Originally posted by Bardock42thats iyo. 😉
Seems like he doesn't, atm, and or doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
i just believe in what i believe 🙂
Exaclty, which is why such a discussion is moot. We've been arguing with each other for at least 5,000 years over whatever retarded mythology someone has decided to make up at any particular moment.
Myhtology will always adapt/redefine to survive, filling in the spaces not occupied by modern life. Those spaces remaining will continually be infringed upon. Thus is human existance.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You'll have to elaborate on why that's a flaw in the argument. It could be pretty much anything that there is no evidence for or against and the analogy makes sense.
I think inamalist and mindship summed it up. Hence the cyclic nature of this problem, stated above.
Science is very good at disproving Zeus. It disproved about the first 1500 years of the sun god cults...we're still working on post-enlightnement mythology.
Originally posted by Ordo
We've been arguing with each other for at least 5,000 years over whatever retarded mythology someone has decided to make up at any particular moment.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I suppose if by definition you say God can do anything, then that would include breaking laws of science or logic, so you'd be right,
Doesn't the Big Bang imply that? Before the Big Bang, there was no time or physics.
A singularity is the center of a black hole, where time and space stop. That doesn't seem to violate laws or logic?
Originally posted by Ordo
Exaclty, which is why such a discussion is moot. We've been arguing with each other for at least 5,000 years over whatever retarded mythology someone has decided to make up at any particular moment.
Who's "we"?
Scientists (and regular people who want science to disprove God) haven't been around for 5,000 years.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Who's "we"?Scientists (and regular people who want science to disprove God) haven't been around for 5,000 years.
We = humans.
People have been trying to disprove __fill in your god here__ since __fill in your god here__ ws first mentioned.
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
.....
I concede that Ra is the one true God.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Doesn't the Big Bang imply that? Before the Big Bang, there was no time or physics.A singularity is the center of a black hole, where time and space stop. That doesn't seem to violate laws or logic?
I was saying that God if he could do this "anything" we talk about could break the laws of logic within this universe and not be able to be perceived and at the same time be perceived, which is a mind boggling concept to me.
I think you are right however, that some theories say that time and space only make sense in relation to this universe we live in, though I again, must say that that seems to be just random trivia thrown my way, only connected to what I said in the loosest of ways if at all.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The problem is that we do not agree on what God is - we can dispute Torah, Bible and Qur'an and their definitions of God, but we do not all agree on what it may actually be.We cannot begin to collect or think about empirical evidence of something we as humans fail to agree on what that may actually be, a man in the sky, universe as a whole, aliens, sun, nature, life force...etc.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not actually the definition of God though, in fact the God of the bible could be empirically wittnessed in multiple ways and by anyone. Which is superior to Unicorns which in some lore can only be seen by the pure of heart...does that make Unicorns more likely? No. The addition "and it can't be wittnessed by the senses" doesn't make something more likely logically. In fact I would say that I would rather believe the claim of something being perceivable, as it wouldn't raise the question how the claim-er knows of the thing/being in the first place.When you claim there are "magical beings looking like horses and having a horn on their head", everyone will laugh at you, and rightly so, the addition "magical beings looking like horses and having a horn on their head, but they can't be seen" doesn't make the claim more plausible for unicorns and neither should it for God(s).
The popular Biblical God, IMO, is a metaphor often taken way too literally. Personally, I don't see paper and ink as empirical proof of said miracles/events. It's just empirical proof of a Bible.
As far as I'm concerned, nothing has happened in my lifetime - no 'miracle' - to warrant my seeing such an event as proof of God (and it still wouldn't be direct proof: all I'd actually be witnessing is an effect).
What I'm trying to say is that the absence of direct empirical evidence for God is open to broader interpretation. If I know I can see some rare special entity, I'll look for it, and if I don't find one, I feel safe saying none must exist. But if you tell me look for something invisible, after this - 😬 - I'd ask, how? How did you find it? You could tell me of wonders you wtinessed, but that would be heresay, not direct evidence. Or you could tell me what I needed to do in order to perceive the invisible.
Originally posted by Mindship
The popular Biblical God, IMO, is a metaphor often taken way too literally. Personally, I don't see paper and ink as empirical proof of said miracles/events. It's just empirical proof of a Bible.As far as I'm concerned, nothing has happened in my lifetime - no 'miracle' - to warrant my seeing such an event as proof of God (and it still wouldn't be direct proof: all I'd actually be witnessing is an effect).
What I'm trying to say is that the absence of direct empirical evidence for God is open to broader interpretation. If I know I can see some rare special entity, I'll look for it, and if I don't find one, I feel safe saying none must exist. But if you tell me look for something invisible, after this - 😬 - I'd ask, how? How did you find it? You could tell me of wonders you wtinessed, but that would be heresay, not direct evidence. Or you could tell me what I needed to do in order to perceive the invisible.
It seems we are exactly on the same page. But just to clarify I didn't mean that the bible was empirical evidence for God, but that the (imo fictional) entity God from the bible left empirical evidence, and even interacted with people.
Originally posted by DeadlineNDEs are not scientific proof of any transcendent reality. They're intriguing, and some reports are powerfully suggestive. But this sort of evidence is anecdotal, far from conclusive, and currently solely accounted for via the neurochemistry of a brain under stress.
What about NDEs?
Originally posted by Digi
What about them? Most of the affects of NDEs can be easily recreated in laboratory settings. Nothing that happens in an NDE is without a plausible cognitive explanation, and most are fully explained.
You can get rid of a perons brain activity and heart activity?
Originally posted by Mindship
NDEs are not scientific proof of any transcendent reality. They're intriguing, and some reports are powerfully suggestive. But this sort of evidence is anecdotal, far from conclusive, and currently solely accounted for via the neurochemistry of a brain under stress.
I don't know about that there seem to be alot of scientific people that disagree, but I do need to look into it further.
Originally posted by Digi
Nothing that happens in an NDE is without a plausible cognitive explanation, and most are fully explained.
Yes but you're not actually supposed to see anything if you don't have any brain activity..
Originally posted by Deadline
You can get rid of a perons brain activity and heart activity?
Huh? Getting rid of brain activity would result in no experience whatsoever. NDE's are experiences by their very definition. Brains aren't non-functional during NDE's, they just enter a severely altered state. Your idea of NDE's is flawed from the start. No brain activity = no experience. But brain produce electrical signals even after death, so even in very, very dire phases of an NDE it's possible to retain some awareness.
Out of body experiences can be recreated by stimulating very specific portions of the brain that are associated with traumatic or shocking incidents. Such controlled stimulation has also found success in inducing heightened states of terror and shock that come along with a traumatic NDE. The "white light" seen by many who experience an NDE is most likely the brain starting to lack oxygen, at which point various bodily functions begin shutting down. Vision is one of the first to go, the edges of vision more specifically, but awareness remains. Thus the white tunnel of colloquial mythology.
That's it in a nutshell. Meditative states also deal with stimulation of normally-dormant brain combinations. It doesn't mean anything mystical is going on. Apply Occum's Razor and modern science and it's really all very explainable.
Originally posted by Digi
Huh? Getting rid of brain activity would result in no experience whatsoever.
As far as I know thats not actually true.
Originally posted by Digi
NDE's are experiences by their very definition. Brains aren't non-functional during NDE's, they just enter a severely altered state. Your idea of NDE's is flawed from the start. No brain activity = no experience. But brain produce electrical signals even after death, so even in very, very dire phases of an NDE it's possible to retain some awareness.
Oh god here we go again your dictating defintions to me. Im actually discussing this with another person whos conducted research on this and has stated that people have NDEs who have no brain activity. Now I do need to conduct further reasearch but what he stressed to me is that there we no brain actvity. Obvoulsy that guy has a flawed understanding of what an NDE is.
Originally posted by Digi
Out of body experiences can be recreated by stimulating very specific portions of the brain that are associated with traumatic or shocking incidents. Such controlled stimulation has also found success in inducing heightened states of terror and shock that come along with a traumatic NDE. The "white light" seen by many who experience an NDE is most likely the brain starting to lack oxygen, at which point various bodily functions begin shutting down. Vision is one of the first to go, the edges of vision more specifically, but awareness remains. Thus the white tunnel of colloquial mythology.That's it in a nutshell. Meditative states also deal with stimulation of normally-dormant brain combinations. It doesn't mean anything mystical is going on. Apply Occum's Razor and modern science and it's really all very explainable.
If they have brain actvity then its not an NDE. You might as well give somebody some LSD and call it an out of body experience. Look to be quite honest those could be considered to be NDEs but NDEs that occur when there is no brain activity are more conclusive.
Originally posted by Digi
Occam's Razor
Originally posted by Deadline
Im actually discussing this with another person whos conducted research on this and has stated that people have NDEs who have no brain activity.
I'd like to know how one can set up a scientific study on people who die, and then un-die. Its not like its a controlled experiment.