How do the non-spiritual explain it?

[Boss]

IceCube is a particle detector at the South Pole that records the interactions of a nearly massless subatomic particle called the neutrino.

Ahh... So we are to have FAITH in a piece of equipment invented by man to tell us something exists that we can't detect with our physical senses, which can pass through solid objects including the Earth? But... there can be absolutely nothing to the reported spirituality of humans across 95% of the species for all our existence?

 

[edthecynic]

IceCube is a particle detector at the South Pole that records the interactions of a nearly massless subatomic particle called the neutrino.

Ahh... So we are to have FAITH in a piece of equipment invented by man to tell us something exists that we can't detect with our physical senses, which can pass through solid objects including the Earth? But... there can be absolutely nothing to the reported spirituality of humans across 95% of the species for all our existence?

Our man made non spiritual INSTRUMENTS expand our natural senses, no faith required, only knowledge which you superstitious fools deny yourselves so you can to cling to your mindless superstitions.

 

[Boss]

Our man made non spiritual INSTRUMENTS expand our natural senses, no faith required, only knowledge which you superstitious fools deny yourselves so you can to cling to your mindless superstitions.

So you admit that we were able to expand our senses to discover things we never dreamed existed before? I just want the record to be clear, you are definitely acknowledging this has happened and we have evidence of it. True?

 

[amrchaos]

I really have to read this thread, but I am questioning the approach of answering Boss question with a plea to (natural)science.

First, there is no need to
second, there is a danger in using natural sciences when there are so many inexplicable things in the sciences.

But you don't really need to go that far. This is a question of perception, others people perceptions and determiningg if a given explaination of someone elses experiences is true or not(a highly subjective issue, by the way)

That is Philosophy 101--not Relativistic Physics. Maybe I should give some example of a "non-spiritual" explaination of a "spiritual" occurance(i.e. miracle).

For instance, let use the "miracle" of Simon walking on water

Example 1: They lied. It was fabricated to exalt Jesus as christ

Example 2: They were mistake. Jesus and the disciples were ancient middle eastern hippies that hallucinated alot due to alcohol abuse and and hashish smoking.

Example 3: The area of the Lake that Simon and Jesus walked on was only 3mm deep. When you come to realize this, you would know you have walked on water yourself, and therefore it is not such a big a deal as the NT makes it out to be.

Example 4: Aliens destablized the Earth gravitational field in the area just above the lake where Simon was and that is how he was able to "walk on water" .


Now think, Will a spiritualists accept any of the above as a more plausible explanation than "because Simon had faith in Jesus"


That depends on your spiritualists.
A Christian would agree with the faith explaination while A Jewish one may agree with example 1!

See, explanations for the inexplicable are all over the place-this include spiritual ones-and it is possible that no given explanation is true.

 

[edthecynic]

Our man made non spiritual INSTRUMENTS expand our natural senses, no faith required, only knowledge which you superstitious fools deny yourselves so you can to cling to your mindless superstitions.

So you admit that we were able to expand our senses to discover things we never dreamed existed before? I just want the record to be clear, you are definitely acknowledging this has happened and we have evidence of it. True?

With our physical equipment.
You have already admitted that there is no physical equipment that can detect the superstitious.

 

[edthecynic]

I really have to read this thread, but I am questioning the approach of answering Boss question with a plea to (natural)science.

First, there is no need to
second, there is a danger in using natural sciences when there are so many inexplicable things in the sciences.

But you don't really need to go that far. This is a question of perception, others people perceptions and determiningg if a given explaination of someone elses experiences is true or not(a highly subjective issue, by the way)

That is Philosophy 101--not Relativistic Physics. Maybe I should give some example of a "non-spiritual" explaination of a "spiritual" occurance(i.e. miracle).

For instance, let use the "miracle" of Simon walking on water

Example 1: They lied. It was fabricated to exalt Jesus as christ

Example 2: They were mistake. Jesus and the disciples were ancient middle eastern hippies that hallucinated alot due to alcohol abuse and and hashish smoking.

Example 3: The area of the Lake that Simon and Jesus walked on was only 3mm deep. When you come to realize this, you would know you have walked on water yourself, and therefore it is not such a big a deal as the NT makes it out to be.

Example 4: Aliens destablized the Earth gravitational field in the area just above the lake where Simon was and that is how he was able to "walk on water" .


Now think, Will a spiritualists accept any of the above as a more plausible explanation than "because Simon had faith in Jesus"


That depends on your spiritualists.
A Christian would agree with the faith explaination while A Jewish one may agree with example 1!

See, explanations for the inexplicable are all over the place-this include spiritual ones-and it is possible that no given explanation is true.

The physics of WALKING on water is much more difficult than just standing on water, which most would say is impossible.

 

[BreezeWood]

You should avoid getting your science from fundamentalist creation ministries. Science is a process of discovery. There is no faith requirement in science. The process of peer review will assiduously test and refute. That process is, undeniably, absent regarding your religious claims involving gawds, spirit realms and other such appeals to supernaturalism.

You're simply reciting the dogma you read at the Institute for Creation Research.

Science is a process of discovery. There is no faith requirement in science.

Absolutely! That's what I am telling you. Once you've determined a conclusion, Science clocks out, it's work is done. It's down at the local pub having a beer while you parade around and pontificate your conclusions.

The process of peer review will assiduously test and refute.

Then there isn't a conclusion. If testing and refuting continues, the science is still at work and nothing is concluded.

Now what you are trying to do is have it both ways... Science continues testing and refuting while being conclusive, and that contradicts logic. A conclusion means there is no more to be said, the argument and debate are over, all the science evidence is in, we have tested it and observed it repeatedly and there is no denying the results. Science is not needed at this point, it can't do anything with a conclusion. From the very second you made the conclusion, you stopped practicing Science and began practicing a faith-based belief. Congratulations!

You've given science zero evidence just words. At this point your imaginary friend is just a hypothesis.

What is Science? The physical study of physical nature of the physical universe. It can't have evidence of spiritual nature without making the spiritual nature physical, therefore a paradox exists that can't be overcome. If I can ever give you physical evidence of something spiritual, it is not spiritual any more.

It's not my imagination when I realize blessings from a spiritual source. If these did not happen rather routinely in my life, I would probably abandon spirituality as unimportant to me as a person, as you have. But I dig the bennies too much man! It helps me to cope with all kinds of things in my life and resolve many conflicts. I just feel a whole lot more complete and content as a person, my mind is not wrought with overwhelming frustration and need for validation. It gives me a confidence to resolve problems without fear of failure and inspires me to broaden my horizons. To see the Big Picture better than I ever have in my life. My worst day with Spirituality is greater than my best day without it. But you are here trying to talk me into "not believing in it" as if that's going to happen somehow... it's really cute to me.

.

bossy: It gives me a confidence to resolve problems without fear of failure and inspires me to broaden my horizons. To see the Big Picture better than I ever have in my life. My worst day with Spirituality is greater than my best day without it ... But you are here trying to talk me into "not believing in it" as if that's going to happen somehow.

.
... not believing in it

as long as (it) remains politically correct by its interpreter ? ... but not the inexplicable Spirituality necessary for all living beings that distinguishes them from all other matter - sorry bossy, being a right wing Foxist does not make you a Spiritualist.

.

 

[Boss]

Our man made non spiritual INSTRUMENTS expand our natural senses, no faith required, only knowledge which you superstitious fools deny yourselves so you can to cling to your mindless superstitions.

So you admit that we were able to expand our senses to discover things we never dreamed existed before? I just want the record to be clear, you are definitely acknowledging this has happened and we have evidence of it. True?

With our physical equipment.
You have already admitted that there is no physical equipment that can detect the superstitious.

Yes, with our physical equipment which we had to first invent before we could detect. Were neutrinos "superstitious" before we invented equipment to observe them?

 

[edthecynic]

Our man made non spiritual INSTRUMENTS expand our natural senses, no faith required, only knowledge which you superstitious fools deny yourselves so you can to cling to your mindless superstitions.

So you admit that we were able to expand our senses to discover things we never dreamed existed before? I just want the record to be clear, you are definitely acknowledging this has happened and we have evidence of it. True?

With our physical equipment.
You have already admitted that there is no physical equipment that can detect the superstitious.

Yes, with our physical equipment which we had to first invent before we could detect. Were neutrinos "superstitious" before we invented equipment to observe them?

They were just as physical then as now.
DUH!

 

[Boss]

The physics of WALKING on water is much more difficult than just standing on water, which most would say is impossible.

Most would say it's impossible for particles to travel through the earth.

 

[Boss]

Our man made non spiritual INSTRUMENTS expand our natural senses, no faith required, only knowledge which you superstitious fools deny yourselves so you can to cling to your mindless superstitions.

So you admit that we were able to expand our senses to discover things we never dreamed existed before? I just want the record to be clear, you are definitely acknowledging this has happened and we have evidence of it. True?

With our physical equipment.
You have already admitted that there is no physical equipment that can detect the superstitious.

Yes, with our physical equipment which we had to first invent before we could detect. Were neutrinos "superstitious" before we invented equipment to observe them?

They were just as physical then as now.
DUH!

How so? They couldn't be confirmed by physical science until we built machines to observe them, you said so yourself. How could they be physical but not supported by physics or observable physically?

 

[edthecynic]

Our man made non spiritual INSTRUMENTS expand our natural senses, no faith required, only knowledge which you superstitious fools deny yourselves so you can to cling to your mindless superstitions.

So you admit that we were able to expand our senses to discover things we never dreamed existed before? I just want the record to be clear, you are definitely acknowledging this has happened and we have evidence of it. True?

With our physical equipment.
You have already admitted that there is no physical equipment that can detect the superstitious.

Yes, with our physical equipment which we had to first invent before we could detect. Were neutrinos "superstitious" before we invented equipment to observe them?

They were just as physical then as now.
DUH!

How so? They couldn't be confirmed by physical science until we built machines to observe them, you said so yourself. How could they be physical but not supported by physics or observable physically?

They were obviously observable physically whether we had the instruments or not. Their physical characteristics didn't change when the tools were designed. You are just being typically stupid, as always.

 

[Boss]

You should avoid getting your science from fundamentalist creation ministries. Science is a process of discovery. There is no faith requirement in science. The process of peer review will assiduously test and refute. That process is, undeniably, absent regarding your religious claims involving gawds, spirit realms and other such appeals to supernaturalism.

You're simply reciting the dogma you read at the Institute for Creation Research.

Science is a process of discovery. There is no faith requirement in science.

Absolutely! That's what I am telling you. Once you've determined a conclusion, Science clocks out, it's work is done. It's down at the local pub having a beer while you parade around and pontificate your conclusions.

The process of peer review will assiduously test and refute.

Then there isn't a conclusion. If testing and refuting continues, the science is still at work and nothing is concluded.

Now what you are trying to do is have it both ways... Science continues testing and refuting while being conclusive, and that contradicts logic. A conclusion means there is no more to be said, the argument and debate are over, all the science evidence is in, we have tested it and observed it repeatedly and there is no denying the results. Science is not needed at this point, it can't do anything with a conclusion. From the very second you made the conclusion, you stopped practicing Science and began practicing a faith-based belief. Congratulations!

You've given science zero evidence just words. At this point your imaginary friend is just a hypothesis.

What is Science? The physical study of physical nature of the physical universe. It can't have evidence of spiritual nature without making the spiritual nature physical, therefore a paradox exists that can't be overcome. If I can ever give you physical evidence of something spiritual, it is not spiritual any more.

It's not my imagination when I realize blessings from a spiritual source. If these did not happen rather routinely in my life, I would probably abandon spirituality as unimportant to me as a person, as you have. But I dig the bennies too much man! It helps me to cope with all kinds of things in my life and resolve many conflicts. I just feel a whole lot more complete and content as a person, my mind is not wrought with overwhelming frustration and need for validation. It gives me a confidence to resolve problems without fear of failure and inspires me to broaden my horizons. To see the Big Picture better than I ever have in my life. My worst day with Spirituality is greater than my best day without it. But you are here trying to talk me into "not believing in it" as if that's going to happen somehow... it's really cute to me.

.

bossy: It gives me a confidence to resolve problems without fear of failure and inspires me to broaden my horizons. To see the Big Picture better than I ever have in my life. My worst day with Spirituality is greater than my best day without it ... But you are here trying to talk me into "not believing in it" as if that's going to happen somehow.

.
... not believing in it

as long as (it) remains politically correct by its interpreter ? ... but not the inexplicable Spirituality necessary for all living beings that distinguishes them from all other matter - sorry bossy, being a right wing Foxist does not make you a Spiritualist.

Ahh.... okay, now I get why you are coming across so incendiary toward me. This is about me being a conservative! Has nothing to do with our personal spiritual views and everything to do with our politics. That's nice to know, Breeze!

 

[sealybobo]

Our man made non spiritual INSTRUMENTS expand our natural senses, no faith required, only knowledge which you superstitious fools deny yourselves so you can to cling to your mindless superstitions.

So you admit that we were able to expand our senses to discover things we never dreamed existed before? I just want the record to be clear, you are definitely acknowledging this has happened and we have evidence of it. True?

With our physical equipment.
You have already admitted that there is no physical equipment that can detect the superstitious.

Yes, with our physical equipment which we had to first invent before we could detect. Were neutrinos "superstitious" before we invented equipment to observe them?

No one believed in neutrinos until we detected them

 

[edthecynic]

This is about me being a conservative!

Gee, why am I not surprised you are on the Right!

 

[sealybobo]

Our man made non spiritual INSTRUMENTS expand our natural senses, no faith required, only knowledge which you superstitious fools deny yourselves so you can to cling to your mindless superstitions.

So you admit that we were able to expand our senses to discover things we never dreamed existed before? I just want the record to be clear, you are definitely acknowledging this has happened and we have evidence of it. True?

With our physical equipment.
You have already admitted that there is no physical equipment that can detect the superstitious.

Yes, with our physical equipment which we had to first invent before we could detect. Were neutrinos "superstitious" before we invented equipment to observe them?

No they are scientifically detectable and explainable. Not supernatural at all. Sorry.

 

[sealybobo]

You should avoid getting your science from fundamentalist creation ministries. Science is a process of discovery. There is no faith requirement in science. The process of peer review will assiduously test and refute. That process is, undeniably, absent regarding your religious claims involving gawds, spirit realms and other such appeals to supernaturalism.

You're simply reciting the dogma you read at the Institute for Creation Research.

Science is a process of discovery. There is no faith requirement in science.

Absolutely! That's what I am telling you. Once you've determined a conclusion, Science clocks out, it's work is done. It's down at the local pub having a beer while you parade around and pontificate your conclusions.

The process of peer review will assiduously test and refute.

Then there isn't a conclusion. If testing and refuting continues, the science is still at work and nothing is concluded.

Now what you are trying to do is have it both ways... Science continues testing and refuting while being conclusive, and that contradicts logic. A conclusion means there is no more to be said, the argument and debate are over, all the science evidence is in, we have tested it and observed it repeatedly and there is no denying the results. Science is not needed at this point, it can't do anything with a conclusion. From the very second you made the conclusion, you stopped practicing Science and began practicing a faith-based belief. Congratulations!

You've given science zero evidence just words. At this point your imaginary friend is just a hypothesis.

What is Science? The physical study of physical nature of the physical universe. It can't have evidence of spiritual nature without making the spiritual nature physical, therefore a paradox exists that can't be overcome. If I can ever give you physical evidence of something spiritual, it is not spiritual any more.

It's not my imagination when I realize blessings from a spiritual source. If these did not happen rather routinely in my life, I would probably abandon spirituality as unimportant to me as a person, as you have. But I dig the bennies too much man! It helps me to cope with all kinds of things in my life and resolve many conflicts. I just feel a whole lot more complete and content as a person, my mind is not wrought with overwhelming frustration and need for validation. It gives me a confidence to resolve problems without fear of failure and inspires me to broaden my horizons. To see the Big Picture better than I ever have in my life. My worst day with Spirituality is greater than my best day without it. But you are here trying to talk me into "not believing in it" as if that's going to happen somehow... it's really cute to me.

.

bossy: It gives me a confidence to resolve problems without fear of failure and inspires me to broaden my horizons. To see the Big Picture better than I ever have in my life. My worst day with Spirituality is greater than my best day without it ... But you are here trying to talk me into "not believing in it" as if that's going to happen somehow.

.
... not believing in it

as long as (it) remains politically correct by its interpreter ? ... but not the inexplicable Spirituality necessary for all living beings that distinguishes them from all other matter - sorry bossy, being a right wing Foxist does not make you a Spiritualist.

Ahh.... okay, now I get why you are coming across so incendiary toward me. This is about me being a conservative! Has nothing to do with our personal spiritual views and everything to do with our politics. That's nice to know, Breeze!

There are Ayn rand conservative atheists. In fact most conservatives worship capitalism first then country and god is 3rd.

 

[Boss]

So you admit that we were able to expand our senses to discover things we never dreamed existed before? I just want the record to be clear, you are definitely acknowledging this has happened and we have evidence of it. True?

With our physical equipment.
You have already admitted that there is no physical equipment that can detect the superstitious.

Yes, with our physical equipment which we had to first invent before we could detect. Were neutrinos "superstitious" before we invented equipment to observe them?

They were just as physical then as now.
DUH!

How so? They couldn't be confirmed by physical science until we built machines to observe them, you said so yourself. How could they be physical but not supported by physics or observable physically?

They were obviously observable physically whether we had the instruments or not. Their physical characteristics didn't change when the tools were designed. You are just being typically stupid, as always.

They were obviously observable physically whether we had the instruments or not.

Correct! And this is for subatomic neutrinos which we are totally unaware of. Why can't the same thing apply to something our species is intrinsically connected to? How do you KNOW that spiritual energy isn't some force that we've yet been able to physically quantify and observe? As neutrinos once were.

 

[sealybobo]

IceCube is a particle detector at the South Pole that records the interactions of a nearly massless subatomic particle called the neutrino.

Ahh... So we are to have FAITH in a piece of equipment invented by man to tell us something exists that we can't detect with our physical senses, which can pass through solid objects including the Earth? But... there can be absolutely nothing to the reported spirituality of humans across 95% of the species for all our existence?

Our man made non spiritual INSTRUMENTS expand our natural senses, no faith required, only knowledge which you superstitious fools deny yourselves so you can to cling to your mindless superstitions.

Christians don't really worship god. They worship the idea one day they will be gods and live forever in a heaven.

 

[Boss]

Our man made non spiritual INSTRUMENTS expand our natural senses, no faith required, only knowledge which you superstitious fools deny yourselves so you can to cling to your mindless superstitions.

So you admit that we were able to expand our senses to discover things we never dreamed existed before? I just want the record to be clear, you are definitely acknowledging this has happened and we have evidence of it. True?

With our physical equipment.
You have already admitted that there is no physical equipment that can detect the superstitious.

Yes, with our physical equipment which we had to first invent before we could detect. Were neutrinos "superstitious" before we invented equipment to observe them?

No they are scientifically detectable and explainable. Not supernatural at all. Sorry.

Before they were scientifically detectable and explainable, were they supernatural?