How did the Universe get here?

[Montrovant]

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????

I said, "Yes, billions of people have believed in something spiritual.".

You replied, "No, they have practiced spirituality.".

Is that somehow unclear? It's from your own post, post #659. I didn't have to 'spin' anything, it's right there in front of us.

Perhaps this is another example of you stating something incorrectly? You seem to do that a lot, then complain when your words, which often are quoted to you, are 'misinterpreted'. Maybe if you actually said what you mean.....

 

[Boss]

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?

I have not said that people don't believe in something spiritual because they practice spirituality. Apparently you have taken Eddy's course on how to be obtuse and take stuff out of context.

Billions of people have believed in something spiritual, billions have also practiced spirituality and believed in something greater than self. What ******* difference does this make, other than in a myopic semantics argument for the sake of being completely obtuse?

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?

You're right, I don't simply believe in something greater than self, I am spiritually aware of a presence greater than self which I connect with daily. I don't believe it conforms to any man-made incarnation of organized religion. I don't KNOW that it doesn't, it COULD... I just don't personally believe it. I'm not telling you ANYTHING about Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. I don't know whether or not they would agree or disagree with me or accept my analogies.

I simply presented the analogy to make a point to YOU, not to them. There may be people who drive Fords that think Chevys aren't real cars! I may read a statistic about 50,000 car crashes in the US and assume it only includes Fords, or even that it only includes cars and not trucks, when it actually means vehicles in total. The POINT... which you seem to have lost in your meandering rant over semantics, is that human spirituality encompasses a great many different beliefs or incarnations of Spiritual Nature. They are all universal in the human belief of something greater than self. They don't always include a "deity" or "godhead" ...Hindus and Buddhists for example.

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?

Again, you are reading what eddy claims I said that I didn't say. Perhaps THAT is why he does that shit? So that others are confused into believing falsehoods about what I've said. What I tried to explain was that things which are spiritual can't be measured with physics without them becoming, by definition, physical. I'm pretty sure we can both agree, if something can be measured and evaluated physically, it's indeed physical. And I hope that we agree, if something is physical, it's generally not considered spiritual. Now, could it be spiritually inspired or caused? Yep... in fact, everything physical is the creation of the spiritual. So something that is deemed "physical" can also be spiritual.

I've not argued about the EFFECTS of something spiritual on the physical. Naturally, if the spiritual CREATED the physical, it would seem to be logical that all things physical are EFFECTED by the spiritual which created them. Can we measure that or verify it with physical science? I don't think we can, at least not at this time. We may be able to detect physiology that is caused by human spirituality, but there is no way to confirm this. Science can't evaluate spiritual nature.... at least not presently.

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.

The only reason you or anyone needs a more detailed definition is so you can attack it and destroy it. It's much easier to destroy all the Fords in the world than to destroy all the cars. So if we can hone down the definition of "car" to a Ford, then the task is easier to destroy it. My arguments do not constrain themselves to specific incarnations created by man to try and comprehend his spiritual connection. The relevant thing is human spiritual connection, in whatever form it may take. It's a much stronger argument and one you don't know how to defeat.

Now, I am not sure what you mean by "directly observed" here... I directly observe that a spiritual connection is made daily to something greater than self. I know of Christians and others who 'directly observe' the power of God daily in their lives. What it appears you mean is, some kind of PHYSICAL observation of something that is admittedly NOT physical. Well, how can that EVER be resolved? You are asking for a type of verification that simply defies all logic and reason. It's like saying "I won't believe fish exist until I see one fly by my house!" As long as you are looking to the skies to find evidence of fish, you're never going to find them.

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.

Something can be physical yet spiritual at the same time. Music was given as an example of this. I would argue that energy and gravity qualify as well. We simply define things as physical when we can physically confirm them. It doesn't mean they lack a spiritual component. Everything, in a sense, is spiritual because it was all created by spiritual nature.

Physical observation is one tiny microscopic component, realized by humans through the existence of light. If light did not exist, I hardly doubt we could physically observe anything. Now, we can measure light, and we can confirm it physically exists. Not only does it exist, it exists as both a particle of matter and a wave of frequency at the same time. Think about this... Does "dark" exist? We realize "dark" in physical nature, but "dark" is simply the absence of light. We can't measure "dark" at all. Can you "observe" dark? Not really... you can only observe the absence of light. The same applies to heat and cold. We can measure heat, but "cold" is merely the absence of heat.

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.

Again we get into a philosophoical aspect here. You simply cannot accept something as "evidence" when you are unwilling to accept whatever the evidence is for as possible. It doesn't matter what that thing is, if you don't believe it's possible that it exists or can exist, then there is no such thing as "evidence" for it's existence from your perspective. I tried to illustrate this before with the question to you... Show me something that you absolutely believe is a complete impossibility, but you acknowledge there is evidence for? You never came up with any examples. You can't because it's not rational. You have to first have at least some inkling of the idea that something is possible before anything can be objectively accepted as evidence for it. If you believe it is impossible the world is flat, it doesn't matter what "evidence" I show you... it will immediately be dismissed as NON-evidence, because you KNOW the world is not flat. No "evidence" I can ever show you will be accepted as evidence.

This is not "circular reasoning" but simple basic logic. Why you want to persist in making it into something else is beyond me. I've never said my positions are unassailable, but you continue to try assailing them with superfluous nonsense and semantical nit picking.

 

[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????

I said, "Yes, billions of people have believed in something spiritual.".

You replied, "No, they have practiced spirituality.".

Is that somehow unclear? It's from your own post, post #659. I didn't have to 'spin' anything, it's right there in front of us.

Perhaps this is another example of you stating something incorrectly? You seem to do that a lot, then complain when your words, which often are quoted to you, are 'misinterpreted'. Maybe if you actually said what you mean.....

When I said "no" it was correcting you on your misquote of what I had said previously. Followed by the clarification of what I actually did say. It did not mean "no" you are wrong in your statement that people believe in something spiritual. It meant "no" that's not what I said, followed by a comma and then what I actually said. I suppose, in order to have a conversation with you, every ******* aspect of every ******* syllable I use needs to be explained exhaustively so there is no possible way that it can be twisted or morphed into something completely out of context in relation to the other surrounding words being used? Is that where we're at?

 

[Montrovant]

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

I said, "Yes, billions of people have believed in something spiritual.".

You replied, "No, they have practiced spirituality.".

Is that somehow unclear? It's from your own post, post #659. I didn't have to 'spin' anything, it's right there in front of us.

Perhaps this is another example of you stating something incorrectly? You seem to do that a lot, then complain when your words, which often are quoted to you, are 'misinterpreted'. Maybe if you actually said what you mean.....

When I said "no" it was correcting you on your misquote of what I had said previously. Followed by the clarification of what I actually did say. It did not mean "no" you are wrong in your statement that people believe in something spiritual. It meant "no" that's not what I said, followed by a comma and then what I actually said. I suppose, in order to have a conversation with you, every ******* aspect of every ******* syllable I use needs to be explained exhaustively so there is no possible way that it can be twisted or morphed into something completely out of context in relation to the other surrounding words being used? Is that where we're at?

You were correcting what misquote, exactly? Because there was no quote in my post at that point. Do I need to show it to you here? I said something, not quoting you, you responded with no, and you're now telling me the no was not in response to what I posted there?

And why the hell wouldn't you say something like, "No, that's not what I said." rather than just no? Am I supposed to guess what everything you are saying relates to, since it clearly isn't relating to whatever you may be quoting at the time?

You wouldn't have to explain 'every ******* aspect of every ******* syllable' you use if you would stop making so many unclear statements. On multiple occasions, in this and the god hater thread, you have said something, had it quoted verbatim to you, and then claimed it does not mean what it says. That's not due to me nit picking, or obsessing over minutia, or anything of the sort; it's you saying one thing and meaning something else. The more you do it, the more I wonder if it's a tactic rather than errors or poor wording.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

I have not said that people don't believe in something spiritual because they practice spirituality. Apparently you have taken Eddy's course on how to be obtuse and take stuff out of context.

Billions of people have believed in something spiritual, billions have also practiced spirituality and believed in something greater than self. What ******* difference does this make, other than in a myopic semantics argument for the sake of being completely obtuse?

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?

You're right, I don't simply believe in something greater than self, I am spiritually aware of a presence greater than self which I connect with daily. I don't believe it conforms to any man-made incarnation of organized religion. I don't KNOW that it doesn't, it COULD... I just don't personally believe it. I'm not telling you ANYTHING about Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. I don't know whether or not they would agree or disagree with me or accept my analogies.

I simply presented the analogy to make a point to YOU, not to them. There may be people who drive Fords that think Chevys aren't real cars! I may read a statistic about 50,000 car crashes in the US and assume it only includes Fords, or even that it only includes cars and not trucks, when it actually means vehicles in total. The POINT... which you seem to have lost in your meandering rant over semantics, is that human spirituality encompasses a great many different beliefs or incarnations of Spiritual Nature. They are all universal in the human belief of something greater than self. They don't always include a "deity" or "godhead" ...Hindus and Buddhists for example.



Again, you are reading what eddy claims I said that I didn't say. Perhaps THAT is why he does that shit? So that others are confused into believing falsehoods about what I've said. What I tried to explain was that things which are spiritual can't be measured with physics without them becoming, by definition, physical. I'm pretty sure we can both agree, if something can be measured and evaluated physically, it's indeed physical. And I hope that we agree, if something is physical, it's generally not considered spiritual. Now, could it be spiritually inspired or caused? Yep... in fact, everything physical is the creation of the spiritual. So something that is deemed "physical" can also be spiritual.

I've not argued about the EFFECTS of something spiritual on the physical. Naturally, if the spiritual CREATED the physical, it would seem to be logical that all things physical are EFFECTED by the spiritual which created them. Can we measure that or verify it with physical science? I don't think we can, at least not at this time. We may be able to detect physiology that is caused by human spirituality, but there is no way to confirm this. Science can't evaluate spiritual nature.... at least not presently.



The only reason you or anyone needs a more detailed definition is so you can attack it and destroy it. It's much easier to destroy all the Fords in the world than to destroy all the cars. So if we can hone down the definition of "car" to a Ford, then the task is easier to destroy it. My arguments do not constrain themselves to specific incarnations created by man to try and comprehend his spiritual connection. The relevant thing is human spiritual connection, in whatever form it may take. It's a much stronger argument and one you don't know how to defeat.

Now, I am not sure what you mean by "directly observed" here... I directly observe that a spiritual connection is made daily to something greater than self. I know of Christians and others who 'directly observe' the power of God daily in their lives. What it appears you mean is, some kind of PHYSICAL observation of something that is admittedly NOT physical. Well, how can that EVER be resolved? You are asking for a type of verification that simply defies all logic and reason. It's like saying "I won't believe fish exist until I see one fly by my house!" As long as you are looking to the skies to find evidence of fish, you're never going to find them.

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.

Something can be physical yet spiritual at the same time. Music was given as an example of this. I would argue that energy and gravity qualify as well. We simply define things as physical when we can physically confirm them. It doesn't mean they lack a spiritual component. Everything, in a sense, is spiritual because it was all created by spiritual nature.

Physical observation is one tiny microscopic component, realized by humans through the existence of light. If light did not exist, I hardly doubt we could physically observe anything. Now, we can measure light, and we can confirm it physically exists. Not only does it exist, it exists as both a particle of matter and a wave of frequency at the same time. Think about this... Does "dark" exist? We realize "dark" in physical nature, but "dark" is simply the absence of light. We can't measure "dark" at all. Can you "observe" dark? Not really... you can only observe the absence of light. The same applies to heat and cold. We can measure heat, but "cold" is merely the absence of heat.

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.

Again we get into a philosophoical aspect here. You simply cannot accept something as "evidence" when you are unwilling to accept whatever the evidence is for as possible. It doesn't matter what that thing is, if you don't believe it's possible that it exists or can exist, then there is no such thing as "evidence" for it's existence from your perspective. I tried to illustrate this before with the question to you... Show me something that you absolutely believe is a complete impossibility, but you acknowledge there is evidence for? You never came up with any examples. You can't because it's not rational. You have to first have at least some inkling of the idea that something is possible before anything can be objectively accepted as evidence for it. If you believe it is impossible the world is flat, it doesn't matter what "evidence" I show you... it will immediately be dismissed as NON-evidence, because you KNOW the world is not flat. No "evidence" I can ever show you will be accepted as evidence.

This is not "circular reasoning" but simple basic logic. Why you want to persist in making it into something else is beyond me. I've never said my positions are unassailable, but you continue to try assailing them with superfluous nonsense and semantical nit picking.

And here we have another example of you changing what you say but trying to pass it off as though it's always been what you've said.

You have gone back and forth from saying a person must believe in something to accept evidence for it, to a person must believe something is possible to accept evidence for it.

Now, this could be a case of poor wording. Certainly, it makes much more sense if a person must believe a thing to be possible than if they must actually believe in it. However, since you seem to be unable to accept that I believe in the possibility the spiritual exists, despite my having told you so multiple times, it makes that questionable.

Then again, maybe this is just an example of what you are saying. You don't think it's possible that I believe the spiritual existing is possible, therefore you can't accept evidence for it!

That you seem to think sight, particularly that of natural human vision, encompasses the entirety of physical evidence says a lot.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

^ ignorance on speed. Or crack. God may not exist. Then again, He might. But to claim, like the always arrogant and ignorant Delta2Asshole does, that thinking that God created the universe requires an "ignorance" of science is itself ignorant.

Fuckwits like Delta2Asshole cannot accept that it is perfectly scientific to admit that one does not know and to further admit that God might exist.

And He might have created the Universe and all the physical laws and quantum rules etc that we can only unravel a tiny little bit at a time.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

^ ignorance on speed. Or crack. God may not exist. Then again, He might. But to claim, like the always arrogant and ignorant Delta2Asshole does, that thinking that God created the universe requires an "ignorance" of science is itself ignorant.

Fuckwits like Delta2Asshole cannot accept that it is perfectly scientific to admit that one does not know and to further admit that God might exist.

And He might have created the Universe and all the physical laws and quantum rules etc that we can only unravel a tiny little bit at a time.

It is also "scientific" to say you MIGHT flip a quarter 1000 times and have it land heads up every time.



Just call me "unscientific" but I don't think you can do it any more than god exists...

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

^ ignorance on speed. Or crack. God may not exist. Then again, He might. But to claim, like the always arrogant and ignorant Delta2Asshole does, that thinking that God created the universe requires an "ignorance" of science is itself ignorant.

Fuckwits like Delta2Asshole cannot accept that it is perfectly scientific to admit that one does not know and to further admit that God might exist.

And He might have created the Universe and all the physical laws and quantum rules etc that we can only unravel a tiny little bit at a time.

It is also "scientific" to say you MIGHT flip a quarter 1000 times and have it land heads up every time.



Just call me "unscientific" but I don't think you can do it any more than god exists...

the one agreement the Abrahamic religions have is those who die believing their religion will see God in the next life, 1000% certain with each toss of the coin ....

equally certain is the lack of a true vision of God in this one ... without ameliorations.

.

 

[Boss]

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?

I have not said that people don't believe in something spiritual because they practice spirituality. Apparently you have taken Eddy's course on how to be obtuse and take stuff out of context.

Billions of people have believed in something spiritual, billions have also practiced spirituality and believed in something greater than self. What ******* difference does this make, other than in a myopic semantics argument for the sake of being completely obtuse?



You're right, I don't simply believe in something greater than self, I am spiritually aware of a presence greater than self which I connect with daily. I don't believe it conforms to any man-made incarnation of organized religion. I don't KNOW that it doesn't, it COULD... I just don't personally believe it. I'm not telling you ANYTHING about Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. I don't know whether or not they would agree or disagree with me or accept my analogies.

I simply presented the analogy to make a point to YOU, not to them. There may be people who drive Fords that think Chevys aren't real cars! I may read a statistic about 50,000 car crashes in the US and assume it only includes Fords, or even that it only includes cars and not trucks, when it actually means vehicles in total. The POINT... which you seem to have lost in your meandering rant over semantics, is that human spirituality encompasses a great many different beliefs or incarnations of Spiritual Nature. They are all universal in the human belief of something greater than self. They don't always include a "deity" or "godhead" ...Hindus and Buddhists for example.



Again, you are reading what eddy claims I said that I didn't say. Perhaps THAT is why he does that shit? So that others are confused into believing falsehoods about what I've said. What I tried to explain was that things which are spiritual can't be measured with physics without them becoming, by definition, physical. I'm pretty sure we can both agree, if something can be measured and evaluated physically, it's indeed physical. And I hope that we agree, if something is physical, it's generally not considered spiritual. Now, could it be spiritually inspired or caused? Yep... in fact, everything physical is the creation of the spiritual. So something that is deemed "physical" can also be spiritual.

I've not argued about the EFFECTS of something spiritual on the physical. Naturally, if the spiritual CREATED the physical, it would seem to be logical that all things physical are EFFECTED by the spiritual which created them. Can we measure that or verify it with physical science? I don't think we can, at least not at this time. We may be able to detect physiology that is caused by human spirituality, but there is no way to confirm this. Science can't evaluate spiritual nature.... at least not presently.



The only reason you or anyone needs a more detailed definition is so you can attack it and destroy it. It's much easier to destroy all the Fords in the world than to destroy all the cars. So if we can hone down the definition of "car" to a Ford, then the task is easier to destroy it. My arguments do not constrain themselves to specific incarnations created by man to try and comprehend his spiritual connection. The relevant thing is human spiritual connection, in whatever form it may take. It's a much stronger argument and one you don't know how to defeat.

Now, I am not sure what you mean by "directly observed" here... I directly observe that a spiritual connection is made daily to something greater than self. I know of Christians and others who 'directly observe' the power of God daily in their lives. What it appears you mean is, some kind of PHYSICAL observation of something that is admittedly NOT physical. Well, how can that EVER be resolved? You are asking for a type of verification that simply defies all logic and reason. It's like saying "I won't believe fish exist until I see one fly by my house!" As long as you are looking to the skies to find evidence of fish, you're never going to find them.



Something can be physical yet spiritual at the same time. Music was given as an example of this. I would argue that energy and gravity qualify as well. We simply define things as physical when we can physically confirm them. It doesn't mean they lack a spiritual component. Everything, in a sense, is spiritual because it was all created by spiritual nature.

Physical observation is one tiny microscopic component, realized by humans through the existence of light. If light did not exist, I hardly doubt we could physically observe anything. Now, we can measure light, and we can confirm it physically exists. Not only does it exist, it exists as both a particle of matter and a wave of frequency at the same time. Think about this... Does "dark" exist? We realize "dark" in physical nature, but "dark" is simply the absence of light. We can't measure "dark" at all. Can you "observe" dark? Not really... you can only observe the absence of light. The same applies to heat and cold. We can measure heat, but "cold" is merely the absence of heat.

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.

Again we get into a philosophoical aspect here. You simply cannot accept something as "evidence" when you are unwilling to accept whatever the evidence is for as possible. It doesn't matter what that thing is, if you don't believe it's possible that it exists or can exist, then there is no such thing as "evidence" for it's existence from your perspective. I tried to illustrate this before with the question to you... Show me something that you absolutely believe is a complete impossibility, but you acknowledge there is evidence for? You never came up with any examples. You can't because it's not rational. You have to first have at least some inkling of the idea that something is possible before anything can be objectively accepted as evidence for it. If you believe it is impossible the world is flat, it doesn't matter what "evidence" I show you... it will immediately be dismissed as NON-evidence, because you KNOW the world is not flat. No "evidence" I can ever show you will be accepted as evidence.

This is not "circular reasoning" but simple basic logic. Why you want to persist in making it into something else is beyond me. I've never said my positions are unassailable, but you continue to try assailing them with superfluous nonsense and semantical nit picking.

And here we have another example of you changing what you say but trying to pass it off as though it's always been what you've said.

You have gone back and forth from saying a person must believe in something to accept evidence for it, to a person must believe something is possible to accept evidence for it.

Now, this could be a case of poor wording. Certainly, it makes much more sense if a person must believe a thing to be possible than if they must actually believe in it. However, since you seem to be unable to accept that I believe in the possibility the spiritual exists, despite my having told you so multiple times, it makes that questionable.

Then again, maybe this is just an example of what you are saying. You don't think it's possible that I believe the spiritual existing is possible, therefore you can't accept evidence for it!

I've not changed anything of what I said, Moonbat. I've not gone back and forth. You may have this perception because you are a ******* retard who can't read a paragraph in context, but I've not changed my meaning of anything.

If you accept that spiritual nature is possible, then you can obviously accept spiritual evidence. Emily has recommended several books and I can recommend some as well, if you are interested in looking at spiritual evidence. You're not who I am addressing when I make that statement, since you DO accept that spiritual nature can exist. Again, that is why I specifically said... numerous times... in numerous ways... IF YOU DON'T believe that spiritual nature can exist, you can't accept spiritual evidence. Notice the first three words of that sentence, they are there, I wrote them for a reason, they mean something important to the structure of the goddamn sentence, you moron! I've not changed it, it doesn't suddenly mean something else, it has meant the same damn thing all along.

That you seem to think sight, particularly that of natural human vision, encompasses the entirety of physical evidence says a lot.

Well tell me how the hell can someone "observe" something without vision? When you say "through direct observation" I take that to mean "by looking at it directly." I don't know how you can look at something directly without vision. Okay... so maybe a blind ******* scientist uses his sense of touch or hearing? Is THAT what you're meaning when you say "observe"? Fine then... Let's include all 5 senses that humans rely on to "observe" or "evaluate" things. Do you think the 5 limited abilities we humans have to "observe" science is ALL there is?

Humans actually have dozens of different senses other than the 5 major ones. Hunger, pain, fear, remorse, dread, empathy, sympathy, apathy, excitement, exuberance, benevolence, guilt, doom, danger, introspection, hubris, inspiration, self-esteem... the list goes on and on. And humans have an intrinsic sense of spirituality or spiritual connection to something greater than self. They always have, they always will. Just because physical science may not be able to examine, observe or evaluate that, doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Dr Grump]

something set the universe in motion. It could not be something physical since physical things require time and space to exist physically in reality.

Atheists often query, "What created God?" Well, we have to understand that "create" only relates to material existence, things are "created" in a physical manifestation within a spacetime continuum of our material universe. Something that is not physical or material in nature, does not require creation. The word has no meaning or significance outside of physical reality.

You said that science has "pretty solid theories behind their beliefs about how the universe appeared" and this is not true. Science has no clue whatsoever. Theories come and go in science, and it has been a popular theory for about 50-60 years that there was this Big Bang event which began the universe. However, there has never been an explanation of what caused this bang. Again, it could not have been something physical since physical did not yet exist.

So how can you prove that something that isnt 'physical' even exists in the first place? And I think your answer with regard to that (something doesn't require creation because you cant' see it etc) is a cop out because it gives you an out having to justify your position.

Not everything is theory. Gravity is not a theory - it's a fact. Try jumping out of aeroplane at 30,000 feet and see what direction you go. The actual dictionary definition of theory, and the scientific one, are two different beasts.

At the end of the day none of us know why the universe came about. Some believe an omnipresent being, others prefer the scientific method. Many scientific methods have been proven over the years, some not. There is not one shred of evidence that has ever been brought forth that an omnipresent god exists. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Just belief.

 

[edthecynic]

Again, you are reading what eddy claims I said that I didn't say. Perhaps THAT is why he does that shit? So that others are confused into believing falsehoods about what I've said.

Something can be physical yet spiritual at the same time. Music was given as an example of this. I would argue that energy and gravity qualify as well. We simply define things as physical when we can physically confirm them. It doesn't mean they lack a spiritual component. Everything, in a sense, is spiritual because it was all created by spiritual nature.

He who lives by dissing "eddy" dies by dissing "eddy."

It's generally accepted that spiritual is not physical but you insist on applying an irrational exception.

We have no evidence that the spiritual created the physical, but we do have evidence of the physical creating the spiritual, so by your "logic" everything spiritual has a physical component because it was created by a physical nature.

 

[Montrovant]

I have not said that people don't believe in something spiritual because they practice spirituality. Apparently you have taken Eddy's course on how to be obtuse and take stuff out of context.

Billions of people have believed in something spiritual, billions have also practiced spirituality and believed in something greater than self. What ******* difference does this make, other than in a myopic semantics argument for the sake of being completely obtuse?



You're right, I don't simply believe in something greater than self, I am spiritually aware of a presence greater than self which I connect with daily. I don't believe it conforms to any man-made incarnation of organized religion. I don't KNOW that it doesn't, it COULD... I just don't personally believe it. I'm not telling you ANYTHING about Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. I don't know whether or not they would agree or disagree with me or accept my analogies.

I simply presented the analogy to make a point to YOU, not to them. There may be people who drive Fords that think Chevys aren't real cars! I may read a statistic about 50,000 car crashes in the US and assume it only includes Fords, or even that it only includes cars and not trucks, when it actually means vehicles in total. The POINT... which you seem to have lost in your meandering rant over semantics, is that human spirituality encompasses a great many different beliefs or incarnations of Spiritual Nature. They are all universal in the human belief of something greater than self. They don't always include a "deity" or "godhead" ...Hindus and Buddhists for example.



Again, you are reading what eddy claims I said that I didn't say. Perhaps THAT is why he does that shit? So that others are confused into believing falsehoods about what I've said. What I tried to explain was that things which are spiritual can't be measured with physics without them becoming, by definition, physical. I'm pretty sure we can both agree, if something can be measured and evaluated physically, it's indeed physical. And I hope that we agree, if something is physical, it's generally not considered spiritual. Now, could it be spiritually inspired or caused? Yep... in fact, everything physical is the creation of the spiritual. So something that is deemed "physical" can also be spiritual.

I've not argued about the EFFECTS of something spiritual on the physical. Naturally, if the spiritual CREATED the physical, it would seem to be logical that all things physical are EFFECTED by the spiritual which created them. Can we measure that or verify it with physical science? I don't think we can, at least not at this time. We may be able to detect physiology that is caused by human spirituality, but there is no way to confirm this. Science can't evaluate spiritual nature.... at least not presently.



The only reason you or anyone needs a more detailed definition is so you can attack it and destroy it. It's much easier to destroy all the Fords in the world than to destroy all the cars. So if we can hone down the definition of "car" to a Ford, then the task is easier to destroy it. My arguments do not constrain themselves to specific incarnations created by man to try and comprehend his spiritual connection. The relevant thing is human spiritual connection, in whatever form it may take. It's a much stronger argument and one you don't know how to defeat.

Now, I am not sure what you mean by "directly observed" here... I directly observe that a spiritual connection is made daily to something greater than self. I know of Christians and others who 'directly observe' the power of God daily in their lives. What it appears you mean is, some kind of PHYSICAL observation of something that is admittedly NOT physical. Well, how can that EVER be resolved? You are asking for a type of verification that simply defies all logic and reason. It's like saying "I won't believe fish exist until I see one fly by my house!" As long as you are looking to the skies to find evidence of fish, you're never going to find them.



Something can be physical yet spiritual at the same time. Music was given as an example of this. I would argue that energy and gravity qualify as well. We simply define things as physical when we can physically confirm them. It doesn't mean they lack a spiritual component. Everything, in a sense, is spiritual because it was all created by spiritual nature.

Physical observation is one tiny microscopic component, realized by humans through the existence of light. If light did not exist, I hardly doubt we could physically observe anything. Now, we can measure light, and we can confirm it physically exists. Not only does it exist, it exists as both a particle of matter and a wave of frequency at the same time. Think about this... Does "dark" exist? We realize "dark" in physical nature, but "dark" is simply the absence of light. We can't measure "dark" at all. Can you "observe" dark? Not really... you can only observe the absence of light. The same applies to heat and cold. We can measure heat, but "cold" is merely the absence of heat.



Again we get into a philosophoical aspect here. You simply cannot accept something as "evidence" when you are unwilling to accept whatever the evidence is for as possible. It doesn't matter what that thing is, if you don't believe it's possible that it exists or can exist, then there is no such thing as "evidence" for it's existence from your perspective. I tried to illustrate this before with the question to you... Show me something that you absolutely believe is a complete impossibility, but you acknowledge there is evidence for? You never came up with any examples. You can't because it's not rational. You have to first have at least some inkling of the idea that something is possible before anything can be objectively accepted as evidence for it. If you believe it is impossible the world is flat, it doesn't matter what "evidence" I show you... it will immediately be dismissed as NON-evidence, because you KNOW the world is not flat. No "evidence" I can ever show you will be accepted as evidence.

This is not "circular reasoning" but simple basic logic. Why you want to persist in making it into something else is beyond me. I've never said my positions are unassailable, but you continue to try assailing them with superfluous nonsense and semantical nit picking.

And here we have another example of you changing what you say but trying to pass it off as though it's always been what you've said.

You have gone back and forth from saying a person must believe in something to accept evidence for it, to a person must believe something is possible to accept evidence for it.

Now, this could be a case of poor wording. Certainly, it makes much more sense if a person must believe a thing to be possible than if they must actually believe in it. However, since you seem to be unable to accept that I believe in the possibility the spiritual exists, despite my having told you so multiple times, it makes that questionable.

Then again, maybe this is just an example of what you are saying. You don't think it's possible that I believe the spiritual existing is possible, therefore you can't accept evidence for it!

I've not changed anything of what I said, Moonbat. I've not gone back and forth. You may have this perception because you are a ******* retard who can't read a paragraph in context, but I've not changed my meaning of anything.

If you accept that spiritual nature is possible, then you can obviously accept spiritual evidence. Emily has recommended several books and I can recommend some as well, if you are interested in looking at spiritual evidence. You're not who I am addressing when I make that statement, since you DO accept that spiritual nature can exist. Again, that is why I specifically said... numerous times... in numerous ways... IF YOU DON'T believe that spiritual nature can exist, you can't accept spiritual evidence. Notice the first three words of that sentence, they are there, I wrote them for a reason, they mean something important to the structure of the goddamn sentence, you moron! I've not changed it, it doesn't suddenly mean something else, it has meant the same damn thing all along.

That you seem to think sight, particularly that of natural human vision, encompasses the entirety of physical evidence says a lot.

Well tell me how the hell can someone "observe" something without vision? When you say "through direct observation" I take that to mean "by looking at it directly." I don't know how you can look at something directly without vision. Okay... so maybe a blind ******* scientist uses his sense of touch or hearing? Is THAT what you're meaning when you say "observe"? Fine then... Let's include all 5 senses that humans rely on to "observe" or "evaluate" things. Do you think the 5 limited abilities we humans have to "observe" science is ALL there is?

Humans actually have dozens of different senses other than the 5 major ones. Hunger, pain, fear, remorse, dread, empathy, sympathy, apathy, excitement, exuberance, benevolence, guilt, doom, danger, introspection, hubris, inspiration, self-esteem... the list goes on and on. And humans have an intrinsic sense of spirituality or spiritual connection to something greater than self. They always have, they always will. Just because physical science may not be able to examine, observe or evaluate that, doesn't mean it's not there.

Perhaps you've forgotten, but this discussion happened in the god haters thread a while back. Originally you said that a person cannot accept spiritual evidence until they believe it. Not that it is possible, simply that they believe it. Eventually you changed that to believe it is possible. I'll have to go back and look, but I think since then you have reverted to simply believing, rather than believing in possibility, at least once. My point being that, even if you only mean a person must believe a thing is possible, you have an irritating habit of saying something other than what you mean and then getting upset when that is questioned.

I understand what you mean by if you don't believe. However, you have said that I do not believe in the possibility of spiritual nature before, despite me telling you otherwise. As with your premise regarding the god haters, you decided that you know what someone thinks despite it being directly contradictory to what they say. If you are now willing to accept I believe it is at least possible, hooray! I'm still uncertain just what you mean when you say 'spiritual evidence', however. Do you mean evidence that is spiritual in nature, or physical evidence of the spiritual, or something else entirely? I don't see how the definitions of darkness or cold explain the phrase. Is spiritual evidence the absence of something in the vein of darkness and cold?

Yes, our other senses allow us to observe, but there's also the fact that we can use devices to 'see' things otherwise invisible to us. Thank you for providing your own definition of senses rather than just using that definition without explanation. I don't know why you think emotional states are senses, but at least you didn't just assume I would know and use the word that way.

I wonder if you are misusing the word intrinsic. Do those who don't believe in anything greater than self, who don't feel that connection, actually feel it?

I wonder, are you going to complain again about others insulting and trying to make people feel bad any time soon? The hypocrisy of that is delicious.

 

[Boss]

So how can you prove that something that isnt 'physical' even exists in the first place? And I think your answer with regard to that (something doesn't require creation because you cant' see it etc) is a cop out because it gives you an out having to justify your position.

Okay.... Follow closely here. You CAN'T. There has never been any way to prove physical existence of something spiritual. When we say "exists" it means "to physically exist" and spiritual nature itself doesn't physically exist. This is where you have to be able to comprehend a different type of "existing" in order to acknowledge spiritual nature. As long as your mind will only rationalize "physical existing" then it will continue to reject spiritual existence, because it makes no rational sense.

I didn't say "something doesn't require creation because you can't see it." Those are your words, derived from something different I said. What I tried to convey is, the word "create" applies to material or physical things... or for the obtuse nit pickers... things that apply to material or physical things. Spiritual nature is not material or physical. It is not bound by time or entropy.

Not everything is theory. Gravity is not a theory - it's a fact. Try jumping out of aeroplane at 30,000 feet and see what direction you go. The actual dictionary definition of theory, and the scientific one, are two different beasts.

Gravity exists, but what is gravity? Where did it come from? I disagree with your assumption on jumping out of a plane to see what direction you go. If the plane is 30,000 feet above the moon, I might not go anywhere. If the plane is sitting on top of 30,000 feet of jello, I may float. Furthermore, do you KNOW that the properties of gravity will work tomorrow as they did today? Perhaps something happens with a physical universe every 14.5 billion years to render gravity inoperable, and tomorrow happens to be that time? So... We don't really know what it is, we don't really know how it works, other things effect it, and while it has been fairly consistent and reliable, there is no guarantee it always will be.

That said, eddy surmised the other day that gravity and energy are immortal. They were never created and can't be destroyed. Perhaps GOD is gravity?

At the end of the day none of us know why the universe came about. Some believe an omnipresent being, others prefer the scientific method. Many scientific methods have been proven over the years, some not. There is not one shred of evidence that has ever been brought forth that an omnipresent god exists. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Just belief.

It's true we don't know why the universe came about. Some do believe in an omnipresent being or God. And some people believe science can one day explain this, but science only deals with things in the physical universe, it can't tell us what happened before a physical universe existed. Science has used scientific method to help us establish certain things, but it doesn't prove things. It posits theories and then continues to test the theories. Some theories seem to be valid for a long time before science finds a contradiction. Theories about gravity have been rewritten numerous times. Earlier you called it a "fact" and it's interesting to point out, the minute you've concluded something is a "fact" then science is through, it can't do anything more. Science can only evaluate possibility and predict probability, test it's theories, falsify and observe... these are not things you do with a "fact." Once you've determined a "fact" the thing you then rely on is called "faith." You have "faith" in this "fact" you've determined. Science has clocked out and gone home, leaving you with your faith in facts.

You say there is not one shred of physical evidence an omnipresent God exists. I would say the greatest evidence we have is time, energy and gravity. Is it PROOF? No, but evidence doesn't have to prove things. Do you accept this as evidence? Depends on whether you believe in an omnipresent God.

 

[Boss]

Perhaps you've forgotten, but this discussion happened in the god haters thread a while back. Originally you said that a person cannot accept spiritual evidence until they believe it.

Why are you STILL stuck on this? NO... that is NOT what I said! We've been over what I said, I just finished posting a rather lengthy explanation for the umpteenth time. And here you are, repeating a flat our mischaracterization of what I just explained. Are you just going to ignore my repeated clarifications and explanations of what I said? If that's what you're intent on doing here, we're done. I have no further comment for you, and I'll put your ass on ignore. I'm tired of this silliness and it needs to STOP!

The rest of your post is equally obtuse and NOT on point. You seem to just want to find something to run your mouth about, for the sake of denigrating me personally. You're obviously not interested in an adult conversation on any kind of intelligent and reasonable level.

 

[edthecynic]

Gravity exists, but what is gravity? Where did it come from? I disagree with your assumption on jumping out of a plane to see what direction you go. If the plane is 30,000 feet above the moon, I might not go anywhere.

You do know that the Moon has the gravitational pull to effect the tides here on Earth, over 238,000 miles away. I do think that at 30,000 feet above the Moon you will go, "bang zoom Alice, to the Moon," with a thud!

 

[hipeter924]

Boss wants to play with bananas, circles, croco-ducks, and whatever else the religious right spin. But he gets butthurt at everything left of center scientists say. Most people don't even give a damn how the universe came to be, as being here now is all that matters. But the semantic BS continues, better off joining the flat earth society as at least the arguments are far better than in 'creationism'.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

^ ignorance on speed. Or crack. God may not exist. Then again, He might. But to claim, like the always arrogant and ignorant Delta2Asshole does, that thinking that God created the universe requires an "ignorance" of science is itself ignorant.

Fuckwits like Delta2Asshole cannot accept that it is perfectly scientific to admit that one does not know and to further admit that God might exist.

And He might have created the Universe and all the physical laws and quantum rules etc that we can only unravel a tiny little bit at a time.

I will go one further than that, Ilar. Gods, as in many, might exist. From our mortal perspective any being that has superior powers to ourselves would fit the definition of a "god". So yes, in all probability there are plenty of "gods" in the Universe.

But logic stipulates that there can be no Omnipotent God because that is a paradox.

The Laws of Physics eliminate the need for a "creator" and the need for there to be any "beginning" to the Universe at all.

So given that an omnipotent "creator" is a logical paradox and that matter can neither be created nor destroyed the Universe must have always existed and there is no "creator" because there is no need for one.

That lessor "gods" most probably exist in the Universe is not an admission of the existence of an omnipotent "creator" either. It is merely an acknowledgement that we are far from being "masters" of all we survey.

 

[Boss]

But logic stipulates that there can be no Omnipotent God because that is a paradox.

No such thing as a paradox without a physical universe for a paradox to exist.

The Laws of Physics eliminate the need for a "creator" and the need for there to be any "beginning" to the Universe at all.

That in itself, is a paradox.

So given that an omnipotent "creator" is a logical paradox and that matter can neither be created nor destroyed the Universe must have always existed and there is no "creator" because there is no need for one.

Then the universe is God.

That lessor "gods" most probably exist in the Universe is not an admission of the existence of an omnipotent "creator" either. It is merely an acknowledgement that we are far from being "masters" of all we survey.

Children of a Lesser God?

 

[Boss]

Boss wants to play with bananas, circles, croco-ducks, and whatever else the religious right spin. But he gets butthurt at everything left of center scientists say. Most people don't even give a damn how the universe came to be, as being here now is all that matters. But the semantic BS continues, better off joining the flat earth society as at least the arguments are far better than in 'creationism'.

​

 

[Boss]

Gravity exists, but what is gravity? Where did it come from? I disagree with your assumption on jumping out of a plane to see what direction you go. If the plane is 30,000 feet above the moon, I might not go anywhere.

You do know that the Moon has the gravitational pull to effect the tides here on Earth, over 238,000 miles away. I do think that at 30,000 feet above the Moon you will go, "bang zoom Alice, to the Moon," with a thud!

Okay, so... IF my plane is traveling at a speed of 25,000 mph away from the moon and it suddenly stops as I jump out, will I still go down? OR.... If I have a rocket pack strapped to my back, would I still go down? OR... If there were 30,000 feet of marshmallows between the moon and myself?