have religion. We have a deep seeded need to come up with these grand stories, patterns and explanations about the universe and the simpler they are and the more warm and fuzzy they are the better. That's why the Abrahamic faiths triumphed over the Grecco/Latin faiths that really weren't that comforting in comparison. It comforts us to think that our consciousness is eternal and that despite how inhospitable the universe is there is an all powerful entity that has our back. Some of these human traits I mentioned are good and are the same traits that gave rise to science. Need to find answers to questions and to know the unknown so we can master it and not be afraid of it. However in some cases this need goes to far and when we can't find answer we make one up rather than accepting that, for the moment at least, we are stumped. Religion represents our baser need to feel safe and our arrogant feeling that we are special. We are not. We are animals like any other. Special only in the fact that we have the gift of conscious thought. A gift that also comes with a terrible burden (the fear of one day losing it)

I see Religions as diverse language for the laws.
Do you see these as only negative or fear based?

does it "scare" you that all Religions can be true and effective
means of expressing Universal laws? what's wrong with that?
why be afraid of foreign languages as if these divide people.
why not see them as ways of organizing people by tribe
like species of birds in the tree, all having their own songs.

Why this focus on fear? What are you most afraid of?

 

[emilynghiem]

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

To expound further, just so you are completely clear on what was said... In the above quote, I am talking specifically about God. When I say "it can't be measured physically" it's not referring to all things spiritual, but specifically to God. What I am saying is, if God could be physically measured or quantified, God would no longer be considered spiritual in nature. God would henceforth be considered something physical that was physically provable by physical measurement.

So we see that what I said and what you claim I said are two entirely different things. You've taken what I said out of context, and you do this all the time, ed. It's a real problem in trying to communicate with you. It's difficult to make any kind of progress in dialogue when we have to stop every other post to rectify an error you've made in interpreting things I say. I don't understand your purpose in doing this, maybe you're too stupid to comprehend basic English. You seem like a bright enough guy, so I don't think that is the case. Is this some kind of debate strategy? Are you just so hungry for a win and desperate to prove me wrong on something that you must resort to this sort of thing? What's the deal?

Pink unicorns fly all around me all day long. I can't prove it but you can't prove they are not. They aren't physical so they can't be measured/proven. You'll just have to take my word for it.

Why do I believe? Because of electricity and energy man. Smoke another one Boss. THat's deep.

We AGREE that Pink Unicorns don't exist and don't have relevant meaning.
THAT is the difference [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

The day we agree what God and Jesus mean, we won't demand proof either.

I don't demand proof of love from my friends.
I don't demand proof that when we said we dreamed something we did.

Once we know we mean the same thing, we no longer need proof.
We already know what we're talking about, so we focus on content and application
of principles, not proof of it because that's not necessary.

So when we reach agreement on religions, that is what it will be like.
It will be like what we naturally know and believe anyway
but our perceptions will change to see that we are not in conflict with others.
We still have our same differences, but we are talking about the same things.

 

[emilynghiem]

I find that they are right when they agree on truth that is correct.
And wrong when they interpret a false conclusion [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

They are no more right or wrong than you are on
depending on what is asked and how you answer!

True. The only thing I'm 100% sure of is that Muslims Jews and Christians are wrong.

If you want a good example of an honest wise Muslim
who answers as honestly as anyone else, no more and no less,
I recommend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston CAIR

If you want a good example of an honest Jew or Christian:
Peter Loth is very honest open and fair when he shares his understanding of
God's love and forgiveness with others. He survived the Holocaust camps,
including terrible sexual abuses and racial persecution afterwards,
and he still forgives and teaches other people to forgive to receive spiritual healing.

He and my friend Olivia and Irvin Reiner still consider themselves
Jewish although they all receive and believe in Christ and spiritual healing.

Olivia may make mistakes or misjudgments about business politics or law,
but when it comes to reading into people spiritually to see what they
need help to forgive and heal from, she is usually right on target.

You can call her if you don't believe me 713 829 0899
her number is posted publicly online for free healing prayer
http://www.spiritual-healing.us
She has helped my atheist and nonchristian friends pray for healing
through forgiveness, so this does not exclude people by beliefs.

Whatever you find wrong with other people's beliefs,
also applies to you and me as we are all human and none of
us is perfect in our wisdom or perception, and certainly not omniscient!

How can you judge others and criticize for how they judge?

 

[emilynghiem]

If you can't measure god physically then you have zero proof. It is amazing and baffling and we may never have all the answers but to call the energy "god" is just misleading.

1. YES AGREED, as dnsmith keeps pointing out, and I cited Goedel
by definition God is beyond the physical limits of man and cannot be proven
Next?

Obviously that is not the point, or we wouldn't still be trying to discuss things.
Obviously the point of discussion is something else

2. I disagree with [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] point, to some degree.

Of course we cannot fully contain or measure something spiritual.
That is like trying to contain "all the collective truth" in one religion
or set of laws. It can be represented but not fully contained LITERALLY.

But just because we CAN represent or capture or even measure
PART of a spiritual process physically
does NOT mean it loses its spiritual qualities.
That part is still in our interpretation.

3. For example, and this is where I disagree with sealybobo somewhat

I have no issue with documenting/measuring and comparing
physical data or statistics on spiritual healing as a medical or mental therapy process

And showing the effects and patterns of the process as called spiritual

such as starting as Scott Peck did, with schizophrenic patients suffering from
demonic voices and foreign personalities taking over their minds,
applying the deliverance healing methods, and documenting the changes stages and results

the patterns and stats on repeat studies can be measured and compared
the same people may still call it physical/chemical or mental in the mind.
and the same people will still call it spiritual

but at least we can prove the key message in religions
or key concepts about God/Jesus that the process of forgiveness,
and praying for deliverance in the authority of Christ to remove those demonic
manifestations DOES WORK to evoke the changes the healing and transformation

so yes, the chemical and mental/physical changes in the mind will occur
and can be measured and documented
and yes the physical conditions can change and be healed which
can be medically recorded and compared

but the same people who believe it is spiritual will still call it that
proving the process has a physical pattern that is natural
with science and medicine does not negate anything spiritual going on

if anything it would enforce these spiritual energies and patterns/process are true
and that science can measure at least their effects, before and after or during as well.