[Patrick]

tbh I dont think there is a god it all seems too good to be true.

Half the bollocks they say Jesus did in his time such as miricals and stuff, seem like somthing out of A Harry Potter book.

I do know for sure that there is a after life, weither that is Heaven or somthing else altogether, who knows.


My mums friend was up yesterday and gave my mum and aunt a 'Reading' and she spoke to alot of my mums friends that have died.

It is freaky some of the things people know, like it just goes to show how much the people we knew that have died, are watching down on us.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by setanta

Not really. And science is very rigid when it concerns certain areas of humanity, focusing on the materialistic and physical rather than trying to explore other avenues of thought.

That's because science concerns itself material and physical. Leave the other avenues to the other schools. It's like wondering why Everton don't play cricket.

Originally Posted by setanta

but it doesn't hold the answers right now to why we are as we are right now or why we abandoned our basic animal needs and became altruistic/compassionate in nature.

That's not entirely true. There is mounting evolutionary evidence which makes perfect sense to me. In our early state we realized that cooperation and compassion would bring much more enhancement and fruits to our community than agression and conflict. However not all of us are up to this evolved benchmark. Need I remind you that quiet a lot of us are still in full on hunter/gatherer mode. For all talk of altruism and compassion we still wage war with one another. Either way, it's an interesting school of thought that, like the rest of science, will only increase in credibility as time goes by.

Originally Posted by setanta

psychokinesis, near death experiences and how spirituality came into our lives.

It's pretty easy to see, really. Once upon a time, we had no answers. We were living in an unintellectual time period where the sun rising would marvel us, hence why so many cultures saw the sun as being a god. That's only one example. Thousands more exist.

As for all the paranormal, seemingly bizarre experiences our brains can undergo, there is a mountain of neurological evidence to explain these things. We have huge imaginations built up through evolution. Remember, this did take an insanely long amount of time. Look at our ability to dream. Amazing, right? Because when we dream we believe it's real - within the dream itself of course. That's surely as amazing and seemingly mystifying as anything. Yet dreams are perfectly explainable.

Near death experiences could derive from a number of factors, including but not limited to the huge, huge release of adrenaline, dimethyltryptamine and other neurotransmitters which sends the brain into an utter tailspin - compare it to, say, tripping out [dimethyltryptamine is an incredibly potent psychedelic that occurs naturally in the brain and is widely believed to play a role in near death experience].

Your brain is incredibly powerful and is perfectly capable of facilitating, on it's own, these percieved mystical experiences. Just because it has a scientific basis does not make it any less facinating. I hate the assumption that an atheist mind is robbed of all wonder. The brain is still a wonderful thing capable of wonderful states all on it's own, utilizing scientifically grounded chemicals and reactions to produce these states.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Tom

Daft example, you easily disprove that

We will never know how the world started, or whether God exists or not in this lifetime.

How so?

Billions of other examples exist. I love how an abstract, ill defined 'God' could sit outside the perimiter of the universe and the theory gains wide respect and acceptance just because 'god' as been a preserved facet of our culture for millions of years yet suggest to someone that a cardboard box could be floating outside it and they scoff. Why? One hypothesis is equally as absurd as the other. What if God is a box? You can't disprove that, just like ... as you said ... you can't disprove God, right?

It reminds me of that Douglas Adams anecdote of a cult of people who believed snots were demonic, and they prayed and prayed for the coming of 'the great sneeze'. Hey, that's the way our culture could have went. We just picked the man in the sky idea instead. Why is one perceived to be more insane than the other? Because we have been conditioned to accept one, and not the other.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

How so?

Billions of other examples exist. I love how an abstract, ill defined 'God' could sit outside the perimiter of the universe yet suggest to someone that a cardboard box could be floating outside it and they scoff. Why? One hypothesis is equally as absurd as the other. What if God is a box? You can't disprove that, just like ... as you said ... you can't disprove God, right?

You can look for Betelgeuse and see if easter eggs and bread crumbs are orbiting it or not, just as you could find the cardboard box.

You don't see God until you die (apparently). So whilst the examples you give are verifiable, God isn't.

[setanta]

Nope, there's a number of scientists who've stepped away from the materialist side of things and conducted research in different areas, much to the bemusement of the dogmatic system of which they are members of. They're sniggered at but still believe that there are huge amounts of human experience that can't be explained away through the internal mechanics of the mind.

Your theory on the mushrooms and brain synapses leaves me somewhat cold and doesn't explain how our ancestors buried their kin with tools and quite often in a fetal position. And I'm talking thousands of years ago here. That would lead me to believe that even in our primative form, we still acknowledged rebirth or a journey when death comes. That's very interesting to me.

And with near death experiences, patients were able to give detailed accounts of what was going on in the operating theatre while they we heavily sedated and close to death. They could see it all occuring. Mental. I believe that there's others forces at work beyond the merely physical and I applaud any scientists who try to study these areas.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Tom

You can look for Betelgeuse and see if easter eggs and bread crumbs are orbiting it or not, just as you could find the cardboard box.

You don't see God until you die (apparently). So whilst the examples you give are verifiable, God isn't.

No, you couldn't find the cardboard box. That's why I chose to put it outside the perimeter of the universe in my theory. We have not yet breached the perimeter of the universe, nor have we even come to a conclusion that there is anything outside it. Try again.

You don't, however, see God until you die. How fucking convinient! Maybe you see the box when you die?

No, because that's silly .

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

No, you couldn't find the cardboard box. That's why I chose to put it outside the perimeter of the universe in my theory. We have not yet breached the perimeter of the universe, nor have we even come to a conclusion that there is anything outside it. Try again.

You don't, however, see God until you die. How fucking convinient! Maybe you see the box when you die?

No, because that's silly .

The cardboard box is a material object; God isn't. God is a separate entity to the universe. God isn't a giant man with a long beard and a pair of sandals.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by setanta

Nope, there's a number of scientists who've stepped away from the materialist side of things and conducted research in different areas, much to the bemusement of the dogmatic system of which they are members of. They're sniggered at but still believe that there are huge amounts of human experience that can't be explained away through the internal mechanics of the mind.

Okay? Choice they made I guess. Fair play. It's a pointless thing to argue.

Originally Posted by setanta

Your theory on the mushrooms and brain synapses leaves me somewhat cold

The Stoned Ape theory? I never once mentioned it. Different thread in a different time. Who knows. Terrance McKenna could be right, he could be wrong.

Originally Posted by setanta

doesn't explain how our ancestors buried their kin with tools and quite often in a fetal position. And I'm talking thousands of years ago here. That would lead me to believe that even in our primative form, we still acknowledged rebirth or a journey when death comes. That's very interesting to me.

Why does it need explaining? Why is it interesting? We still have certain bizarre customs today, don't we? Customs don't nessacerily need to arise for any particular reason or have any particular logical backing up. They choose to believe in an afterlife and choose to do with the dead what they did. Some people believe David Koresh is the Christ reborn.

Originally Posted by setanta

And with near death experiences, patients were able to give detailed accounts of what was going on in the operating theatre while they we heavily sedated and close to death. They could see it all occuring. Mental. I believe that there's others forces at work beyond the merely physical and I applaud any scientists who try to study these areas.

This is not an uncommon occurence. I believe unintended intra-operative awareness is what you are reffering to, and it is by no means a prerequisite to the spiritual. It's very interesting [and often terrifying] stuff all the same, if you fancy looking it up.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Tom

The cardboard box is a material object; God isn't. God is a separate entity to the universe. God isn't a giant man with a long beard and a pair of sandals.

Says who, says who, and says who? Are you trying to define what God is now? Okay, the mental image most people have of him is man made, but who is to say what he, she or it is? It could well be a box. That's the crux of my argument. Science cannot disprove the existence of God, sure, but it cant disprove the existence of my box God either. It really shows up what a stupid theory it is, and one often put foward by religionists, to say that 'science cannot disprove the existence of God'.

Science cannot disprove the existence of virtually billions of other things we are capable of conjuring up in our imaginations either, yet this ill defined 'God' figure get's special treatment because throughout the course of human history we have been conditioned to accept him. Or her. Or box.

[Shasown]

Interesting arguments either way.

Obviously science hasnt advanced sufficiently to explain all the mysteries of life, the human mind etc. etc. etc. So maybe the human intelligence we rely on isnt really that reliable. Saying that customs believing in life after death and god etc can be explained because of fear of death and simply not wanting to believe that living life is all there is to it. One life, no afterlife, no second chance at it, well thats kind of hard to cope with aint it?

I suppose in some cases people will either believe one way or the other, thats not to say atheists wont have a mystical experience and start to believe, or believers in any form of deities have a crisis of faith and stop believing.

The only guaranteed way to find out is by undergoing that experience we call death, if there is something the other side, the believers in one or another faith will have been proved to be at least partly correct. If there isnt then all those who didnt believe in god etc were correct unfortunately they wont be able to say I told you so.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

Says who, says who, and says who? Are you trying to define what God is now? Okay, the mental image most people have of him is man made, but who is to say what he, she or it is? It could well be a box. That's the crux of my argument. Science cannot disprove the existence of God, sure, but it cant disprove the existence of my box God either. It really shows up what a stupid theory it is, and one often put foward by religionists, to say that 'science cannot disprove the existence of God'.

Science cannot disprove the existence of virtually billions of other things we are capable of conjuring up in our imaginations either, yet this ill defined 'God' figure get's special treatment because throughout the course of human history we have been conditioned to accept him. Or her. Or box.

Who #1- Basic science. Its a fact that a cardboard box is a material object
Who #2/3- The definition of God. God is just 'there' in no physical form

[setanta]

I'm talking about Neanderthals here who didn't have a culture as such Stu, and had very short, violent lifespans. How can you explain a primative species like that having such customs, when all they'd be really interested in is shagging, eating and staying alive? It's amazing really.

As for near death experiences I remember reading about one particular person who was dead on the operating table - heartbeat, brain functions all gone and still could give a detailed account as to what had taken place after he/she has been resuscitated. There is no scientific theory that can really explain it in full. The majority of science looks to internalize all these occurrences, rather than look for any exterior influences that may have been present. The book I'm reading is great. Haven't finished it yet so to be continued lol.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Tom

Who #1- Basic science. Its a fact that a cardboard box is a material object
Who #2/3- The definition of God. God is just 'there' in no physical form

How do you know that God does not take a physical form? Are you just arguing for the sake of it again? I thought you didn't even believe in God?

Your argument rests defiantly on the fact that God is not a material object. Why? How do you know this for a fact? Because to use the threads argument, an argument you started out defending ... science can't prove that God isn't material, right?

Originally Posted by setanta

I'm talking about Neanderthals here who didn't have a culture as such Stu, and had very short, violent lifespans. How can you explain a primative species like that having such customs, when all they'd be really interested in is shagging, eating and staying alive? It's amazing really.

As for near death experiences I remember reading about one particular person who was dead on the operating table - heartbeat, brain functions all gone and still could give a detailed account as to what had taken place after he/she has been resuscitated. There is no scientific theory that can really explain it in full. The majority of science looks to internalize all these occurrences, rather than look for any exterior influences that may have been present. The book I'm reading is great. Haven't finished it yet so to be continued lol.

Yet . Isn't it funny how these weird experiences are always clouded instances that only happen to a very, very, very small percentage of the population?

Who knows what the brain is capable of. It's endlessly amazing and for me, it's not an automatic prerequisite to the spiritual. I can't really argue beyond that really I guess. You have you views and I have mine.

What's the book called?

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

Yet . Isn't it funny how these weird experiences are always clouded instances that only happen to a very, very, very small percentage of the population?

Who knows what the brain is capable of. It's endlessly amazing and for me, it's not an automatic prerequisite to the spiritual. I can't really argue beyond that really I guess. You have you views and I have mine.

What's the book called?

The Spiritual Brain. Very interesting read. And no, I don't believe that you can internalize everything or reduce it down to the purely physical. We shouldn't be that arrogant or presumptuous about everything - we've fu$ked up in the past and right now by living that way.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

How do you know that God does not take a physical form? Are you just arguing for the sake of it again? I thought you didn't even believe in God?

Your argument rests defiantly on the fact that God is not a material object. Why? How do you know this for a fact? Because to use the threads argument, an argument you started out defending ... science can't prove that God isn't material, right?

I don't believe in God but I have more knowledge to back that up instead of "it just doesn't make sense" (done countless essays on it with all different types of evidence for/against and gaining a better understanding of it all). Its very interesting when you look into it a bit more and definitely makes you think.

And science can't prove that God is material, but if we're going to accept the possibility of a God in the first place then we have to accept the definition, and the definition says he's immaterial. Otherwise if you're going to try and prove he is material then you're not searching for the 'right' God.

Btw you'll know if I'm arguing for the sake of it or not, my points actually have substance other than the other day which was just all tongue in cheek

[Stu]

Originally Posted by setanta

The Spiritual Brain. Very interesting read. And no, I don't believe that you can internalize everything or reduce it down to the purely physical. We shouldn't be that arrogant or presumptuous about everything - we've fu$ked up in the past and right now by living that way.

What about the fuck ups past, present and no doubt future as a result of belief in the unproveable? It's a see saw argument that's going to go bad for the both of us I reckon. Is it arrogant to deny that a box cou - alright. I think I have made my box point enough .

I'll definately check out the book though. I'm reading a lot of atheist based stuff right now and I always like to have a balance.

Originally Posted by Tom

I don't believe in God but I have more knowledge to back that up instead of "it just doesn't make sense" (done countless essays on it with all different types of evidence for/against and gaining a better understanding of it all). Its very interesting when you look into it a bit more and definitely makes you think.

And science can't prove that God is material, but if we're going to accept the possibility of a God in the first place then we have to accept the definition, and the definition says he's immaterial. Otherwise if you're going to try and prove he is material then you're not searching for the 'right' God.

Btw you'll know if I'm arguing for the sake of it or not, my points actually have substance other than the other day which was just all tongue in cheek

See this just goes around in circles as ultimately your a slave to the theory .

So this time my question is : Which definition says God is immaterial? I wasn't aware the big fella had a definition. You simply can't prove he is not material. Your right though, you can't prove he is material either.

The topic titles argument is becoming more and more banal as we go along.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

See this just goes around in circles as ultimately your a slave to the theory .

So this time my question is : Which definition says God is immaterial? I wasn't aware the big fella had a definition. You simply can't prove he is not material. Your right though, you can't prove he is material either.

The topic titles argument is becoming more and more banal as we go along.

Definitions that I've worked from in the past generally point in the same direction. Some theodicies etc.

I think to properly look at the two, you need to isolate them both because they just end up falling back on one another and you get nowhere. Reminds me of when you're a kid and you call someone something, only for them to reply "I know you are so what am I?" Religion essentially opens up a whole minefield for philosophy so its hard to argue when religion is involved, and the dreaded "God works in mysterious ways".

To sum up a Facebook group, Christianity: One womans lie about having an affair that got out of hand.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Tom

Definitions that I've worked from in the past generally point in the same direction. Some theodicies etc.

I think to properly look at the two, you need to isolate them both because they just end up falling back on one another and you get nowhere. Reminds me of when you're a kid and you call someone something, only for them to reply "I know you are so what am I?" Religion essentially opens up a whole minefield for philosophy so its hard to argue when religion is involved, and the dreaded "God works in mysterious ways".

To sum up a Facebook group, Christianity: One womans lie about having an affair that got out of hand.

No definition or proof for what god is exists. I think I will rest on that comftorably.

That Facebook group is bang on the money, I reckon .

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

What about the **** ups past, present and no doubt future as a result of belief in the unproveable? It's a see saw argument that's going to go bad for the both of us I reckon. Is it arrogant to deny that a box cou - alright. I think I have made my box point enough .

I'll definately check out the book though. I'm reading a lot of atheist based stuff right now and I always like to have a balance.

.

That's what I mean : it's all about striking a balance and not discounting any theory or train of thought, which most scientists sometimes do. They're very rigid in their ways of thinking, you know? That's why I like to read spiritual stuff too because I believe that there's things out there that we're unaware of and it would be silly to place all your bets on one particular way of thinking, which includes dogmatic science or organized religion lol. They all f£ck up.

I'll sum my thoughts up by talking about my rabbit. Is he inferior in mentality to me? Yes.. well maybe. Is he capable of logical or rational thought? No. Is his main priority just to survive? Yes. When he comes jumping beside me looking for hugs and cuddles do I believe that there's more to it than just a need for warmth and that he loves me? Yes, I do. And how do I know this.... I don't, I just feel it, and it's the same with life and spirituality. Some things can't be explained or internalized. Call it intuition, call it stupidity, but it's how I feel, and until it's completely disproven I will continue to do so. I doubt that made any fecking sense lol.

[Shasown]

Just throw this thought in:

If the physical universe couldn’t have been created by something physical (as the First Law of Thermodynamics states), then the conclusion is obvious: the physical universe had to be started by something non-physical. Whatever it was started everything in motion technically is god.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Just throw this thought in:

If the physical universe couldn’t have been created by something physical (as the First Law of Thermodynamics states), then the conclusion is obvious: the physical universe had to be started by something non-physical. Whatever it was started everything in motion technically is god.

I've always thought that. Physical can't explain everything baby.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by setanta

I've always thought that. Physical can't explain everything baby.

Yep and going by the science's own laws, back to an singularity of infinite density before what we consider as time existed, something kick started it.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Just throw this thought in:

If the physical universe couldn’t have been created by something physical (as the First Law of Thermodynamics states), then the conclusion is obvious: the physical universe had to be started by something non-physical. Whatever it was started everything in motion technically is god.

Thats only assuming the universe actually had a beginning to start with. Our minds can't comprehend that the universe might have always just been here.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Tom

Thats only assuming the universe actually had a beginning to start with. Our minds can't comprehend that the universe might have always just been here.

No I have no problem understanding that concept, it was always there as one small infinitismal point of pure condensed energy, that was always there as a single point of pure condensed energy and it would have always been a single point of pure condenced energy unless something created a change in its state and the big bang started. Some external force, catalyst call it what you want, umm I know lets call it God, for want of a better word, God doesnt have to be an omnipowerful all knowing all loving being does he?

You see if it was an infinite singularity containing all energy/matter then something other than energy/matter would have had to create the effect, if it wasnt an infinite singularity of energy/matter then it had a beginning and if it had a beginning it had a creating force or creator - God.

God doesnt have to be as is defined in any of the religions in existance, having been in existance or even that will come into existance.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Tom

Thats only assuming the universe actually had a beginning to start with. Our minds can't comprehend that the universe might have always just been here.

True. Or the multiverse theory could apply.

Either way, if some intelligence exists, I believe it to be an unconcious one. I'm not sure. You talk about your rabbit Setanta [you should be a veggie after saying something like that, surely?], but how do you explain this? :

I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.

David Attenborough.

Your standpoint is admirable, really, but most of these 'feelings' you experience are the result of neurological firings made possible through millions of years of evolution. We didn't need nor do we need a God to breath love into is. We created it all on our own. We give meaning to our instinctual tendancies because we are emotional creatures.

And if your not going to place your bet on just science, place it on the box god, because hey - the universe could be a practice in absurdity.

[Note to self : Stop reading Robert Rankin].