Society/Culture Nobody has anything new to say about God.

[Total Power]

Don't resort to those levels....There's a saying about that which I'm sure you're aware of.
Just kidding, but it's a shame when a topic that could develop into a reasonable discussion, gets hijacked and dragged into a sewer.

Shan Dog has pulled out the intelligence quotient challenge. Any takers?
I used to be around the old ~150 mark, but doubt very much I'm anywhere near that any more. Last lot of 'online' testing had me constantly between 135-140. Maybe it was a shit test and I'm actually sub 100

I got carried away, constant references to pseudo science when i refer to actual science led to this. When i post a peer reviewed document like NDE study then thats not "actual peer review", actual peer review is only when the conclusion agrees with the confirmation bias. There is plenty of peer reviewed studies of non-local consciousness but i cannot quote them, cause you know, those peer reviews don't count.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Tests when I was younger, but yes, I have no idea how genuine online test are, but having done many, it's odd how the roughly the same results front up.
Like I said, they're probably shit and I may be less than 100

Where have you done yours?

I reckon most of us have tried them at one time or another....Sheer click-bait I'd of thought.....Similar numbers to yours from memory.

But yeah....I'm probably around a 70 IRL.

 

[HARKER]

I reckon most of us have tried them at one time or another....Sheer click-bait I'd of thought.....Similar numbers to yours from memory.

But yeah....I'm probably around a 70 IRL.

I've known people with very high IQ's but in practical terms, they were as dumb as dog-shit.....or maybe they just didn't wish to converse with someone of my inferior intelligence and bluffed me. It's possible.

I got carried away, constant references to pseudo science when i refer to actual science led to this. When i post a peer reviewed document like NDE study then thats not "actual peer review", actual peer review is only when the conclusion agrees with the confirmation bias. There is plenty of peer reviewed studies of non-local consciousness but i cannot quote them, cause you know, those peer reviews don't count.

I hear you and understand the power of confirmation bias.
I still have to fight it on occasions and slap myself when I get drawn into it. It's nowhere near as easy to break the habit, as logic tells you it should be.
First port of call when I head down the wrong path is to stop and ask myself, "What's really happening here?" and then at times I forget that too.

Oh well. Live and learn.

 

[Total Power]

I hear you and understand the power of confirmation bias.
I still have to fight it on occasions and slap myself when I get drawn into it. It's nowhere near as easy to break the habit, as logic tells you it should be.
First port of call when I head down the wrong path is to stop and ask myself, "What's really happening here?" and then at times I forget that too.

Oh well. Live and learn.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569494/

Have a read when you have time, specially the conclusion. If i say it then i get abused here for preaching pseudo science.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I've known people with very high IQ's but in practical terms, they were as dumb as dog-shit.....or maybe they just didn't wish to converse with someone of my inferior intelligence and bluffed me. It's possible.

I hear you and understand the power of confirmation bias.
I still have to fight it on occasions and slap myself when I get drawn into it. It's nowhere near as easy to break the habit, as logic tells you it should be.
First port of call when I head down the wrong path is to stop and ask myself, "What's really happening here?" and then at times I forget that too.

Oh well. Live and learn.

I just keep on telling myself that I'm a quixotic savant....That seems to get me through the day just fine.....Where's Rocinante Sancho?

 

[HARKER]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569494/

Have a read when you have time, specially the conclusion. If i say it then i get abused here for preaching pseudo science.

Even science doesn't sell itself as absolute proof of anything, but rather the current state of understanding.
i.e. It's doing its best with the resources it has......or at least that's the way it should be.

Thanks TP. I'll definitely give it a read, but generally speaking, peoples personal experiences excite me a lot more than a read of someone else's journal.
That's what makes these type forum interesting to me. Sometimes they're honest.

 

[Total Power]

Even science doesn't sell itself as absolute proof of anything, but rather the current state of understanding.
i.e. It's doing its best with the resources it has......or at least that's the way it should be.

Thanks TP. I'll definitely give it a read, but generally speaking, peoples personal experiences excite me a lot more than a read of someone else's journal.
That's what makes these type forum interesting to me. Sometimes they're honest.

I totally agree. Most atheists consider this a weak argument, as they pull out the "God of the gaps" chestnut.

We demand to be able to be shown something that our primary senses can observe. The reality is though, that we are nwhere near as as advanced as we think. Me providing you with a magnifying glass and asking you to show me an atom isnt going to happen. Similarly, we are generally aware that subatomic energies exist, yet can't observe them physically (if an atom was the size of the solar system, a string, assuming they exist as thought, is the equivalent size of a tree, i mentioned this many times before. I also keep telling people here what method to employ to explore those energies. we as bodies are made up of all the stuff that forms the Universe. Intimitely connected to both seen and unseen. Known and unknown. As such, it is my opinion that we are the only instruments currently sophisticated enough to experience the full spectrum of energies.

Unfortunately that means all knowledge obtained is subjective. This means that all experiences can be dismissed by those who want to do so, as being inadmissible, due to lack of objectively verifiable proof.

 

[HARKER]

I totally agree. Most atheists consider this a weak argument, as they pull out the "God of the gaps" chestnut.

We demand to be able to be shown something that our primary senses can observe. The reality is though, that we are nwhere near as as advanced as we think. Me providing you with a magnifying glass and asking you to show me an atom isnt going to happen. Similarly, we are generally aware that subatomic energies exist, yet can't observe them physically (if an atom was the size of the solar system, a string, assuming they exist as thought, is the equivalent size of a tree, i mentioned this many times before. I also keep telling people here what method to employ to explore those energies. we as bodies are made up of all the stuff that forms the Universe. Intimitely connected to both seen and unseen. Known and unknown. As such, it is my opinion that we are the only instruments currently sophisticated enough to experience the full spectrum of energies.

Unfortunately that means all knowledge obtained is subjective. This means that all experiences can be dismissed by those who want to do so, as being inadmissible, due to lack of objectively verifiable proof.

My argument is very simple when it comes to the notion of maker.
I can understand having been created.....but just not from the sources we've dieted on.

Man lies for a variety of reasons. It has done so for many reasons over the ages and unfortunately will continue to do so.

 

[Total Power]

My argument is very simple when it comes to the notion of maker.
I can understand having been created.....but just not from the sources we've dieted on.

Man lies for a variety of reasons. It has done so for many reasons over the ages and unfortunately will continue to do so.

This is what gnosticism is all about, finding your own truth, i said many times here, don't believe what i am telling you find it out yourself. This has been verified by a myriad of spiritual scientists over milenia, the process been more rigorous than peer review itself. I mentioned several times too, what method to apply, yet it's dismissed, cause maybe some atheist tried to 10 minutes and then it didn't work for him = case dismissed. It actually takes months , if not years to master this. I have been very lucky to have the best people teach me (atmosphere mattered too).

 

[Snake_Baker]

Don't resort to those levels....There's a saying about that which I'm sure you're aware of.
Just kidding, but it's a shame when a topic that could develop into a reasonable discussion, gets hijacked and dragged into a sewer.

Lookout, Deepak MK II has arrived.

Shan Dog has pulled out the intelligence quotient challenge. Any takers?
I used to be around the old ~150 mark, but doubt very much I'm anywhere near that any more. Last lot of 'online' testing had me constantly between 135-140. Maybe it was a shit test and I'm actually sub 100

He's referring to I.Q., not golf.

 

[Procrastinator35]

This one's for my mates, Snakey Baker & Chelsea-Carlton.

 

[Snake_Baker]

This is more my style:

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Total Power]

So that makes North fans the most intelligent then ok!

 

[Pie eyed]

I totally agree. Most atheists consider this a weak argument, as they pull out the "God of the gaps" chestnut.

We demand to be able to be shown something that our primary senses can observe. The reality is though, that we are nwhere near as as advanced as we think. Me providing you with a magnifying glass and asking you to show me an atom isnt going to happen. Similarly, we are generally aware that subatomic energies exist, yet can't observe them physically (if an atom was the size of the solar system, a string, assuming they exist as thought, is the equivalent size of a tree, i mentioned this many times before. I also keep telling people here what method to employ to explore those energies. we as bodies are made up of all the stuff that forms the Universe. Intimitely connected to both seen and unseen. Known and unknown. As such, it is my opinion that we are the only instruments currently sophisticated enough to experience the full spectrum of energies.

Unfortunately that means all knowledge obtained is subjective. This means that all experiences can be dismissed by those who want to do so, as being inadmissible, due to lack of objectively verifiable proof.

The real issue with an extant god/gods is that one/they is/are not necessary. No part of the universe or existence relies on the existence of god/gods and in the absence of anything which god/gods successfully explain I have no need to entertain one/any.
Clearly some peoples need to explain a universe which sprang from nothing which they cannot fathom, by conjuring a being/beings which exists outside of the universe which also sprang from nothing.

 

[Moshie The Mook]

This is why Hank spent 12 years in the postal service. To keep his confidence levels up

 

[skilts]

The real issue with an extant god/gods is that one/they is/are not necessary. No part of the universe or existence relies on the existence of god/gods and in the absence of anything which god/gods successfully explain I have no need to entertain one/any.
Clearly some peoples need to explain a universe which sprang from nothing which they cannot fathom, by conjuring a being/beings which exists outside of the universe which also sprang from nothing.

For a moment there, the turn this thread has taken made me think there might be a New Wage coming on. All contributions gratefully accepted.

 

[Total Power]

The real issue with an extant god/gods is that one/they is/are not necessary. No part of the universe or existence relies on the existence of god/gods and in the absence of anything which god/gods successfully explain I have no need to entertain one/any.
Clearly some peoples need to explain a universe which sprang from nothing which they cannot fathom, by conjuring a being/beings which exists outside of the universe which also sprang from nothing.

The universe is without a beginning and without an end. Read the eastern mythologies. God is not "different" from the universe (this is not the god of the organised religion i am talking about, god is not a "being"), the universe is also a manifestation of god. The laws of physics which science describes nicely in terms of equations, what are the odds of that happening "by chance"? We are all bound by laws of nature, but the laws of nature just exists by "chance"? That requires much more faith than any religion.

So now the scientists are saying we are all a simulation and nothing is real, so that goes ok with you lot, the moment i say it that "matter doesn't exist" as Planck said then i am a pseudo scientist? If everything is a simulation, then are just merely projections and reality doesn't exist, QM says it, what we see is our creation, completely OR we are simulated to see what we see, its either or, not both. Funny when the gods of atheism say it people buy it.

 

[Pie eyed]

The universe is without a beginning and without an end. Read the eastern mythologies. God is not "different" from the universe (this is not the god of the organised religion i am talking about, god is not a "being"), the universe is also a manifestation of god. The laws of physics which science describes nicely in terms of equations, what are the odds of that happening "by chance"? We are all bound by laws of nature, but the laws of nature just exists by "chance"? That requires much more faith than any religion.

So now the scientists are saying we are all a simulation and nothing is real, so that goes ok with you lot, the moment i say it that "matter doesn't exist" as Planck said then i am a pseudo scientist? If everything is a simulation, then are just merely projections and reality doesn't exist, QM says it, what we see is our creation, completely.

I think you are just grasping at theories or quotes which suit your belief.
Nothing you have mentioned, bar God require any faith at all.
Nothing is certain in science and it is endlessly fluid. It changes with every discovery. The doctrine of science is one of constant change, peer review and revision in the face of new evidence.
The only faith involved science that it will be constantly tested and refined.
Matter does not exist, and then it does and the fact we can understand this is through science not religion.

 

[Total Power]

I think you are just grasping at theories or quotes which suit your belief.
Nothing you have mentioned, bar God require any faith at all.
Nothing is certain in science and it is endlessly fluid. It changes with every discovery. The doctrine of science is one of constant change, peer review and revision in the face of new evidence.
The only faith involved science that it will be constantly tested and refined.
Matter does not exist, and then it does and the fact we can understand this is through science not religion.

Matter does not exist has been suggested in eastern mythologies some 3,000 years ago, the concept of reality being an illusion, please educate yourself in mythologies instead of spewing ignorance.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The laws of physics which science describes nicely in terms of equations, what are the odds of that happening "by chance"? We are all bound by laws of nature, but the laws of nature just exists by "chance"? That requires much more faith than any religion.

What rubbish.

Science currently tells us that random chance has a higher probability than any religions absent creator.

So now the scientists are saying we are all a simulation and nothing is real, so that goes ok with you lot, the moment i say it that "matter doesn't exist" as Planck said then i am a pseudo scientist? If everything is a simulation, then are just merely projections and reality doesn't exist, QM says it, what we see is our creation, completely OR we are simulated to see what we see, its either or, not both. Funny when the gods of atheism say it people buy it.

Max Planck was born 150 years ago and died 70 years ago.

Planck also stated: “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

This included him. It will definitely include you.

The men of this time were expressing awe and wonder at things that science was just beginning to touch upon. The reason you consistently employ these antiquated quotes is because they allow enough lack of knowledge for you to slip your ideology in to them.

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

The real issue with an extant god/gods is that one/they is/are not necessary. No part of the universe or existence relies on the existence of god/gods and in the absence of anything which god/gods successfully explain I have no need to entertain one/any.
Clearly some peoples need to explain a universe which sprang from nothing which they cannot fathom, by conjuring a being/beings which exists outside of the universe which also sprang from nothing.

But our existence might totally depend on an external creator (non religious kind) to this universe.
And why the need to fathom, isn’t that just evolution, nature, curiosity, pursuit of science...as a prep kid I’ve been fathoming, just innate, the universe has made us that way, well some!

 

[Total Power]

What rubbish.

Science currently tells us that random chance has a higher probability than any religions absent creator.

Random chance if there is an infinite amount of time, according to all scientific theories, time wasn't infinite. 13.8 billion years is not very long in cosmic scale. And laws became "laws" just like that. So laws were just a product of accident? prove it to me showing a peer reviewed research paper that within a finite amount of time laws can become laws. I think you place way too much emphasis on science, science is just about observation, nothing more! it will never offer any other explanation outside of that.

Max Planck was born 150 years ago and died 70 years ago.

Planck also stated: “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

This included him. It will definitely include you.

The men of this time were expressing awe and wonder at things that science was just beginning to touch upon. The reason you consistently employ these antiquated quotes is because they allow enough lack of knowledge for you to slip your ideology in to them.

Utter drivel, this comes from a person who thinks Tesla was a mechanical engineer and nothing more than that.You take someone's quote and you use to your advance, what part of "Planck's biography" have you read? What Planck said in his book that ultimately science and spirituality will join hands when we discover behind everything lies "consciousness" which was non local in nature. This has been disproved has it? Spewing ignorance, by googling a few quotes like you been doing all along this thread will result in such uneducated statements


Planck ,Bohr, Bohm, Bose-Einstein models, Heisenberg's basic premise still remains as valid as it was 100 years ago. Planck's basic premise was "Matter does not exist", this has been confirmed time and time again, mostly recently by the rise of the simulation theory. You are just mad, cause you want to use science to confirm your nonsensical religious belief of atheism , when actual science says otherwise.

But i am not getting in another debate with you, maybe learn about science first, then we can talk till then you can keep talking to yourself. This is exhibit B of you quoting someone without know wtf they were on about, i can suggest several books on Planck and specially Neils Bohr/wheeler, maybe you can educate yourself finally, once you do, i will reply again.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Random chance if there is an infinite amount of time

Say what? Come again?

according to all scientific theories, time wasn't infinite. 13.8 billion years is not very long in cosmic scale.

You have confirmation of the state of things prior to the big bang?

And laws became "laws" just like that. So laws were just a product of accident? prove it to me showing a peer reviewed research paper that within a finite amount of time laws can become laws.

The second law of thermodynamics starts in 1850 with Clausius and has moved through the years to today and still stands rock solid. Your request for "a peer reviewed research paper" in relation to your question, simply further highlights your ignorance of science.

I think you place way too much emphasis on science, science is just about observation, nothing more! it will never offer any other explanation outside of that.

I utilise the tangibles to understand. You utilise the tangibles to suit your intangibles.

Utter drivel, this comes from a person who thinks Tesla was a mechanical engineer and nothing more than that.

Here you go again. I stated Tesla was a mechanical and electrical engineer. This is a fact.

You take someone's quote and you use to your advance,

My head just literally exploded from the irony.

what part of "Planck's biography" have you read?

None.

What Planck said in his book that ultimately science and spirituality will join hands when we discover behind everything lies "consciousness" which was non local in nature. This has been disproved has it? Spewing ignorance, by googling a few quotes like you been doing all along this thread will result in such uneducated statements.

There's no way I am going to rely on your interpretations of his works. Provide the book, page number and direct quote.

I have already informed you that scientists thought a lot differently 100 years ago, due to a bigger picture being unavailable to them. Science has grown at a massive rate since these times. FFS, Darwin was a Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Planck ,Bohr, Bohm, Bose-Einstein models, Heisenberg's basic premise still remains as valid as it was 100 years ago. Planck's basic premise was "Matter does not exist", this has been confirmed time and time again, mostly recently by the rise of the simulation theory. You are just mad, cause you want to use science to confirm your nonsensical religious belief of atheism , when actual science says otherwise.

Things that are proven "time and time again", are called "law" in scientific circles, not "theory".

Theoretical physicists devise all sorts of wacky bullshit in order to understand the nature of existence.

It's ironic that a person who claims science as religion then utilises selected parts of science to confirm their own religion and remain blissfully unaware of that fact.

But i am not getting in another debate with you, maybe learn about science first, then we can talk till then you can keep talking to yourself. This is exhibit B of you quoting someone without know wtf they were on about, i can suggest several books on Planck and specially Neils Bohr/wheeler, maybe you can educate yourself finally, once you do, i will reply again.

I don't care. I'm still going to call you on your bullshit. Name drop all you like.

 

[Total Power]

Things that are proven "time and time again", are called "law" in scientific circles, not "theory".

Theoretical physicists devise all sorts of wacky bullshit in order to understand the nature of existence.

It's ironic that a person who claims science as religion then utilises selected parts of science to confirm their own religion and remain blissfully unaware of that fact.

I will just post this gem here again, which is exhibit C which is an extension of your original argument which was

"I pointed out that your entire hypothesis was built upon distorting off hand remarks, eastern philosophically influenced quips and straight out maverick thinking, that has been shunted back in the field as we have progressed"

I never claimed it to be a law, Bohr and Heisenberg's Copenhagen interpretation is as valid in QM as it was some 90 years ago as is Planck's "matter does not exist" and"consciousness" is non-local. Bohrs and Einstein had a debate on this about mysticism as well, you might wanna google that and educate yourself further.

So what has been "shunted back in the field as we have progressed" , if so , we have received further confirmations of what they have said through QM and science. Nothing has been shunted back, outside of your mind.

You bring nothing to the table outside of a few google quotes which you pluck from an atheist website! well done, feeling dumb yet?