DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Pity scientists. Never stop with the guessing games, assumptions and preconceived notions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Universe from Nothing?
- Thread starter Tomorrows_Child
- Start date
Pity scientists. Never stop with the guessing games, assumptions and preconceived notions.
gnostic
The Lost One
I don't trust your logic or your reasoning to be not biased.
I ask for evidences, not this biased deluded logic of yours.
Anyone can rationalise what they believe in, but for you to think that any rationality of yours to be factual is what I am concern with.
No evidences mean no fact, and with no facts your version of the capital "R" Reality is far too abstract to be considered real.
I see reality as something that everyone can sense (see, hear, touch, etc), that can be detected or measured.
This soul, you keep harping on about, don't fit in with reality, because it is both abstract and nonexistent, just as all things supernatural don't exist.
You simply don't understand that you are merely perpetrating a primitive superstition or myth about the soul. It doesn't matter, which religions the beliefs in soul come from, they are all have one thing in common, the supernatural don't exist, except in the person's wild imagination (hence superstitions) or in their deluded fantasies.
As interesting as the soul or spirit may be, they fall under the umbrella of the supernatural, not reality.
I just don't see how reality and the supernatural are one and the same.
To me, the soul is no more real than ghouls and goblins. If you want to believe in them, that's your business, but do not tell me what is real, when I don't trust your words, your reasoning, your logic.
gnostic
The Lost One
Sorry, but your belief in the miracles and the supernatural (eg deity, angels, demons, spirits, heaven and hell, etc) actually fall under the "preconceived notions", which are based on wishful thinking beliefs and blind faith.
At least with science, these assumptions that you are so dismissive about, are actually questioned, challenged and tested. And then any of these assumptions have failed in their tests, then the scientists will know their assumptions were wrong and have been debunked, so at that point, these assumptions are throw away.
Do you even remotely understand why scientists as much tests as possible?
The tests are done to show they are being objective. So if it repeatedly failed, then it is vey high probability that the assumptions or hypotheses are wrong and therefore not science.
The assumptions or hypotheses will only be accepted, if it succeeds repeatedly in the tests or experiments. That when the probability of the assumptions are correct and true.
The number of tests performed, ensure that we have no errors or at least minimise the errors, or there are no statistical anomalies, no biased.
If the hypothesis has been substantiated by a scientist or team of scientists, then it should be submitted to independent scientists or labs, where it would undergo further testings. That's is where peer review come in.
Religion on the other hand, allowed for biases, allow for belief and blind faith.
All church history go way back to the time when they were still burning books, and torturing and burning heretics and alleged witches.
Neither Jesus, nor any of his apostles have ever call for torturing and executing heretics, but the moments the churches gained real political powers, they have become corrupted and abused their powers, by persecuting people.
One of Jesus' advice to his disciples was to not persecute others. Apparently the churches and believers have different ideas what "not persecuting others".
Even today, you have some churches and their followers doing exactly that, persecuting others, but now targets are sometimes the same and at other times different. And when violence cannot be used, then discrimination will do. Discrimination involved denying individuals their rights.
If they are Jews, Muslims, or atheists, persecute them. If they are black, brown, red or yellow-skinned, persecute them. If they are gay or disabled, persecute them. Anything slightly different, persecute them, even if both sides followed Jesus.
Now we have Christian creationists trying to persecute scientists, so nothing really changed for some Christians. The creationists are now the ones trying to justify their bigotry, using the names of their god, Jesus and the bible.
A typical type of creationist tactics, is using misinformation and misrepresentation...in another word, lie...to misrepresent what scientists do, is a form of persecutions.
DavidFirth...you're showing your true colours.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Can't you see that your narrow material beliefs are like a prison of the mind, you are basing your reality on an infinitesimal small part of the whole. If you develop soul awareness through appropriate religious practice, you will have personal subjective evidence of the reality of spirit.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
You assume an awful lot about me, most of it incorrect.
I'll tell you like I tell everybody.
I am 100% certain Genesis is accurate. Now, for you to change my mind about it you'll need 100% absolute proof that it isn't. You don't have anything close to it and I do not buy into scientific assumptions.
We take the same evidence you look at and interpret it differently. If you don't like that, well, that's just tough.
gnostic
The Lost One
I don't see personal belief as evidence, Ben, because (A) it would be subjective, and therefore more akin to personal opinion, and (B) it would be biased.
Evidence should be "as is", like "what you see is what you get".
Belief (like personal opinions) is "what you wish it to be" or "what you want it to be", thus it is naturally biased.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
But your materialistic beliefs are all you have, and I don't see materialistic beliefs as evidence of anything but creating a mental finite 'box' which excludes all reality that does not fit in. Otoh, a mind free from thought leaves the mind open to absolute reality, pure awareness. You have no choice at the moment but to stay in your box, because it serves as a 'womb' from which the young soul will one day will emerge to 'see' the light. All souls go through this obligatory evolutionary pilgrimage.
gnostic
The Lost One
These are scientific inaccuracies of Genesis:
- Creating earth with water (Genesis 1:1-2)...is incorrect. In the beginning the earth was rocks and lava and gases, with no water yet.
- Creating "day" WITHOUT the sun as the light source (1:3-5)...is incorrect. The day required the sun to shine on the surface, and there is only night, when surface is not facing the sun...hence the Earth rotate.
- Evening and morning created without the sun for 3 days prior (1:5, 8 & 13)...is incorrect.
- Creating plants or vegetation before the sun...is incorrect. Land vegetations, like trees didn't exist before the sun.
- Creating birds around the same time as fishes, AND BEFORE any land animals...is incorrect. Amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, in that order, were land animals that exist tens of millions of years, before primitive mammals and primitive birds began appearing during the Cretaceous period.
- Creating a living ADULT human from dust...is incorrect. It is scientifically impossible for a living adult-size man to be made out of dust.
- Flood covering the entire Earth, including the highest mountains...in correct.
- (A) There isn't enough water to reach the peak of Mount Ararat, which is over 5000 metres above sea level, let alone that of the Himalayas, which included over 8000 metres Everest. Where did the water come from and where did it vanish to?
- And (B) if you were to fit all the species of animals into the ark, what did they eat for 12 months, and how did they survive in the confine of the ark without most of them suffocating. Considered that if the water rose as high as attitude of the Himalayas is, the air would be extremely thin and cold.
- (A) There isn't enough water to reach the peak of Mount Ararat, which is over 5000 metres above sea level, let alone that of the Himalayas, which included over 8000 metres Everest. Where did the water come from and where did it vanish to?
If my maths is correct, then the Flood creation would have occurred about (nearly) 6000 years ago, that would mean about 4000 BCE. From the time of creation to Noah's Flood is about 1656 years. That would date the Flood to around about 2340 BCE. The dates are, of course approximate.
But according to archaeology of Jericho, the oldest settlement in Jericho is about 11,000 years old, hence around about 9000 BCE. That's about 5000 years before Adam's creation. Jericho is like some of the old city, where settlement were built on top of earlier settlement, so the further you excavate, the older the settlement, and there as many as 20 successive settlements.
The oldest known fortified wall and tower were found in Jericho, built around 9400 BCE, which were over 3 metres high. During the Middle Ages Europe, the walls would be consider tiny, but in the time of Neolithic period, that's damn impressive.
The Neolithic period was a time when they learn to farm the land to grow their own food, and to make pottery out of clay. But that wall and tower exist in time before they invented the first pottery.
So how can man created 4000 BCE, when there was walled town of Jericho in 9400 BCE?
2nd, in Genesis 10, it stated that Egypt (Mizram) and the city of Uruk (or Erech) didn't exist BEFORE THE FLOOD...again incorrect.
In Egypt, the dynastic period is when the Lower and Upper Egypt were united under 1 ruler, starting the first dynasty, about 3050 BCE. But Egyptian cultures existed before the dynastic period, known as the predynastic period, starting from 4000 BCE to 3050 BCE.
And the Old Kingdom, starting with Djoser of the 3rd dynasty (2686 – 2613 BCE) and ended with the last king of the 6th dynasty (2345 – 2181 BCE). Djoser was the 1st to have pyramid built for him, known as the Step Pyramid, in Saqqara. The pyramids of Giza were built in the early 4th dynasty (2613 – 2498 BCE).
Had the Flood truly occurred around 2340 BCE, it would have happened around the time of Teti (reign 2345 – 2333 BCE), the 1st king of the 6th dynasty. Had the Flood killed of everyone except Noah and his family, then why did Teti have heirs Usekare and Pepi I (2331 – 2287 BCE). Usekare's reign was too short, so there were no pyramid built for him, but Pepi did have one.
But according to Genesis 10, Egypt didn't exist until Ham's son was born AFTER THE FLOOD. But archaeology and history showed that there were no disruption in the 6th dynasty, like a devastating flood, which mean such a flood of Genesis has never occurred.
Likewise, Uruk or Erech, was one of the oldest city in Mesopotamia, with the oldest settlement being built around 5000 BCE. Between 4000 and 3100 BCE, the Neolithic Uruk was the largest city in the world, before the Bronze Age Sumerian civilisation existed. The earliest temple to the goddess Inanna was built around 3400 BCE.
Your notion that Genesis is 100% correct is absolutely nonsense. It is only true, if you ignored science, and if you ignored archaeology and history.
No proof? You wouldn't know what evidence or proof is, even if it hit you on your nose.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
godnotgod
Thou art That
The Eternal Present Moment does not come and go;
But it is the background to all that does.
It is always the case.
There is no before or after;
It is Timeless, Unborn, Unconditioned, Uncreated
Empty, Still, and Silent.
You are That.
godnotgod
Thou art That
You, who demand evidence, dismiss it when it is presented to you right under your very nose! We usually call that 'ignorance', nay 'denial'.
The 'tests' you refer to are bona fide scientific experiments documented in Physics Essays, here:
http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Grinberg1994.pdf
....Professor Goswami describes an experiment he witnessed (Grinberg, above), that since has been replicated by at least four other researchers, in which there seems to be scientific proof of what he calls ‘non-local consciousness,’ consciousness as the unified field, something that connects us all. It is what Jungians might call the collective consciousness, what Vedantists might call Self.
What does this mean? It means that electrical activity is being transferred from one brain to another without any electromagnetic connection. Without any signal. Through intention, the two brains have become correlated non-locally. There is no other way of understanding this result, according to Professor Goswami, and this understanding is to him proof of non-local consciousness....
Dr. Amit Goswami and Non-local Consciousness – June 4 2012 – Jeff Kober Meditation
http://leilakozak.org/wp-content/up...ed-fMRI-between-distant-human-brains-2003.pdf
and others....
related:alVD8B3-5BIJ:scholar.google.com/ - Google Scholar
Last edited:
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
So you know all this since you were there?
gnostic
The Lost One
Sorry, godnotgod, but in order for me to dismiss your evidences you would have to present me evidences for me to dismiss.
If you talking about that silly YouTube video you had posted on non-locality communication, the presenter didn't provide any evidence himself; all he did, was presented his monologue as to why he believe what he believe - non locality communication.
Evidences required lot more than his crude drawing on the whiteboard.
And his video is certainly not a convincing argument for the soul.
gnostic
The Lost One
That's a very pathetically weak argument.
I could ask you the same things.
Were you there when God created everything in Genesis 1?
Were you there when God created Adam from dust? (Genesis 2)
Were you there before, during and after the Flood? (Genesis 7 & 8)
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
No, I wasn't there but I know someone who was. The author of Genesis wasn't there, either, but God had to tell him/her what happened.
The argument isn't weak. I just point out that since you weren't there and you don't know anyone who was, you can only guess at what happened. This is what scientists do, make guesses, many of which are wrong.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Quite a profound comeback...WOW!
What a load of BS!
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
What is nothing but the lack of a something?
So if there was ever a time when the universe, as we know it, did not consist of something, then we would call that something 'nothing'.
For example, science used to think vacuum was empty space. Then, science discovered that the empty space still has stuff in it! Then they discovered that things were made of nothing. Then they discovered that that nothing had stuff in it.
Many people will say the universe originated from nothing. But they will also say that God was still there. How can there be nothing and yet be something? What is a thing? And what would we call this thing that was the universe before it was the universe?
It's somewhat safe to say that whatever the universe was before it was the universe can't be found anywhere in the universe. There is no 'thing' that we can point to and say, "This is what the universe was before it was."
godnotgod
Thou art That
Man, are YOU ever confused!
Who said the video I provided had anything to do with proof of a soul? You are confusing our dialogue with the one you are having with ben d.
If you had been paying attention to what the presenter in the video was saying, you would have realized that the experiment he referred to was not his own belief at all. He was simply presenting a summary of the experiment, and he did include evidence, which was the details of the experiment itself. But your reply here implies that I also did not provide any evidence other than the video. You have chosen to ignore the links I provided, one of which is the actual peer reviewed paper describing the experiment fy Jacobo-Grinsberg in .pdf format that you can read online or download. For your convenience, I provide these links again, as you have ignored them in the first post. The first one below is of the actual experiment. If you don't get it this time, then you best learn how to read English, as I see you are having a communication issue both with me and with ben d:
http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Grinberg1994.pdf
http://leilakozak.org/wp-content/up...ed-fMRI-between-distant-human-brains-2003.pdf
and others....
related:alVD8B3-5BIJ:scholar.google.com/ - Google Scholar
godnotgod
Thou art That
You said and i quote "There is no belief involved in stilling the mind, it is a religious practice. Belief in nothing that caused everything otoh is classic belief..."
You also said
" Haha..I said it was a religious practice to realize transcendence, and you say no it is not a religious practice, religion must be involved..."
And o have proved you wrong by providing evidence that transcendence is not necessarily a religious practice. Do you always go into fits of incredulity when you are beaten?