How did the Universe get here?

[emilynghiem]

Because you believe that your God had to "make" the Universe!

You can't have it both ways.

well actually, I can have that both ways because they are different things.....science tells us that our universe has a beginning....does science tell us God had a beginning?.....

The scientific process has never turned up a single shred of evidence for the existence of your imaginary God. Therefore it is illogical to expect it to find a "beginning" for something that does not exist.

No [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] what I find "illogical" is expecting to prove definitely
that we can know how something "infinitely beyond our finite knowledge"
either "came into existence" or how it could be "self-existent" when both
are equally beyond our present empirical perception and ability to prove.

If we understand that it is a faith based concept anyway,
then the most we can show is people BELIEVE in God and that can be measured.
We can measure their brain activity and responses, their observable actions
and reported perceptions, and document this BELIEF.

Since that is the most we can establish anyway, we already have that.
We have plenty of documentation and events/applications to establish
that people BELIEVE in God.

The question is how can we establish that all people, theist or nontheist,
are describing the "same source" or are reflecting/representing the "same universal laws"
with all our diverse representations, including science and impersonal/nontheistic terms.

If we all agree we are talking about the same laws of nature/universe,
and we agree that is what is represented using God/Jesus,
then that's the most we can establish anyway. That all people have some concept
that is the equivalent of God/truth/laws of the world, and that these concepts can align.

 

[Montrovant]

I can't help but notice you didn't answer the question. Now, I don't know anything about deities. My God is not a theological construction. I can't tell you why God created the universe because I don't know. I can't tell why God created gravity or energy, I don't know. Is there a "purpose" to all of it? Not sure, it seems there should be, that seems logical doesn't it?

If there is a "purpose" I sincerely doubt it is to mute human spiritual connection. Seems like we must've been given this attribute for a reason. Maybe we're a metaphysical experiment of some kind? Physical cells responding to stimuli in a gigantic cosmic petri dish? To be honest, I am humbled in the presence of that which I don't know. Others seem to be responding with arrogance and hubris, refusing to accept what they don't know. Perhaps this is perplexing to the Cosmic Scientist, or maybe it is completely predictable and anticipated?

While certainly there has been some of that from those who do not believe, can you see how it seems like arrogance and hubris to say that you understand something as vast and complex and outside of human perception as god? To say that you know things about god without any scientific evidence, or even any physical evidence at all? To say that you understand god in ways that few if any other people do?

To those of us who simply do not know one way or another, surety of any sort about god, the origins of the universe or life, etc. can certainly appear to be arrogance and hubris.

To say that you know things about god without any scientific evidence, or even any physical evidence at all?

Why is it we keep having to go through this? God is not a physical entity. Science deals with the physical universe, not spiritual entities. Physical evidence exists for the physical, not for the spiritual. In order to evaluate that which is spiritual, you must be willing to observe spiritual evidence. There may very well be physical evidence for God, we can't understand it as that because God isn't physical. We assume physical evidence explains physical things. Physical science can't examine the spiritual so there is no way for science to evaluate any connection between the two. This is kind of like saying... There is no such thing as fish because no bird watcher has ever observed a fish, and we see no evidence of fish in the sky! Well, of course you don't, fish don't fly! You're looking in the wrong place, you'll never find evidence for fish by looking in the sky! In order to find evidence for fish, you have to look under the water where fish live. If you're not willing to look there, or if you refuse to believe something can live under the water, then you'll never find the evidence.

...can you see how it seems like arrogance and hubris to say that you understand something as vast and complex and outside of human perception as god?

I suppose I can, but I've said before, I am at a distinct advantage here. I know that I am connecting with something spiritual each day. There is no question in my mind, I have no doubts whatsoever. It's not simply blind faith or imagination, it's a real connection with something that can only be defined as spiritual. Should I suspend what I know for a fact, in order to appear aloof and unsure? Sorry, I can't do that.

Is there ANY doubt in your mind that you are on the Internet connecting to other people? Is there a possibility that you are simply imagining all of this? USMB is a figment of your imagination and something you dreamed up to cope with fears? None of us are real, we're just mythical fantasy you've created? Of course you don't think that, but you've never met me in person, you have no scientific evidence I exist. Still, you have awareness from your experience here, you intuitively know that there is a person on the other side typing these words and they aren't just appearing because you willed them to do so. Well... the same can be said for me and my connection to a spiritual God. I have no doubt in my mind the God I connect to is real and does exist as Spiritual Energy. I gain benefits from it, I gain knowledge and wisdom, courage and strength. I can't suspend my knowing that in order to make others feel more comfortable in their disbelief. Sorry!

First, my point is that your entire concept of this non-physical god carries a bit of a connotation of arrogance and hubris. The reason I say that is I am unaware of any sense which would allow me to observe something non-physical, I've never seen evidence of a sense which allows someone to observe something non-physical, yet you (and many others) claim to in some way observe non-physical things. The idea that you have some unnamed and undefined sense that others do not can seem arrogant.

Many people 'know' that they are connection with something spiritual. They often are at odds about what that something is. Very few, I think, would agree that their spiritual connection is with the god you describe. I'm pretty sure someone like GISMYS would call you arrogant for thinking you know better than the Bible, and he's far from the only one.

So my point is that perceived arrogance and hubris is far from exclusive to atheists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

While certainly there has been some of that from those who do not believe, can you see how it seems like arrogance and hubris to say that you understand something as vast and complex and outside of human perception as god? To say that you know things about god without any scientific evidence, or even any physical evidence at all? To say that you understand god in ways that few if any other people do?

To those of us who simply do not know one way or another, surety of any sort about god, the origins of the universe or life, etc. can certainly appear to be arrogance and hubris.

To say that you know things about god without any scientific evidence, or even any physical evidence at all?

Why is it we keep having to go through this? God is not a physical entity. Science deals with the physical universe, not spiritual entities. Physical evidence exists for the physical, not for the spiritual. In order to evaluate that which is spiritual, you must be willing to observe spiritual evidence. There may very well be physical evidence for God, we can't understand it as that because God isn't physical. We assume physical evidence explains physical things. Physical science can't examine the spiritual so there is no way for science to evaluate any connection between the two. This is kind of like saying... There is no such thing as fish because no bird watcher has ever observed a fish, and we see no evidence of fish in the sky! Well, of course you don't, fish don't fly! You're looking in the wrong place, you'll never find evidence for fish by looking in the sky! In order to find evidence for fish, you have to look under the water where fish live. If you're not willing to look there, or if you refuse to believe something can live under the water, then you'll never find the evidence.

...can you see how it seems like arrogance and hubris to say that you understand something as vast and complex and outside of human perception as god?

I suppose I can, but I've said before, I am at a distinct advantage here. I know that I am connecting with something spiritual each day. There is no question in my mind, I have no doubts whatsoever. It's not simply blind faith or imagination, it's a real connection with something that can only be defined as spiritual. Should I suspend what I know for a fact, in order to appear aloof and unsure? Sorry, I can't do that.

Is there ANY doubt in your mind that you are on the Internet connecting to other people? Is there a possibility that you are simply imagining all of this? USMB is a figment of your imagination and something you dreamed up to cope with fears? None of us are real, we're just mythical fantasy you've created? Of course you don't think that, but you've never met me in person, you have no scientific evidence I exist. Still, you have awareness from your experience here, you intuitively know that there is a person on the other side typing these words and they aren't just appearing because you willed them to do so. Well... the same can be said for me and my connection to a spiritual God. I have no doubt in my mind the God I connect to is real and does exist as Spiritual Energy. I gain benefits from it, I gain knowledge and wisdom, courage and strength. I can't suspend my knowing that in order to make others feel more comfortable in their disbelief. Sorry!

First, my point is that your entire concept of this non-physical god carries a bit of a connotation of arrogance and hubris. The reason I say that is I am unaware of any sense which would allow me to observe something non-physical, I've never seen evidence of a sense which allows someone to observe something non-physical, yet you (and many others) claim to in some way observe non-physical things. The idea that you have some unnamed and undefined sense that others do not can seem arrogant.

Many people 'know' that they are connection with something spiritual. They often are at odds about what that something is. Very few, I think, would agree that their spiritual connection is with the god you describe. I'm pretty sure someone like GISMYS would call you arrogant for thinking you know better than the Bible, and he's far from the only one.

So my point is that perceived arrogance and hubris is far from exclusive to atheists.

Sir John Eccles said the mind is a machine that a ghost can operate,what do you think he meant by that quote ? That is where the spiritual and physical meet is at the mind.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Does the conscience run things ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

well actually, I can have that both ways because they are different things.....science tells us that our universe has a beginning....does science tell us God had a beginning?.....

The scientific process has never turned up a single shred of evidence for the existence of your imaginary God. Therefore it is illogical to expect it to find a "beginning" for something that does not exist.

No [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] what I find "illogical" is expecting to prove definitely
that we can know how something "infinitely beyond our finite knowledge"
either "came into existence" or how it could be "self-existent" when both
are equally beyond our present empirical perception and ability to prove.

If we understand that it is a faith based concept anyway,
then the most we can show is people BELIEVE in God and that can be measured.
We can measure their brain activity and responses, their observable actions
and reported perceptions, and document this BELIEF.

Since that is the most we can establish anyway, we already have that.
We have plenty of documentation and events/applications to establish
that people BELIEVE in God.

The question is how can we establish that all people, theist or nontheist,
are describing the "same source" or are reflecting/representing the "same universal laws"
with all our diverse representations, including science and impersonal/nontheistic terms.

If we all agree we are talking about the same laws of nature/universe,
and we agree that is what is represented using God/Jesus,
then that's the most we can establish anyway. That all people have some concept
that is the equivalent of God/truth/laws of the world, and that these concepts can align.

The current extent of our knowledge is limited but it is based upon a sound foundation upon which we can make logical rational extrapolations.

If there were any aspects of our knowledge that pointed to some "divine intervention" that would provide room for the possibility of a deity. However there is none whatsoever. Theists insist that they are the sole possessors of absolute infallible "truth" and yet even a cursory examination exposes that as a falsehood.

So we are left with the established scientific knowledge that is reproducible and factual versus the bronze age mythology that cannot withstand scrutiny.

From my point of view the former is honest and self correcting while the latter is regressive and incapable of shedding light on anything at all.

For there to be an alignment there needs to be basis for honesty. So far I am only seeing that on one side and not the other.

 

[Dante]

Here's an interesting take on the universe & god, by Nathaniel Branden:
Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?

Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?

It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.

This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality . There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause.

Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but no to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.

The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence.

Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking; "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists:
There is nowhere else to go."

Nothing does not exist?

Does the Bible does claim that God created the universe out of nothing?

Hasn't "something out of nothing" been shown to exist? Protons/Positron thingie and Hawking?

 

[Boss]

While certainly there has been some of that from those who do not believe, can you see how it seems like arrogance and hubris to say that you understand something as vast and complex and outside of human perception as god? To say that you know things about god without any scientific evidence, or even any physical evidence at all? To say that you understand god in ways that few if any other people do?

To those of us who simply do not know one way or another, surety of any sort about god, the origins of the universe or life, etc. can certainly appear to be arrogance and hubris.

To say that you know things about god without any scientific evidence, or even any physical evidence at all?

Why is it we keep having to go through this? God is not a physical entity. Science deals with the physical universe, not spiritual entities. Physical evidence exists for the physical, not for the spiritual. In order to evaluate that which is spiritual, you must be willing to observe spiritual evidence. There may very well be physical evidence for God, we can't understand it as that because God isn't physical. We assume physical evidence explains physical things. Physical science can't examine the spiritual so there is no way for science to evaluate any connection between the two. This is kind of like saying... There is no such thing as fish because no bird watcher has ever observed a fish, and we see no evidence of fish in the sky! Well, of course you don't, fish don't fly! You're looking in the wrong place, you'll never find evidence for fish by looking in the sky! In order to find evidence for fish, you have to look under the water where fish live. If you're not willing to look there, or if you refuse to believe something can live under the water, then you'll never find the evidence.

...can you see how it seems like arrogance and hubris to say that you understand something as vast and complex and outside of human perception as god?

I suppose I can, but I've said before, I am at a distinct advantage here. I know that I am connecting with something spiritual each day. There is no question in my mind, I have no doubts whatsoever. It's not simply blind faith or imagination, it's a real connection with something that can only be defined as spiritual. Should I suspend what I know for a fact, in order to appear aloof and unsure? Sorry, I can't do that.

Is there ANY doubt in your mind that you are on the Internet connecting to other people? Is there a possibility that you are simply imagining all of this? USMB is a figment of your imagination and something you dreamed up to cope with fears? None of us are real, we're just mythical fantasy you've created? Of course you don't think that, but you've never met me in person, you have no scientific evidence I exist. Still, you have awareness from your experience here, you intuitively know that there is a person on the other side typing these words and they aren't just appearing because you willed them to do so. Well... the same can be said for me and my connection to a spiritual God. I have no doubt in my mind the God I connect to is real and does exist as Spiritual Energy. I gain benefits from it, I gain knowledge and wisdom, courage and strength. I can't suspend my knowing that in order to make others feel more comfortable in their disbelief. Sorry!

First, my point is that your entire concept of this non-physical god carries a bit of a connotation of arrogance and hubris. The reason I say that is I am unaware of any sense which would allow me to observe something non-physical, I've never seen evidence of a sense which allows someone to observe something non-physical, yet you (and many others) claim to in some way observe non-physical things. The idea that you have some unnamed and undefined sense that others do not can seem arrogant.

Many people 'know' that they are connection with something spiritual. They often are at odds about what that something is. Very few, I think, would agree that their spiritual connection is with the god you describe. I'm pretty sure someone like GISMYS would call you arrogant for thinking you know better than the Bible, and he's far from the only one.

So my point is that perceived arrogance and hubris is far from exclusive to atheists.

I've never seen evidence of a sense which allows someone to observe something non-physical

Well sure you have! Haven't you ever been moved by a musical composition or shed a tear over a movie? Haven't you ever felt a sense of elation that your favorite sports team won a big game? Have you never felt proud of a child who accomplished their goals? All through life we experience a sense of that which we cannot observe in any physical sense. These are things that touch our spirit.

I'm pretty sure someone like GISMYS would call you arrogant for thinking you know better than the Bible, and he's far from the only one.

I have never said that I know better than the Bible. You are interpreting that because I don't adhere to a faith associated with the book. I can only believe in what I know is true. If I am not sure whether it is true, I can't believe in it... that's just me. That doesn't mean I condemn it as something not true, I don't know! I have no idea if the Bible is true or not! It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I am going to believe what I know is true.

I have an opinion, but my opinion doesn't mean I believe everyone who doesn't share it is wrong. Is that how YOU operate? Should we assume that when you give your opinion it means that anything different from that is wrong in your mind? To me, that defines bigotry.

 

[emilynghiem]

The current extent of our knowledge is limited but it is based upon a sound foundation upon which we can make logical rational extrapolations.

If there were any aspects of our knowledge that pointed to some "divine intervention" that would provide room for the possibility of a deity. However there is none whatsoever. Theists insist that they are the sole possessors of absolute infallible "truth" and yet even a cursory examination exposes that as a falsehood.

So we are left with the established scientific knowledge that is reproducible and factual versus the bronze age mythology that cannot withstand scrutiny.

From my point of view the former is honest and self correcting while the latter is regressive and incapable of shedding light on anything at all.

For there to be an alignment there needs to be basis for honesty. So far I am only seeing that on one side and not the other.

Disagree on the assumption there is "nothing that points to divine intervention"

Some examples that can be cited

1. when people go through a complete transformation in recovery, and go from being a person trapped and unable to control their minds or impulse/addiction, to being a free person with a new life and like a brand new person

The energy that it takes to transform a person cannot come from within that person.
For everything that had before was biased and conditioned by the addictive energy.
Cancerous or infected blood cannot be used to disinfect itself.

The "forgiveness" needed to transform people spiritually/mentally to 'free' them from their negative perceptions and cycles of addiction from the past are understood to be on some "higher" level, as to "forgive" is "divine".

Whatever you call THAT level is considered intervening, such as "the collective level" of human energy or love "lifting someone up" and helping them regain the will to live when that person's individual will is otherwise dying out or trapped.

So that is a form of outside intervention coming in to change the energy or state of that person's health of mind body or relationships.

such people will tell you that energy/will/love was not there before; they had to give up their own ways and let go to receive in this new energy or outlook they did not have before.

2. When Dr. Scott Peck refused any such theory that "demonic" voices were entities outside a person's mind he was confident he could use scientific observation and method to PROVE these were only delusions from within the minds of schizophrenic patients.

however, what he observed in two patients changed his mind. He saw through his observations, including the "demon personalities" verbally attacking him with intimate knowledge of his inner psychology and weaknesses/fears from his personal past that his two patients had no physical/personal knowledge of, that these infesting energies were coming from some level of "consciousness" that DID have access to his fears and memories. They could read him from a "spiritual level" that could only be proven to him. Nobody else would understand, unless they saw it from their perspective as he did there.

So he could "prove" it to himself something "spiritual" was going on with these forces and process. But to "prove" it to others would take the same "relative" experience where each person sees such a connection that goes beyond physical perception knowledge and experience.

So [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] just because these spiritual connections are only "proven" or "demonstrated" to people (still based on faith since this level cannot be proven only the resulting process observed by each person affected) one at a time, on a relative level, does not mean there has "never been any manifestation"

It just means it is different for each person, who cannot see each other's spiritual experiences any more than we can see each other's dreams we have at night.

We can only "take it on faith" that you or I dreamed what we said we dreamed.
Same with these "spiritual" connections that people say are 'talking with God" or "demons talking through people." They have been documented, but nobody can prove their experiences to anyone else. It doesn't mean they haven't been observed, as they have!

We just don't all believe it i coming from a spiritual level of consciousness beyond
the mental ability of the person's mind to "make things up themselves."

The same way Dr. Peck didn't believe it either, until he witnessed it for himself in a spiritual confrontation. He said in his book that 95% of what he observed could be explained using science (and that is enough to apply the spiritual process to diagnose and treat/cure patients who respond and benefit from deliverance methods of healing); but that 5% of what he witnessed was to him, no doubt, from a spiritual level that he could not explain to others. Each would have to experience it for themselves, as he did, before they could see it was real. Teh 5% can never be proven, like our dreams and their contents cannot be proven to others, only to us; but the overall PROCESS can be monitored and measured to show it follows patterns, so patients with the negative unhealthy spiritual energy manifest and act under one set of patterns/process of behavior while the patients undergoing healing or who have been freed of this sickness on a "spiritual level" manifest different mindsets and behavior patterns. We can still follow the process, even if we can never prove or explain where these "positive and negative" energies come from.

 

[Dante]

[MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]

[MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]

The problem you are having is the same problem all Atheists have with God. You cannot conceive of any "existence" other than physical. You can't imagine a physical man sitting on a cloud, ruling over us with the Charlton Heston voice, so you believe this silly notion must not be "real" and in a physical sense, you are correct. All of your refutations of God are based on your limited understanding of physical nature and physical reality, which is all your mind can imagine there is.

You cannot prove that humans constructed spirituality. There is just not any evidence to make that conclusion, but since your mind is unable to imagine anything other than physical nature, you assume that must be the case. It's not the case. Humans are intrinsically connected to something greater than self... always have been, always will be. From the oldest human civilizations ever unearthed to the here and now, humans are overwhelmingly spiritual. Religions are man-made constructs, and they are prime evidence that humans make some kind of real spiritual connection to something greater than self.

There can be debate over what exactly that thing is, but one thing it's not is physical.

How strange the limits of your mind have you equating non belief in your nonsense to atheism.

Actually, spirituality...

try this definition:

1) of soul: relating to the soul or spirit, usually in contrast to material things
2) of religion: relating to religious or sacred things rather than worldly things
3) temperamentally or intellectually akin: connected by an affinity of the mind, spirit, or temperament

---

"You cannot prove that humans constructed spirituality. There is just not any evidence to make that conclusion..."

Evidence to make conclusions 101

Imagine a soccer game, where the ball is invisible to you. If you watched the interections of the players, the grass and the slight spherical bulge in the net that happened when the goalie dived to the ground and the crowds cheered, you could conclude that there was something there, that gave meaning to all the rules of the game. To explain the universe, physicists need the absolute smallest building block, and the laws of physics.

The God Particle: Chapter 1: The Invisible Soccer Ball

Spirituality is not of the physical world: correct. It is of the mind. Things of the mind exist in the mind.

" From the oldest human civilizations ever unearthed to the here and now, humans are overwhelmingly spiritual." -- and have believed in the most absurd things the mind could conjure up.

btw, Dante believes there is something that drives the human mind to search and discover...

Spirituality is not of the physical world: correct. It is of the mind. Things of the mind exist in the mind.

Spirituality is describing an attribute held by a physical being. It is the awareness of something Spiritual. Saying "spirituality" is purely in the mind is no different than saying "philosophy" is purely in the mind. Does that mean everything man can philosophize about is fake and not real?

To explain the universe, physicists need the absolute smallest building block, and the laws of physics.

To explain the physical universe, yes. The laws of physics only apply to that which are physical in nature. You continue to demonstrate your inability to recognize anything beyond physical nature. If it's not physical, it cannot exist. However, there are things in the physical universe that are not physical, or at least not 'material' and they do exist. You don't need me to give you examples, you are aware of these things. You accept them as part of the physical because you are aware of them and know they exist in physical nature. But the spiritual also exists in physical nature, you just don't accept it. Instead of comprehending it as part of physical nature that you can't materialistically quantify, you reject it and pretend it doesn't really exist. Since the spiritual doesn't exist materially, it's not possible to provide you with material evidence.

Fake, not real? Attribute? You sound like Polischtick who will argue about scientific proof in place of scientific evidence when attempting to argue away the theory of evolution.

---

"Spirituality is not of the physical world: correct. It is of the mind. Things of the mind exist in the mind." - Dante

Are you saying things that exist in the mind are fake and/or not real, and then "everything man can philosophize about is" not fake and is real?



---

You continue to demonstrate your inability to recognize anything anyone says as what they actually say, as opposed to what you are predisposed to want to hear. If Dante says things "exist in the mind" and the mind is not physical the physical world, you hear him saying differently. Things of the mind do indeed exist -- in the mind. We can use things in the physical world to reference them -- we use symbols and myths, and metaphors to do this.

Of course the processes that happen for the mind to exist exist in the physical world. We can and do measure them. Yet if the mind is of the physical world where is it? How do we measure it? What does it weigh?

Dante believes mysticism exists too -- in the mind.

mys·ti·cism: a religious practice based on the belief that knowledge of spiritual truth can be gained by praying or thinking deeply

 

[Dante]

[MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]

How strange the limits of your mind have you equating non belief in your nonsense to atheism.

Actually, spirituality...

try this definition:

1) of soul: relating to the soul or spirit, usually in contrast to material things
2) of religion: relating to religious or sacred things rather than worldly things
3) temperamentally or intellectually akin: connected by an affinity of the mind, spirit, or temperament

---

"You cannot prove that humans constructed spirituality. There is just not any evidence to make that conclusion..."

Evidence to make conclusions 101


Spirituality is not of the physical world: correct. It is of the mind. Things of the mind exist in the mind.

" From the oldest human civilizations ever unearthed to the here and now, humans are overwhelmingly spiritual." -- and have believed in the most absurd things the mind could conjure up.

btw, Dante believes there is something that drives the human mind to search and discover...

Spirituality is not of the physical world: correct. It is of the mind. Things of the mind exist in the mind.

Spirituality is describing an attribute held by a physical being. It is the awareness of something Spiritual. Saying "spirituality" is purely in the mind is no different than saying "philosophy" is purely in the mind. Does that mean everything man can philosophize about is fake and not real?

To explain the universe, physicists need the absolute smallest building block, and the laws of physics.

To explain the physical universe, yes. The laws of physics only apply to that which are physical in nature. You continue to demonstrate your inability to recognize anything beyond physical nature. If it's not physical, it cannot exist. However, there are things in the physical universe that are not physical, or at least not 'material' and they do exist. You don't need me to give you examples, you are aware of these things. You accept them as part of the physical because you are aware of them and know they exist in physical nature. But the spiritual also exists in physical nature, you just don't accept it. Instead of comprehending it as part of physical nature that you can't materialistically quantify, you reject it and pretend it doesn't really exist. Since the spiritual doesn't exist materially, it's not possible to provide you with material evidence.

1. Yes, are minds don't imagine a non physical god but your mind does.

2. You are probably a proud man and hate admitting when you are wrong, but I think you are a bigger man than most righties because I see you backing down on this.

3. What are some of the things in the universe that exist but are not physical other than god? Has science weighed in on those things? What are a few examples?

4. Are you saying god is unable to transform himself into a physical being and perform miracles for us? So if he can't even play in the physical, how the hell did he create the physical? Stupid.

5. Scientists pretty much even know what part of the brain made up god/spirituality. I can't believe you can't understand that primitive men invented god. Healthy fear of the unknown. I've explained this to you several times. You are stubborn.

But I do see you backing down. Now you are saying god exists "in our minds". Sure, as long as that is where you keep it because when you tell us about it we should lock you up for being insane. When I was a baby I had an imaginary friend. I grew out of it. You didn't.

 

[Dante]

BTW, did anyone prove that life had a beginning?

Cuz it seems to me that this is the more fundamental question that makes or breaks the whole arguement.

Life? or Existence of the Universe?

 

[emilynghiem]

Nothing does not exist?

Does the Bible does claim that God created the universe out of nothing?

Hasn't "something out of nothing" been shown to exist? Protons/Positron thingie and Hawking?

Ha ha [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]
It seems people make "something out of nothing" all the time.

We have plenty of proof with political debates on the internet!
This is quite a common occurrence!

Welcome to the Discussion here.
As we continue to divide the sheep from the goats, and recognize there is a reason to have both, just as they are, and quit trying to make them all the same. We see things differently as an advantage, and we need all people's diverse ways in order to serve multiple purposes.

 

[Boss]

[MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]

How strange the limits of your mind have you equating non belief in your nonsense to atheism.

Actually, spirituality...

try this definition:

1) of soul: relating to the soul or spirit, usually in contrast to material things
2) of religion: relating to religious or sacred things rather than worldly things
3) temperamentally or intellectually akin: connected by an affinity of the mind, spirit, or temperament

---

"You cannot prove that humans constructed spirituality. There is just not any evidence to make that conclusion..."

Evidence to make conclusions 101


Spirituality is not of the physical world: correct. It is of the mind. Things of the mind exist in the mind.

" From the oldest human civilizations ever unearthed to the here and now, humans are overwhelmingly spiritual." -- and have believed in the most absurd things the mind could conjure up.

btw, Dante believes there is something that drives the human mind to search and discover...

Spirituality is not of the physical world: correct. It is of the mind. Things of the mind exist in the mind.

Spirituality is describing an attribute held by a physical being. It is the awareness of something Spiritual. Saying "spirituality" is purely in the mind is no different than saying "philosophy" is purely in the mind. Does that mean everything man can philosophize about is fake and not real?

To explain the universe, physicists need the absolute smallest building block, and the laws of physics.

To explain the physical universe, yes. The laws of physics only apply to that which are physical in nature. You continue to demonstrate your inability to recognize anything beyond physical nature. If it's not physical, it cannot exist. However, there are things in the physical universe that are not physical, or at least not 'material' and they do exist. You don't need me to give you examples, you are aware of these things. You accept them as part of the physical because you are aware of them and know they exist in physical nature. But the spiritual also exists in physical nature, you just don't accept it. Instead of comprehending it as part of physical nature that you can't materialistically quantify, you reject it and pretend it doesn't really exist. Since the spiritual doesn't exist materially, it's not possible to provide you with material evidence.

1. Yes, are minds don't imagine a non physical god but your mind does.

2. You are probably a proud man and hate admitting when you are wrong, but I think you are a bigger man than most righties because I see you backing down on this.

3. What are some of the things in the universe that exist but are not physical other than god? Has science weighed in on those things? What are a few examples?

4. Are you saying god is unable to transform himself into a physical being and perform miracles for us? So if he can't even play in the physical, how the hell did he create the physical? Stupid.

5. Scientists pretty much even know what part of the brain made up god/spirituality. I can't believe you can't understand that primitive men invented god. Healthy fear of the unknown. I've explained this to you several times. You are stubborn.

But I do see you backing down. Now you are saying god exists "in our minds". Sure, as long as that is where you keep it because when you tell us about it we should lock you up for being insane. When I was a baby I had an imaginary friend. I grew out of it. You didn't.

1. Yes, are minds don't imagine a non physical god but your mind does.

I don't imagine what I connect with because I obtain enormous benefit from it. IF I were only imagining something that wasn't real, there would be no discernable benefit. I wouldn't be able to tell any difference between when I connect with this and when I didn't connect. But I can, so I obviously know the connection is real and does work to my advantage.

2. You are probably a proud man and hate admitting when you are wrong, but I think you are a bigger man than most righties because I see you backing down on this.

If I am proven wrong on anything, I am the first to admit I was wrong. I haven't "backed down" on anything here. Perhaps that is how you are going to define your coming to understand my point of view? Rather than admitting that you now "get it" you're going to pretend that I am "backing down" from something you erroneously assumed to begin with. I don't really know what "rightie" or "leftie" has to do with this, but I am curious as to how many left-wing liberal idiots here are the god-haters and how many spiritually-inclined people are politically right-leaning. I bet there is a correlation. And maybe that has something to do with why you all hate God so much... you see God as a manifestation of conservatism that you hate politically. That's really a sad testament to you as a human being, as well as your spirituality and politics, if such is the case.

3. What are some of the things in the universe that exist but are not physical other than god? Has science weighed in on those things? What are a few examples?

Uhm... Gravity, time, space, magnetism, just to name a few. Science has weighed in on these things, it can measure and calculate them, but they still have no physical material presence. In humans, we have all kinds of emotions that are not physical. Love, hate, lust, anger, empathy... should I list them all? Surely these things exist, and surely they don't have physical material presence.

4. Are you saying god is unable to transform himself into a physical being and perform miracles for us? So if he can't even play in the physical, how the hell did he create the physical? Stupid.

I don't think I've said anything remotely close to that. How do you know God doesn't do this? If something truly "miraculous" happens, don't you just chalk it up to a fluke, a coincidence, an anomaly? Dumb luck? Fortune? Or even, worst case scenario, strange unexplained phenomenon? How many times has something happened that was "against all odds?" Do you KNOW that God didn't have a hand in that? Where is your evidence?

Why do you somehow think that God has this NEED to prove himself to you? Are you that arrogant and self-important? Oh... God must not be real or he'd stop me from being such a goob! ...STUPID is right! IF God was "concerned" with whether you believed in him or not, do you honestly think there would be a way to avoid that? It would be like breathing air... try not doing that and see if God lets you! Go ahead, defy God!--Stop breathing! lol

5. Scientists pretty much even know what part of the brain made up god/spirituality. I can't believe you can't understand that primitive men invented god. Healthy fear of the unknown. I've explained this to you several times. You are stubborn.

No, scientists pretty much DON'T know any such thing. There is no evidence, you've NEVER presented any. You keep SAYING this, you have not proven this or offered any evidence to support your theory. Meanwhile, our archeological discoveries show that humans have ALWAYS been spiritual. We know when man invented stone tools, we call it the stone age. We know when man began working with iron, we call it the iron age. There is no PRE-SPIRITUAL age for humans. If it were invented, you'd have the evidence to show this, and you simply don't. Now you can BELIEVE that... nothing wrong with having FAITH... but that's what it is.

 

[Montrovant]

To say that you know things about god without any scientific evidence, or even any physical evidence at all?

Why is it we keep having to go through this? God is not a physical entity. Science deals with the physical universe, not spiritual entities. Physical evidence exists for the physical, not for the spiritual. In order to evaluate that which is spiritual, you must be willing to observe spiritual evidence. There may very well be physical evidence for God, we can't understand it as that because God isn't physical. We assume physical evidence explains physical things. Physical science can't examine the spiritual so there is no way for science to evaluate any connection between the two. This is kind of like saying... There is no such thing as fish because no bird watcher has ever observed a fish, and we see no evidence of fish in the sky! Well, of course you don't, fish don't fly! You're looking in the wrong place, you'll never find evidence for fish by looking in the sky! In order to find evidence for fish, you have to look under the water where fish live. If you're not willing to look there, or if you refuse to believe something can live under the water, then you'll never find the evidence.

...can you see how it seems like arrogance and hubris to say that you understand something as vast and complex and outside of human perception as god?

I suppose I can, but I've said before, I am at a distinct advantage here. I know that I am connecting with something spiritual each day. There is no question in my mind, I have no doubts whatsoever. It's not simply blind faith or imagination, it's a real connection with something that can only be defined as spiritual. Should I suspend what I know for a fact, in order to appear aloof and unsure? Sorry, I can't do that.

Is there ANY doubt in your mind that you are on the Internet connecting to other people? Is there a possibility that you are simply imagining all of this? USMB is a figment of your imagination and something you dreamed up to cope with fears? None of us are real, we're just mythical fantasy you've created? Of course you don't think that, but you've never met me in person, you have no scientific evidence I exist. Still, you have awareness from your experience here, you intuitively know that there is a person on the other side typing these words and they aren't just appearing because you willed them to do so. Well... the same can be said for me and my connection to a spiritual God. I have no doubt in my mind the God I connect to is real and does exist as Spiritual Energy. I gain benefits from it, I gain knowledge and wisdom, courage and strength. I can't suspend my knowing that in order to make others feel more comfortable in their disbelief. Sorry!

First, my point is that your entire concept of this non-physical god carries a bit of a connotation of arrogance and hubris. The reason I say that is I am unaware of any sense which would allow me to observe something non-physical, I've never seen evidence of a sense which allows someone to observe something non-physical, yet you (and many others) claim to in some way observe non-physical things. The idea that you have some unnamed and undefined sense that others do not can seem arrogant.

Many people 'know' that they are connection with something spiritual. They often are at odds about what that something is. Very few, I think, would agree that their spiritual connection is with the god you describe. I'm pretty sure someone like GISMYS would call you arrogant for thinking you know better than the Bible, and he's far from the only one.

So my point is that perceived arrogance and hubris is far from exclusive to atheists.

I've never seen evidence of a sense which allows someone to observe something non-physical

Well sure you have! Haven't you ever been moved by a musical composition or shed a tear over a movie? Haven't you ever felt a sense of elation that your favorite sports team won a big game? Have you never felt proud of a child who accomplished their goals? All through life we experience a sense of that which we cannot observe in any physical sense. These are things that touch our spirit.

I'm pretty sure someone like GISMYS would call you arrogant for thinking you know better than the Bible, and he's far from the only one.

I have never said that I know better than the Bible. You are interpreting that because I don't adhere to a faith associated with the book. I can only believe in what I know is true. If I am not sure whether it is true, I can't believe in it... that's just me. That doesn't mean I condemn it as something not true, I don't know! I have no idea if the Bible is true or not! It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I am going to believe what I know is true.

I have an opinion, but my opinion doesn't mean I believe everyone who doesn't share it is wrong. Is that how YOU operate? Should we assume that when you give your opinion it means that anything different from that is wrong in your mind? To me, that defines bigotry.

I would say that our feelings are definitely physical and can be seen as such by looking at activity in the brain. That is also not what I mean by sensing something; I'm talking about a spiritual sense that is similar to our 5 physical senses. It would give us a sense of something being there that otherwise we would not have.

Now, you may think that emotion is our way of sensing the spiritual, and that's fine. However, there is no evidence of that. No one has ever shown what the spiritual is nor how it interacts with humanity to create the emotional reactions. I cannot see, hear, taste, smell, or touch the spiritual. I cannot sit with another person, experience sadness, and expect them to feel the same thing because we are both sensing something spiritual. Our emotions are, by and large, limited to ourselves.

You have often stated your beliefs as though they are fact. Some of your stated beliefs are contradictory with the Bible. If, as you say, you know you are correct, then you know that at least in some ways, the Bible is wrong. I feel confident the same is true of most or all of the world's major religions. So, in effect, you are saying those religions are wrong.

Not all beliefs automatically mean you dismiss other beliefs. However, when only one or the other can be true, having a belief will inherently mean thinking the other belief is wrong. If you believe that democracy is the best form of government, and someone else thinks communism is the best form of government, do you not automatically think that person is wrong? If you think the Seahawks are going to repeat as Super Bowl champions, and I think they are not, do you not automatically think I am wrong? We can't both be right, they are contradictory beliefs!

 

[GISMYS]

The Lord merely spoke,
and the heavens were created.
He breathed the word,
and all the stars were born.
7
He assigned the sea its boundaries
and locked the oceans in vast reservoirs.
8
Let the whole world fear the Lord,
and let everyone stand in awe of him.
9
For when he spoke, the world began!
It appeared at his command.
10
The Lord frustrates the plans of the nations
and thwarts all their schemes.
11
But the Lord’s plans stand firm forever;
his intentions can never be shaken.
12
What joy for the nation whose God is the Lord,
whose people he has chosen as his inheritance.
13
The Lord looks down from heaven
and sees the whole human race.
14
From his throne he observes
all who live on the earth.
15
He made their hearts,
so he understands everything they do.
16
The best-equipped army cannot save a king,
nor is great strength enough to save a warrior.
17
Don’t count on your warhorse to give you victory—
for all its strength, it cannot save you.
18
But the Lord watches over those who fear him,
those who rely on his unfailing love.
19
He rescues them from death
and keeps them alive in times of famine.
20
We put our hope in the Lord.
He is our help and our shield.
21
In him our hearts rejoice,
for we trust in his holy name.
22
Let your unfailing love surround us, Lord,
for our hope is in you alone.
psalm 33:6-22
JESUS IS GOD!!=He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:John 1:10-12

 

[percysunshine]

BTW, did anyone prove that life had a beginning?

Cuz it seems to me that this is the more fundamental question that makes or breaks the whole arguement.

Life? or Existence of the Universe?

Both.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there....

 

[emilynghiem]

BTW, did anyone prove that life had a beginning?

Cuz it seems to me that this is the more fundamental question that makes or breaks the whole arguement.

Not necessarily,
I find it perfectly workable to "leave it open either way"
* life/god/creation COULD have a beginning
* life/god/universe COULD have always existed with no beginning or end
so there is nothing to make or break, no conditions being imposed, so there is no conflict

I think it is better to approach it this way,
so conversations and frameworks leave equal room to include
* people who do believe in a starting point and a personified God as source
* people who do not believe in that but see the laws in the world working as self-existent

Laws that are truly universal would not depend on one or the other
being proven or disproven

So why not leave it open, and just work with the laws as given
whether these have a beginning or not, or we can or can't agree on all things.

I see little benefit in arguing whether to force people one way or another.
Why not let all people keep their own ways of defining and experiencing life/god,
and just focus on the laws and truths we agree are universal to BOTH WAYS?

I am happy with that, anyone else okay with including both theist and nontheist
approaches? seeing life/god/universe as being possible either way, with or without
a beginning. And that's okay, it is not necessary to know this or to agree on it.

 

[GISMYS]

SEEK TO KNOW TRUTH=GOD!! little man's ideas and opinions and theroy are ignorance to the extream.GOD SAYS HE LAUGHS AT little man's "wisdom" ever wonder why??

 

[emilynghiem]

I would say that our feelings are definitely physical and can be seen as such by looking at activity in the brain. That is also not what I mean by sensing something; I'm talking about a spiritual sense that is similar to our 5 physical senses. It would give us a sense of something being there that otherwise we would not have.

Now, you may think that emotion is our way of sensing the spiritual, and that's fine. However, there is no evidence of that. No one has ever shown what the spiritual is nor how it interacts with humanity to create the emotional reactions. I cannot see, hear, taste, smell, or touch the spiritual. I cannot sit with another person, experience sadness, and expect them to feel the same thing because we are both sensing something spiritual. Our emotions are, by and large, limited to ourselves.

You have often stated your beliefs as though they are fact. Some of your stated beliefs are contradictory with the Bible. If, as you say, you know you are correct, then you know that at least in some ways, the Bible is wrong. I feel confident the same is true of most or all of the world's major religions. So, in effect, you are saying those religions are wrong.

Not all beliefs automatically mean you dismiss other beliefs. However, when only one or the other can be true, having a belief will inherently mean thinking the other belief is wrong. If you believe that democracy is the best form of government, and someone else thinks communism is the best form of government, do you not automatically think that person is wrong? If you think the Seahawks are going to repeat as Super Bowl champions, and I think they are not, do you not automatically think I am wrong? We can't both be right, they are contradictory beliefs!

Hi [MENTION=19302]Montrovant[/MENTION] [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]
1. I can agree with part of what both of you are saying.
Yes, there is some "intersection or reflection" of what is called "spiritual"
that CAN be experienced on a physical level, as even in the mind, those are chemical reactions and do manifest on that level.
As Boss says, this still means there must be MORE to the spiritual level for it not to be just physical, or why call it a different level. If all the things called "spiritual" are just chemical reactions in the brain, then it can all be described psychologically or physically and doesn't need this other level to capture anything beyond that.
So I kind of agree with both of you.

2. How about the term collective?
We have a concept of "collective humanity" like all of history combined,
or all nations and populations on the planet combined.
This concept is in our minds as a chemical/mental reaction so you can say it is physical.

And yet the concept itself REPRESENTS something beyond our physical empirical experience.

We are not LITERALLY experiencing contact and processing impulses from interacting live with all those people in history or across the planet which we imagine in our minds being connected with in terms of our mental perception of these experiences combined.

So it is both an abstract/spiritual relationship we "imagine in our minds" connecting us by energy or by spirit with these collective masses of people not immediately in our senses.

Are you okay with calling this collective level of
energy
consciousness or connectedness with others
perception
conscience

Both a "spiritual" type level of existence or awareness of it
and a "physical" phenomena in terms of our brains and perceptions
being chemical reactions and energy?

How is "imagining" collective humanity which none of us has physically seen
differing from "imagining" God in the mind which none of us has seen either.
Can we agree that is like on the same level of what we call spiritual or beyond physical?

 

[Boss]

First, my point is that your entire concept of this non-physical god carries a bit of a connotation of arrogance and hubris. The reason I say that is I am unaware of any sense which would allow me to observe something non-physical, I've never seen evidence of a sense which allows someone to observe something non-physical, yet you (and many others) claim to in some way observe non-physical things. The idea that you have some unnamed and undefined sense that others do not can seem arrogant.

Many people 'know' that they are connection with something spiritual. They often are at odds about what that something is. Very few, I think, would agree that their spiritual connection is with the god you describe. I'm pretty sure someone like GISMYS would call you arrogant for thinking you know better than the Bible, and he's far from the only one.

So my point is that perceived arrogance and hubris is far from exclusive to atheists.

I've never seen evidence of a sense which allows someone to observe something non-physical

Well sure you have! Haven't you ever been moved by a musical composition or shed a tear over a movie? Haven't you ever felt a sense of elation that your favorite sports team won a big game? Have you never felt proud of a child who accomplished their goals? All through life we experience a sense of that which we cannot observe in any physical sense. These are things that touch our spirit.

I'm pretty sure someone like GISMYS would call you arrogant for thinking you know better than the Bible, and he's far from the only one.

I have never said that I know better than the Bible. You are interpreting that because I don't adhere to a faith associated with the book. I can only believe in what I know is true. If I am not sure whether it is true, I can't believe in it... that's just me. That doesn't mean I condemn it as something not true, I don't know! I have no idea if the Bible is true or not! It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I am going to believe what I know is true.

I have an opinion, but my opinion doesn't mean I believe everyone who doesn't share it is wrong. Is that how YOU operate? Should we assume that when you give your opinion it means that anything different from that is wrong in your mind? To me, that defines bigotry.

I would say that our feelings are definitely physical and can be seen as such by looking at activity in the brain. That is also not what I mean by sensing something; I'm talking about a spiritual sense that is similar to our 5 physical senses. It would give us a sense of something being there that otherwise we would not have.

Now, you may think that emotion is our way of sensing the spiritual, and that's fine. However, there is no evidence of that. No one has ever shown what the spiritual is nor how it interacts with humanity to create the emotional reactions. I cannot see, hear, taste, smell, or touch the spiritual. I cannot sit with another person, experience sadness, and expect them to feel the same thing because we are both sensing something spiritual. Our emotions are, by and large, limited to ourselves.

You have often stated your beliefs as though they are fact. Some of your stated beliefs are contradictory with the Bible. If, as you say, you know you are correct, then you know that at least in some ways, the Bible is wrong. I feel confident the same is true of most or all of the world's major religions. So, in effect, you are saying those religions are wrong.

Not all beliefs automatically mean you dismiss other beliefs. However, when only one or the other can be true, having a belief will inherently mean thinking the other belief is wrong. If you believe that democracy is the best form of government, and someone else thinks communism is the best form of government, do you not automatically think that person is wrong? If you think the Seahawks are going to repeat as Super Bowl champions, and I think they are not, do you not automatically think I am wrong? We can't both be right, they are contradictory beliefs!

I would say that our feelings are definitely physical and can be seen as such by looking at activity in the brain.

Well you are wrong, and if that's what you think, you are ignorant. Our feeling cannot be seen by a machine. You may be able to see our feelings being registered as impulses, but that is not seeing or feelings, that is seeing an effect caused by our feelings which simply are not physical.

That is also not what I mean by sensing something; I'm talking about a spiritual sense that is similar to our 5 physical senses.

Those are all examples of spiritual senses. What do you mean "similar to" here, our five physical senses are all different as night and day from each other. Nothing smells like red... Nothing feels like sour. And what the hell, you're going to now construct criteria that for spiritual to exist in must conform to confirmation by one of our five senses? Well, guess what? It never will! You're simply constructing a way to support your disbelief. You are creating impossible criteria and insisting that because the spiritual doesn't meet those, it must not be real! If the spiritual could be readily experienced, confirmed and verified by our five senses, it would cease to be spiritual.

Now, you may think that emotion is our way of sensing the spiritual, and that's fine. However, there is no evidence of that.

You stated that you knew of nothing we could observe that was non-physical, and I gave you examples. What do you mean by "evidence of that?" Physical evidence the spiritual exists? I think all of us can agree, that IS the root of the whole debate here. If we could physically show evidence the spiritual exists, none of us would be arguing about this. Yes, our emotions are very much "spiritual" because they certainly are not physical.

No one has ever shown what the spiritual is nor how it interacts with humanity to create the emotional reactions.

People do it all the time. I've just given you a lengthy list of emotions related to our human spirit. You want to dismiss them, find excuses to rationalize your disbelief, draw impossible criteria for the spiritual to meet. You don't even want to admit our emotions are not physical!

You have often stated your beliefs as though they are fact.

Well that's because my beliefs ARE facts. I believe I am connecting with Spiritual Nature... that's a fact! I'm sorry it's a fact, I wish I could just ignore that fact and pretend something else was a fact instead, then maybe I could see things from your perspective. But I can't. Now I think we can rationally agree, there can be facts that you don't realize or acknowledge. None of us are privy to all the facts known to the universe, are we?

If, as you say, you know you are correct, then you know that at least in some ways, the Bible is wrong. I feel confident the same is true of most or all of the world's major religions. So, in effect, you are saying those religions are wrong.

No, that's not what I am saying. I don't know what is "wrong." Just because there is something I don't believe, doesn't mean I think it is wrong. I don't like rhubarb pie, it doesn't mean I think it's wrong or other people shouldn't eat rhubarb pie. I don't accept organized religions because they are man-made and man is flawed. It's not that I think they are wrong, I just don't believe in them. All across America, people are cheering on their favorite American Idol contestant, but I don't have one because I don't watch American Idol, and I don't think the contestants there are truly the best talent in America, much less idols. I don't think it's wrong, I don't think people are wrong to cheer for their favorites, it doesn't matter to me what people do.