BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.

---

No.

Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.

There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.

Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?

---

We know for a fact that quantum fluctuations exist. You don't have to understand every aspect to know this.

The fact that when your brain dies, ceases to function completely, or partially consciousness is impaired or ceases. You don't need a mathematical theory to completely explain all aspects to know this. Observation tells us this fact.

What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.

---

Quantum fluctuations do not create spacetime, they are spacetime. You can't point to spacetime/physicalism as causality to further spacetime/physicalism or you have a situation of infinite regress and a paradox of turtles all the way down.

Just because our brains alter consciousness does not mean the brain is where it's derived from. You have no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.

---

If spacetime are quantum variables, then spacetime can spontaneously arise with the particles, laws, and energy that make up the universe.

I don't need a mathematical theory to understand what observation confirms. Analogously, we don't have a mathematical theory that explains what gravity is, but we understand from observation and mathematics what it does. Saying god does it is intellectually deficient.

---

And for the umpteenth time, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained within limits. This constraint by necessity must exist OUTSIDE spacetime. Spacetime can not constrain the conditions of it's own origin, before it even existed. That's a circular logic failure.

What it points to is the existence of something outside of spacetime, i.e. supernatural. It's funny how you're desperately promoting the idea of quantum fluctuations to get AWAY from the supernatural, when that is exactly what it's leading to.

---

Also we know for a fact that amplituhedron and decorated permutations exist outside of spacetime and project perfectly down to space time.

It's literally an "object" outside of spacetime first discovered in 2013 that we don't fully understand yet. It's a monolith we're staring at. Our best physicists are telling us spacetime is doomed, as in it's not the end point of reality.

https://ultraculture.org/blog/2013/09/24/amplituhedron/

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I believe in the reality of God. My faith rises and falls on this notion. To argue the existence of God is to talk about a being but I prefer to talk about the reality of God is to say where is God real in this moment of life. The answer returns to us that God's action are in our lives is love. The overwhelming witness of scripture is that God is love.
Against that reality that "God is love" then one must judge all other attributes we might associate with God.

The Biblical witness, also, says God is a warrior or God's wrath will judge us or God is all powerful but each of these attributes must square with love.
God's love becomes real when we act in love. It is like God is this ocean of love and we are the waves that crash against the shore and we return to love. God as love means we participate in that life of love of so that God becomes real. The source of our waves is the ocean of God's love.

Notice in the gospels how Jesus we "do" the work of love - Mt 7: "Everyone, then, who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock." God's reality become real to us when we act on God's word in love.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.

---

No.

Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.

There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.

Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?

---

We know for a fact that quantum fluctuations exist. You don't have to understand every aspect to know this.

The fact that when your brain dies, ceases to function completely, or partially consciousness is impaired or ceases. You don't need a mathematical theory to completely explain all aspects to know this. Observation tells us this fact.

What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.

---

Quantum fluctuations do not create spacetime, they are spacetime. You can't point to spacetime/physicalism as causality to further spacetime/physicalism or you have a situation of infinite regress and a paradox of turtles all the way down.

Just because our brains alter consciousness does not mean the brain is where it's derived from. You have no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.

---

If spacetime are quantum variables, then spacetime can spontaneously arise with the particles, laws, and energy that make up the universe.

I don't need a mathematical theory to understand what observation confirms. Analogously, we don't have a mathematical theory that explains what gravity is, but we understand from observation and mathematics what it does. Saying god does it is intellectually deficient.

---

And for the umpteenth time, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained within limits. This constraint by necessity must exist OUTSIDE spacetime. Spacetime can not constrain the conditions of it's own origin, before it even existed. That's a circular logic failure.

What it points to is the existence of something outside of spacetime, i.e. supernatural. It's funny how you're desperately promoting the idea of quantum fluctuations to get AWAY from the supernatural, when that is exactly what it's leading to.

---

Also we know for a fact that amplituhedron and decorated permutations exist outside of spacetime and project perfectly down to space time.

It's literally an "object" outside of spacetime first discovered in 2013 that we don't fully understand yet. It's a monolith we're staring at. Our best physicists are telling us spacetime is doomed, as in it's not the end point of reality.

https://ultraculture.org/blog/2013/09/24/amplituhedron/

---

We don't know "yet" what they mean so in the meantime connect those particles to God as love.

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.

---

No.

Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.

There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.

Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?

---

We know for a fact that quantum fluctuations exist. You don't have to understand every aspect to know this.

The fact that when your brain dies, ceases to function completely, or partially consciousness is impaired or ceases. You don't need a mathematical theory to completely explain all aspects to know this. Observation tells us this fact.

What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.

---

Quantum fluctuations do not create spacetime, they are spacetime. You can't point to spacetime/physicalism as causality to further spacetime/physicalism or you have a situation of infinite regress and a paradox of turtles all the way down.

Just because our brains alter consciousness does not mean the brain is where it's derived from. You have no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.

---

If spacetime are quantum variables, then spacetime can spontaneously arise with the particles, laws, and energy that make up the universe.

I don't need a mathematical theory to understand what observation confirms. Analogously, we don't have a mathematical theory that explains what gravity is, but we understand from observation and mathematics what it does. Saying god does it is intellectually deficient.

---

And for the umpteenth time, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained within limits. This constraint by necessity must exist OUTSIDE spacetime. Spacetime can not constrain the conditions of it's own origin, before it even existed. That's a circular logic failure.

What it points to is the existence of something outside of spacetime, i.e. supernatural. It's funny how you're desperately promoting the idea of quantum fluctuations to get AWAY from the supernatural, when that is exactly what it's leading to.

---

Also we know for a fact that amplituhedron and decorated permutations exist outside of spacetime and project perfectly down to space time.

It's literally an "object" outside of spacetime first discovered in 2013 that we don't fully understand yet. It's a monolith we're staring at. Our best physicists are telling us spacetime is doomed, as in it's not the end point of reality.

https://ultraculture.org/blog/2013/09/24/amplituhedron/

---

We don't know "yet" what they mean so in the meantime connect those particles to God as love.

---

Beautifully said 47

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

The core of science to say, "I don't know but let's try this experiment and see what happens." Science is perpetually doubtful its theory; hence, experimentation

Waco1947 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

The core of science to say, "I don't know but let's try this experiment and see what happens." Science is perpetually doubtful its theory; hence, experimentation

---

That may be the core of science, but it is not the core of scientists.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

Science tells us that the dead don't come back to life. Science tells us that the communion wafer doesn't transform into flesh, nor does communion wine to blood. Science tells us the sun doesn't stand still. Science tells us space is not filled with water.....

---

No, science doesn't "tell us" these things. Given that science itself is showing the existence of a reality outside of our universe (i.e. the supernatural), and since science is totally incapable of explaining this outside reality, and if or how it can affect our universe, then science isn't in a position to say that the supernatural can't ever happen. The supernatural is outside the realm of science.

We have historic evidence of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was a supernatural event, not a natural one. The disciple Thomas, after he touched Jesus' resurrected body, would have told you that the "evidence of reality" tells us that a dead person did in fact come back to life. And you just don't have the science to prove him wrong.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.

---

No.

Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.

There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.

Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?

---

....What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.

---

In effect, you're only explaining how the "on" button turns on the picture of the tv, and how the "off" button makes it go away. You're not explaining what's making the picture.

Explain the experience of seeing "red", and how atoms and molecules in your brain produce that. You're not just sensing a certain wavelength of light in your retina, you're actually experiencing the color. This is called qualia. This is the "hard problem" of consciousness that science is incapable of explaining.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

The core of science to say, "I don't know but let's try this experiment and see what happens." Science is perpetually doubtful its theory; hence, experimentation

---

That may be the core of science, but it is not the core of scientists.

---

Yes, it that's nonsensical to think otherwise.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.

---

No.

Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.

There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.

Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?

---

We know for a fact that quantum fluctuations exist. You don't have to understand every aspect to know this.

The fact that when your brain dies, ceases to function completely, or partially consciousness is impaired or ceases. You don't need a mathematical theory to completely explain all aspects to know this. Observation tells us this fact.

What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.

---

Quantum fluctuations do not create spacetime, they are spacetime. You can't point to spacetime/physicalism as causality to further spacetime/physicalism or you have a situation of infinite regress and a paradox of turtles all the way down.

Just because our brains alter consciousness does not mean the brain is where it's derived from. You have no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.

---

If spacetime are quantum variables, then spacetime can spontaneously arise with the particles, laws, and energy that make up the universe.

I don't need a mathematical theory to understand what observation confirms. Analogously, we don't have a mathematical theory that explains what gravity is, but we understand from observation and mathematics what it does. Saying god does it is intellectually deficient.

---

And for the umpteenth time, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained within limits. This constraint by necessity must exist OUTSIDE spacetime. Spacetime can not constrain the conditions of it's own origin, before it even existed. That's a circular logic failure.

What it points to is the existence of something outside of spacetime, i.e. supernatural. It's funny how you're desperately promoting the idea of quantum fluctuations to get AWAY from the supernatural, when that is exactly what it's leading to.

---

Also we know for a fact that amplituhedron and decorated permutations exist outside of spacetime and project perfectly down to space time.

It's literally an "object" outside of spacetime first discovered in 2013 that we don't fully understand yet. It's a monolith we're staring at. Our best physicists are telling us spacetime is doomed, as in it's not the end point of reality.

https://ultraculture.org/blog/2013/09/24/amplituhedron/

---

We don't know "yet" what they mean so in the meantime connect those particles to God as love.

---

Beautifully said 47

---

You're right it was nonsense. I'm sorry

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Our cognitive abilities, and our consciousness are clearly biological functions. Your brain, and other biological functions govern those processes. Sedate, damage or destroy your brain and those functions disappear either completely or partially, depending upon the extent. Cognition to a higher or lesser degree in other animals depends upon the degree of cerebral evolution. Science, and specifically neuroscience, continues to make progress in understanding these processes. Nothing points to supernatural activity. We don't need to rely upon supernatural superstition to explain anything.

---

You're not saying anything here. You're just telling me that it's biology. You're not explaining the "how" part with science. Science fails here. At best, you're only saying that biology is a necessary component of consciousness, but not that it's sufficient. Biology is just atoms and molecules. How do atoms and molecules produce subjective experience? Experiencing the color "red", for example, can not be explained in terms of biological systems.

---

You don't have to know the how part to scientifically understand that it is a biological function.

---

You DO need to fully explain it biologically, in order to claim that it is entirely biological.

Do we need to keep going in circles until you get it?

---

It's simple. You can interrupt/alter the biochemistry or neurologic pathways of the brain (biology) and you will alter degree of consciousness to unconsciousness, even to death, with an extremely high probability and certainty. That observation is repeatable and more than sufficient to make the claim with reasonable certainty and high probability that consciousness is a biological function. I submit that you're the one who should demonstrate inducing a supernatural loss of consciousness. I won't hold my breath waiting.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.

---

No.

Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.

There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.

Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?

---

We know for a fact that quantum fluctuations exist. You don't have to understand every aspect to know this.

The fact that when your brain dies, ceases to function completely, or partially consciousness is impaired or ceases. You don't need a mathematical theory to completely explain all aspects to know this. Observation tells us this fact.

What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.

---

Quantum fluctuations do not create spacetime, they are spacetime. You can't point to spacetime/physicalism as causality to further spacetime/physicalism or you have a situation of infinite regress and a paradox of turtles all the way down.

Just because our brains alter consciousness does not mean the brain is where it's derived from. You have no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.

---

If spacetime are quantum variables, then spacetime can spontaneously arise with the particles, laws, and energy that make up the universe.

I don't need a mathematical theory to understand what observation confirms. Analogously, we don't have a mathematical theory that explains what gravity is, but we understand from observation and mathematics what it does. Saying god does it is intellectually deficient.

---

And for the umpteenth time, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained within limits. This constraint by necessity must exist OUTSIDE spacetime. Spacetime can not constrain the conditions of it's own origin, before it even existed. That's a circular logic failure.

What it points to is the existence of something outside of spacetime, i.e. supernatural. It's funny how you're desperately promoting the idea of quantum fluctuations to get AWAY from the supernatural, when that is exactly what it's leading to.

---

Spacetime itself can be a quantum fluctuation and can spontaneously arise along with the laws that govern that particular universe. Those laws can be unique to that specific universe.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.

---

No.

Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.

There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.

Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?

---

We know for a fact that quantum fluctuations exist. You don't have to understand every aspect to know this.

The fact that when your brain dies, ceases to function completely, or partially consciousness is impaired or ceases. You don't need a mathematical theory to completely explain all aspects to know this. Observation tells us this fact.

What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.

---

Quantum fluctuations do not create spacetime, they are spacetime. You can't point to spacetime/physicalism as causality to further spacetime/physicalism or you have a situation of infinite regress and a paradox of turtles all the way down.

Just because our brains alter consciousness does not mean the brain is where it's derived from. You have no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.

---

If spacetime are quantum variables, then spacetime can spontaneously arise with the particles, laws, and energy that make up the universe.

I don't need a mathematical theory to understand what observation confirms. Analogously, we don't have a mathematical theory that explains what gravity is, but we understand from observation and mathematics what it does. Saying god does it is intellectually deficient.

---

And for the umpteenth time, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained within limits. This constraint by necessity must exist OUTSIDE spacetime. Spacetime can not constrain the conditions of it's own origin, before it even existed. That's a circular logic failure.

What it points to is the existence of something outside of spacetime, i.e. supernatural. It's funny how you're desperately promoting the idea of quantum fluctuations to get AWAY from the supernatural, when that is exactly what it's leading to.

---

Also we know for a fact that amplituhedron and decorated permutations exist outside of spacetime and project perfectly down to space time.

It's literally an "object" outside of spacetime first discovered in 2013 that we don't fully understand yet. It's a monolith we're staring at. Our best physicists are telling us spacetime is doomed, as in it's not the end point of reality.

https://ultraculture.org/blog/2013/09/24/amplituhedron/

---

There is no consensus among our "best physicists" who state that. Name them. At best the concept of amplituhedrons is another way to describe quantum activity. This all comes from string theory, which is interesting but hasn't really told us anything of substance so far. This may be important in terms of improving perturbative quantum field theory calculations, but it is not a new theory of physics. It's a way to organize quantum field theoretic calculations in the unitarity method. It's interesting and may be important.

There is nothing about this concept that precludes a spontaneous universe.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

Science tells us that the dead don't come back to life. Science tells us that the communion wafer doesn't transform into flesh, nor does communion wine to blood. Science tells us the sun doesn't stand still. Science tells us space is not filled with water.....

---

No, science doesn't "tell us" these things. Given that science itself is showing the existence of a reality outside of our universe (i.e. the supernatural), and since science is totally incapable of explaining this outside reality, and if or how it can affect our universe, then science isn't in a position to say that the supernatural can't ever happen. The supernatural is outside the realm of science.

We have historic evidence of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was a supernatural event, not a natural one. The disciple Thomas, after he touched Jesus' resurrected body, would have told you that the "evidence of reality" tells us that a dead person did in fact come back to life. And you just don't have the science to prove him wrong.

---

You only have mysticism and pseudoscience. There is no objective empirical quantifiable scientific evidence to support your claim of the supernatural, or any claim of any supernatural agent acting on our universe. You're caught up in your own perceived alternate reality.

We have historic tales of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was alleged to be a supernatural event, not a natural one, without objective proof or evidence. The evidence of reality tells us Thomas didn't encounter a resurrected body.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

It tells us it is the result of biochemical and neurological processes. Give me evidence that religion or supernatural processes produce consciousness. Did you have consciousness before you were conceived? Did you have subjective ability before your brain developed?

The creation story, age of the earth, universe, etc.

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.

---

No.

Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.

There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.

Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?

---

....What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.

---

In effect, you're only explaining how the "on" button turns on the picture of the tv, and how the "off" button makes it go away. You're not explaining what's making the picture.

Explain the experience of seeing "red", and how atoms and molecules in your brain produce that. You're not just sensing a certain wavelength of light in your retina, you're actually experiencing the color. This is called qualia. This is the "hard problem" of consciousness that science is incapable of explaining.

---

Quote:

---

In effect, you're only explaining how the "on" button turns on the picture of the tv, and how the "off" button makes it go away. You're not explaining what's making the picture.

---

Science additionally tells you how the picture is made, or how to make the picture. Surely, you're not saying the picture appears through inexplicable supernatural means?

Quote:

---

Explain the experience of seeing "red", and how atoms and molecules in your brain produce that. You're not just sensing a certain wavelength of light in your retina, you're actually experiencing the color. This is called qualia. This is the "hard problem" of consciousness that science is incapable of explaining.

---

You're kidding? Science tells us biological genetic alterations affects the ability of some people to interpret the color red. It's not a supernatural phenomenon.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Our cognitive abilities, and our consciousness are clearly biological functions. Your brain, and other biological functions govern those processes. Sedate, damage or destroy your brain and those functions disappear either completely or partially, depending upon the extent. Cognition to a higher or lesser degree in other animals depends upon the degree of cerebral evolution. Science, and specifically neuroscience, continues to make progress in understanding these processes. Nothing points to supernatural activity. We don't need to rely upon supernatural superstition to explain anything.

---

You're not saying anything here. You're just telling me that it's biology. You're not explaining the "how" part with science. Science fails here. At best, you're only saying that biology is a necessary component of consciousness, but not that it's sufficient. Biology is just atoms and molecules. How do atoms and molecules produce subjective experience? Experiencing the color "red", for example, can not be explained in terms of biological systems.

---

You don't have to know the how part to scientifically understand that it is a biological function.

---

You DO need to fully explain it biologically, in order to claim that it is entirely biological.

Do we need to keep going in circles until you get it?

---

It's simple. You can interrupt/alter the biochemistry or neurologic pathways of the brain (biology) and you will alter degree of consciousness to unconsciousness, even to death, with an extremely high probability and certainty. That observation is repeatable and more than sufficient to make the claim with reasonable certainty and high probability that consciousness is a biological function. I submit that you're the one who should demonstrate inducing a supernatural loss of consciousness. I won't hold my breath waiting.

---

That's like arguing that since the "off" button on the tv turns the picture off, or messing with the wires inside the tv messes up the picture, even until the picture fully disappears, and that since this observation is repeatable, that means they are responsible for the picture.

Logic fail.

And no, YOU are the one making the claim that consciousness and subjective experience is entirely biological, so the burden is on you. So far you've done absolutely ZERO in explaining the biology, so you've failed.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.

---

No.

Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.

There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.

Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?

---

We know for a fact that quantum fluctuations exist. You don't have to understand every aspect to know this.

The fact that when your brain dies, ceases to function completely, or partially consciousness is impaired or ceases. You don't need a mathematical theory to completely explain all aspects to know this. Observation tells us this fact.

What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.

---

Quantum fluctuations do not create spacetime, they are spacetime. You can't point to spacetime/physicalism as causality to further spacetime/physicalism or you have a situation of infinite regress and a paradox of turtles all the way down.

Just because our brains alter consciousness does not mean the brain is where it's derived from. You have no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.

---

If spacetime are quantum variables, then spacetime can spontaneously arise with the particles, laws, and energy that make up the universe.

I don't need a mathematical theory to understand what observation confirms. Analogously, we don't have a mathematical theory that explains what gravity is, but we understand from observation and mathematics what it does. Saying god does it is intellectually deficient.

---

And for the umpteenth time, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained within limits. This constraint by necessity must exist OUTSIDE spacetime. Spacetime can not constrain the conditions of it's own origin, before it even existed. That's a circular logic failure.

What it points to is the existence of something outside of spacetime, i.e. supernatural. It's funny how you're desperately promoting the idea of quantum fluctuations to get AWAY from the supernatural, when that is exactly what it's leading to.

---

Spacetime itself can be a quantum fluctuation and can spontaneously arise along with the laws that govern that particular universe. Those laws can be unique to that specific universe.

---

A quantum fluctuation that MUST follow a mathematical construction that has been constrained from the outside, in order for this theory to even be possible.

I'll keep repeating it for you, since you are slow to get it.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

Science tells us that the dead don't come back to life. Science tells us that the communion wafer doesn't transform into flesh, nor does communion wine to blood. Science tells us the sun doesn't stand still. Science tells us space is not filled with water.....

---

No, science doesn't "tell us" these things. Given that science itself is showing the existence of a reality outside of our universe (i.e. the supernatural), and since science is totally incapable of explaining this outside reality, and if or how it can affect our universe, then science isn't in a position to say that the supernatural can't ever happen. The supernatural is outside the realm of science.

We have historic evidence of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was a supernatural event, not a natural one. The disciple Thomas, after he touched Jesus' resurrected body, would have told you that the "evidence of reality" tells us that a dead person did in fact come back to life. And you just don't have the science to prove him wrong.

---

You only have mysticism and pseudoscience. There is no objective empirical quantifiable scientific evidence to support your claim of the supernatural, or any claim of any supernatural agent acting on our universe. You're caught up in your own perceived alternate reality.

We have historic tales of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was alleged to be a supernatural event, not a natural one, without objective proof or evidence. The evidence of reality tells us Thomas didn't encounter a resurrected body.

---

The science and math POINT to the supernatural, as we've been showing. You just want to go in circles either to hide the fact that you don't get it, or to avoid the fact because you're wrong.

If you see a deck of cards in the shape of a house, do you need empirical evidence to know how it happened?

We have historic testimonies to the fact of Jesus' resurrection - historical evidence IS a form of objective proof and evidence to the occurrence of an event. That's what history and historical sciences are.

If you have "evidence of reality" that proves Thomas didn't encounter the resurrected Jesus, then by all means, share it.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

It tells us it is the result of biochemical and neurological processes. Give me evidence that religion or supernatural processes produce consciousness. Did you have consciousness before you were conceived? Did you have subjective ability before your brain developed?

The creation story, age of the earth, universe, etc.

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Once again, you're failure is that you claim it is entirely biological, but you can't even explain the biology, therefore you can't make that claim. That's just simple logic. I can't help you if you don't get it.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

Quote:

---

Science additionally tells you how the picture is made, or how to make the picture.

---

Trouble with analogies? That's the point. That's the science that you're missing, in explaining the "picture" in the mind, i.e. subjective, conscious experience. You're only telling us the analogous "on" and "off".

Quote:

---

You're kidding? Science tells us biological genetic alterations affects the ability of some people to interpret the color red. It's not a supernatural phenomenon.

---

Are YOU kidding? Or are you really this incapable of understanding? You're not addressing the subjective experience of "red" and explaining how this can be produced by physical matter.

An interesting discussion.
For me, belief in God is based purely on faith.
And faith is not for the faint-hearted. Because time and again our faith will be tested.
And God knows that.
When Jesus was crucified and rose again, he told his followers that they had the advantage of seeing this whole thing play out right in front of them. Many of us who would come later would not. So we would have to base our beliefs on faith. And it wouldn't always be easy.
And our beliefs in Him would be mocked too.
I'm not going to the get into the scientific semantics of the discussion, largely because I don't have the ability to do that.
What I do believe though is for those who will argue against God, but somehow believe in some phenomenon called the big "bang" that would magically create such order that this world shows, well that isn't exactly believable. Or proven either. For this who need "proof."
Where my belief in Jesus and God also comes into play is that just stand back and look at our world, and how it reacts to Jesus.
Jesus Himself said that if you followed Him you would be treated poorly, because they treated Him poorly when he was here. They crucified Him.
Mention Jesus's name and watch what you get.
What Jesus stood for was love and acceptance. And yet you mention His name and the ire it draws is notable.
Why?
Christianity as a religion is mocked, yet other religions that many times hold the same beliefs that get Christianity disparaged and mocked, are given a pass.
And the example I think of most prevalently is homosexuality. Some religions will throw gays off the top of a building. They will also treat women like second class citizens. But it's Christianity that is mocked.
Again, why?
IMO, darkness does not like truth and light.
And when you choose to follow Jesus, you see the darkness come out of other people. They will become angry and defensive. And deny the truth. Real quick.
Again, why?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Our cognitive abilities, and our consciousness are clearly biological functions. Your brain, and other biological functions govern those processes. Sedate, damage or destroy your brain and those functions disappear either completely or partially, depending upon the extent. Cognition to a higher or lesser degree in other animals depends upon the degree of cerebral evolution. Science, and specifically neuroscience, continues to make progress in understanding these processes. Nothing points to supernatural activity. We don't need to rely upon supernatural superstition to explain anything.

---

You're not saying anything here. You're just telling me that it's biology. You're not explaining the "how" part with science. Science fails here. At best, you're only saying that biology is a necessary component of consciousness, but not that it's sufficient. Biology is just atoms and molecules. How do atoms and molecules produce subjective experience? Experiencing the color "red", for example, can not be explained in terms of biological systems.

---

You don't have to know the how part to scientifically understand that it is a biological function.

---

You DO need to fully explain it biologically, in order to claim that it is entirely biological.

Do we need to keep going in circles until you get it?

---

It's simple. You can interrupt/alter the biochemistry or neurologic pathways of the brain (biology) and you will alter degree of consciousness to unconsciousness, even to death, with an extremely high probability and certainty. That observation is repeatable and more than sufficient to make the claim with reasonable certainty and high probability that consciousness is a biological function. I submit that you're the one who should demonstrate inducing a supernatural loss of consciousness. I won't hold my breath waiting.

---

That's like arguing that since the "off" button on the tv turns the picture off, or messing with the wires inside the tv messes up the picture, even until the picture fully disappears, and that since this observation is repeatable, that means they are responsible for the picture.

Logic fail.

And no, YOU are the one making the claim that consciousness and subjective experience is entirely biological, so the burden is on you. So far you've done absolutely ZERO in explaining the biology, so you've failed.

---

No, it is more like if you turn off the electricity and the pictures disappear, you know that the tv is an electrical device, regardless if you know the details of how.

I've already explained how we know it is a biological function. You tell me how it is supernatural. So far, all you've done is make empty assertions.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.

---

No.

Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.

There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.

Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?

---

We know for a fact that quantum fluctuations exist. You don't have to understand every aspect to know this.

The fact that when your brain dies, ceases to function completely, or partially consciousness is impaired or ceases. You don't need a mathematical theory to completely explain all aspects to know this. Observation tells us this fact.

What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.

---

Quantum fluctuations do not create spacetime, they are spacetime. You can't point to spacetime/physicalism as causality to further spacetime/physicalism or you have a situation of infinite regress and a paradox of turtles all the way down.

Just because our brains alter consciousness does not mean the brain is where it's derived from. You have no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.

---

If spacetime are quantum variables, then spacetime can spontaneously arise with the particles, laws, and energy that make up the universe.

I don't need a mathematical theory to understand what observation confirms. Analogously, we don't have a mathematical theory that explains what gravity is, but we understand from observation and mathematics what it does. Saying god does it is intellectually deficient.

---

And for the umpteenth time, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained within limits. This constraint by necessity must exist OUTSIDE spacetime. Spacetime can not constrain the conditions of it's own origin, before it even existed. That's a circular logic failure.

What it points to is the existence of something outside of spacetime, i.e. supernatural. It's funny how you're desperately promoting the idea of quantum fluctuations to get AWAY from the supernatural, when that is exactly what it's leading to.

---

Spacetime itself can be a quantum fluctuation and can spontaneously arise along with the laws that govern that particular universe. Those laws can be unique to that specific universe.

---

A quantum fluctuation that MUST follow a mathematical construction that has been constrained from the outside, in order for this theory to even be possible.

I'll keep repeating it for you, since you are slow to get it.

---

I'll repeat it for you again. It's plausible that the fundamental laws that govern our universe may spontaneously arise at the same time as the universe. If there is multiverse, each component universe may have its own unique laws that govern it. We don't know. But it is entirely plausible, and that is what makes belief (faith without evidence) in the supernatural irrelevant.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

Science tells us that the dead don't come back to life. Science tells us that the communion wafer doesn't transform into flesh, nor does communion wine to blood. Science tells us the sun doesn't stand still. Science tells us space is not filled with water.....

---

No, science doesn't "tell us" these things. Given that science itself is showing the existence of a reality outside of our universe (i.e. the supernatural), and since science is totally incapable of explaining this outside reality, and if or how it can affect our universe, then science isn't in a position to say that the supernatural can't ever happen. The supernatural is outside the realm of science.

We have historic evidence of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was a supernatural event, not a natural one. The disciple Thomas, after he touched Jesus' resurrected body, would have told you that the "evidence of reality" tells us that a dead person did in fact come back to life. And you just don't have the science to prove him wrong.

---

You only have mysticism and pseudoscience. There is no objective empirical quantifiable scientific evidence to support your claim of the supernatural, or any claim of any supernatural agent acting on our universe. You're caught up in your own perceived alternate reality.

We have historic tales of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was alleged to be a supernatural event, not a natural one, without objective proof or evidence. The evidence of reality tells us Thomas didn't encounter a resurrected body.

---

The science and math POINT to the supernatural, as we've been showing. You just want to go in circles either to hide the fact that you don't get it, or to avoid the fact because you're wrong.

If you see a deck of cards in the shape of a house, do you need empirical evidence to know how it happened?

We have historic testimonies to the fact of Jesus' resurrection - historical evidence IS a form of objective proof and evidence to the occurrence of an event. That's what history and historical sciences are.

If you have "evidence of reality" that proves Thomas didn't encounter the resurrected Jesus, then by all means, share it.

---

What science? Wishful thinking isn't science. Neither is philosophy of psychology. There is no science or math that points to the supernatural as an answer to anything.

No, because I have empirical evidence that cards are manmade. I have empirical evidence that humans are a part of reality.

We have pieces/fragments of decades old conflicting religious lore that was edited into complete tales, decades and even centuries later, for much of which the true authors are unknown. Questionable, biased, and unreliable historicity at best.

The evidence of reality tells us people don't rise from the dead.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

It tells us it is the result of biochemical and neurological processes. Give me evidence that religion or supernatural processes produce consciousness. Did you have consciousness before you were conceived? Did you have subjective ability before your brain developed?

The creation story, age of the earth, universe, etc.

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Once again, you're failure is that you claim it is entirely biological, but you can't even explain the biology, therefore you can't make that claim. That's just simple logic. I can't help you if you don't get it.

---

I've explained how it is biological. You don't want to accept it. We know for all of the reasons I've previously stated that consciousness begins with conception as neurological impulses and evolves from there, and there is no evidence it extends beyond neurologic death of the brain. We know neural impulses are a biologic activity. We know neural impulses are not supernatural. We don't have to know all of the mechanics of how the brain works in order to know it is a biological process.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

---

It's a biologic function of physics.

We obviously have the ability to make assumptions, evaluations and decisions within the context of our learned frame of reference.

Decision making is a contained a neuro-biological process. Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Science additionally tells you how the picture is made, or how to make the picture.

---

Trouble with analogies? That's the point. That's the science that you're missing, in explaining the "picture" in the mind, i.e. subjective, conscious experience. You're only telling us the analogous "on" and "off".

Quote:

---

You're kidding? Science tells us biological genetic alterations affects the ability of some people to interpret the color red. It's not a supernatural phenomenon.

---

Are YOU kidding? Or are you really this incapable of understanding? You're not addressing the subjective experience of "red" and explaining how this can be produced by physical matter.

---

Quote:

---

Trouble with analogies? That's the point. That's the science that you're missing, in explaining the "picture" in the mind, i.e. subjective, conscious experience. You're only telling us the analogous "on" and "off".

---

See my most recent post above on the tv analogy.

Quote:

---

Are YOU kidding? Or are you really this incapable of understanding? You're not addressing the subjective experience of "red" and explaining how this can be produced by physical matter.

---

No. subjective appreciation is clearly a neuro-biological process. Similar to making a conscious decision from a learned frame of reference. If it's supernatural, then why can't an infant process input from the senses the, or evaluate information the same as an adult.

TrojanMoondoggie said:

---

An interesting discussion.
For me, belief in God is based purely on faith.
And faith is not for the faint-hearted. Because time and again our faith will be tested.
And God knows that.
When Jesus was crucified and rose again, he told his followers that they had the advantage of seeing this whole thing play out right in front of them. Many of us who would come later would not. So we would have to base our beliefs on faith. And it wouldn't always be easy.
And our beliefs in Him would be mocked too.
I'm not going to the get into the scientific semantics of the discussion, largely because I don't have the ability to do that.
What I do believe though is for those who will argue against God, but somehow believe in some phenomenon called the big "bang" that would magically create such order that this world shows, well that isn't exactly believable. Or proven either. For this who need "proof."
Where my belief in Jesus and God also comes into play is that just stand back and look at our world, and how it reacts to Jesus.
Jesus Himself said that if you followed Him you would be treated poorly, because they treated Him poorly when he was here. They crucified Him.
Mention Jesus's name and watch what you get.
What Jesus stood for was love and acceptance. And yet you mention His name and the ire it draws is notable.
Why?
Christianity as a religion is mocked, yet other religions that many times hold the same beliefs that get Christianity disparaged and mocked, are given a pass.
And the example I think of most prevalently is homosexuality. Some religions will throw gays off the top of a building. They will also treat women like second class citizens. But it's Christianity that is mocked.
Again, why?
IMO, darkness does not like truth and light.
And when you choose to follow Jesus, you see the darkness come out of other people. They will become angry and defensive. And deny the truth. Real quick.
Again, why?

---

I formerly thought a lot like all of what you just said, until I began the process of critically and objectively examining my beliefs.

In some circles Christianity is mocked by other religions, or the non-religious, the same way that Christians mock other religions, other sects of Christianity, and atheists. That same darkness you describe comes out in Christians when confronting other religions, Christian sects, and the non-religious. It's unsettling and human nature to be defensive when what one has been ingrained and reinforced to believe is threatened.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

Could you please expand a bit more on this?

---

The universe is comprised of [among other realities] inanimate objects and animate objects.

Animation requires a viable explanation. None exists in science.

Stated otherwise: how did life begin? Prove your hypothesis.
There is greater truth in religion……"I can't explain it, it arises from a greater power" than in science "let me offer you a bunch of conflicting hypothetical nonsense that I claim to be immutable truth".

---

While we do not 100% understand every single process of abiogenesis, I'd disagree that "none exists in science".

For example, one of the most famous experiments, the Miller-Urey Experiment, proves that a mixture of gases can produce amino acids and other organic material. This is not hypothetical nonsense, but something repeatedly performed in a lab passing an electric current through a mixture of gases that simulate the early Earth's atmosphere.

We are in the infancy stages of Astrobiology, yet already have a somewhat decent understanding of abiogenesis and macro-evolution.

---

He said no "viable" explanation exists. The Miller-Urey experiment merely resulted in the production of an incomplete set of building blocks required to make proteins. I don't think that qualifies as a viable explanation. It would be like observing the natural formation of a concrete mixture of sand, limestone, and silicates together with an iron rod embedded in the middle of it, and claiming to have found a natural formation of a buttress, thereby giving us a viable explanation of the spontaneous formation of the Empire State building.

I would say that the explanation of abiogenesis does not start with the formation of organic building blocks, but rather with how those building blocks came together to form fully functional proteins. And even as exquisitely complex as that is, it is still but a tiny, tiny step in the formation of life.

---

It's a long way to go to get from there to the clotting factor in our blood.

ps… where did the gas come from?

---

Beans

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

Could you please expand a bit more on this?

---

The universe is comprised of [among other realities] inanimate objects and animate objects.

Animation requires a viable explanation. None exists in science.

Stated otherwise: how did life begin? Prove your hypothesis.
There is greater truth in religion……"I can't explain it, it arises from a greater power" than in science "let me offer you a bunch of conflicting hypothetical nonsense that I claim to be immutable truth".

---

While we do not 100% understand every single process of abiogenesis, I'd disagree that "none exists in science".

For example, one of the most famous experiments, the Miller-Urey Experiment, proves that a mixture of gases can produce amino acids and other organic material. This is not hypothetical nonsense, but something repeatedly performed in a lab passing an electric current through a mixture of gases that simulate the early Earth's atmosphere.

We are in the infancy stages of Astrobiology, yet already have a somewhat decent understanding of abiogenesis and macro-evolution.

---

He said no "viable" explanation exists. The Miller-Urey experiment merely resulted in the production of an incomplete set of building blocks required to make proteins. I don't think that qualifies as a viable explanation. It would be like observing the natural formation of a concrete mixture of sand, limestone, and silicates together with an iron rod embedded in the middle of it, and claiming to have found a natural formation of a buttress, thereby giving us a viable explanation of the spontaneous formation of the Empire State building.

I would say that the explanation of abiogenesis does not start with the formation of organic building blocks, but rather with how those building blocks came together to form fully functional proteins. And even as exquisitely complex as that is, it is still but a tiny, tiny step in the formation of life.

---

It's a long way to go to get from there to the clotting factor in our blood.

ps… where did the gas come from?

---

Beans

---

Well, that at least explains why TS thinks the Universe happened spontaneously. Bean Gas will do that.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Our cognitive abilities, and our consciousness are clearly biological functions. Your brain, and other biological functions govern those processes. Sedate, damage or destroy your brain and those functions disappear either completely or partially, depending upon the extent. Cognition to a higher or lesser degree in other animals depends upon the degree of cerebral evolution. Science, and specifically neuroscience, continues to make progress in understanding these processes. Nothing points to supernatural activity. We don't need to rely upon supernatural superstition to explain anything.

---

You're not saying anything here. You're just telling me that it's biology. You're not explaining the "how" part with science. Science fails here. At best, you're only saying that biology is a necessary component of consciousness, but not that it's sufficient. Biology is just atoms and molecules. How do atoms and molecules produce subjective experience? Experiencing the color "red", for example, can not be explained in terms of biological systems.

---

You don't have to know the how part to scientifically understand that it is a biological function.

---

You DO need to fully explain it biologically, in order to claim that it is entirely biological.

Do we need to keep going in circles until you get it?

---

It's simple. You can interrupt/alter the biochemistry or neurologic pathways of the brain (biology) and you will alter degree of consciousness to unconsciousness, even to death, with an extremely high probability and certainty. That observation is repeatable and more than sufficient to make the claim with reasonable certainty and high probability that consciousness is a biological function. I submit that you're the one who should demonstrate inducing a supernatural loss of consciousness. I won't hold my breath waiting.

---

That's like arguing that since the "off" button on the tv turns the picture off, or messing with the wires inside the tv messes up the picture, even until the picture fully disappears, and that since this observation is repeatable, that means they are responsible for the picture.

Logic fail.

And no, YOU are the one making the claim that consciousness and subjective experience is entirely biological, so the burden is on you. So far you've done absolutely ZERO in explaining the biology, so you've failed.

---

No, it is more like if you turn off the electricity and the pictures disappear, you know that the tv is an electrical device, regardless if you know the details of how.

I've already explained how we know it is a biological function. You tell me how it is supernatural. So far, all you've done is make empty assertions.

---

But is the electricity the source of the picture?

And no, you've only explained it has a necessary biological component. Not that it is entirely biological. Just like saying the tv has a necessary electrical component, but electricity is not the source of the picture, it is the medium through which the pictures can be realized and appreciated.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

There is no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous and random. This is well established. You absolutely no empirical evidence of any supernatural forces outside of our universe that have any interaction within our universe - only unfounded wishful thinking.

---

No.

Quantum particles/behavior are still spacetime.

There's absolutely ZERO evidence the brain produces consciousness. There is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness. Science hasn't shown that the taste of chocolate is produced by xyz.

Also posit this: if you think your brain produces consciousness then your brain is hallucinating reality. How do you know what it's presenting to you is fundamental reality? How do you know it's showing you everything?

---

We know for a fact that quantum fluctuations exist. You don't have to understand every aspect to know this.

The fact that when your brain dies, ceases to function completely, or partially consciousness is impaired or ceases. You don't need a mathematical theory to completely explain all aspects to know this. Observation tells us this fact.

What you posit proves what I'm saying. Hallucinations can be chemically induced through action on various parts of the brain. Observation, and what we do understand through neuroscience tells us the brain processes and interprets and stores neurological information received. We test what it presents to us to see if it conforms with what we know to be true of reality. Impairment of the brain function can produce hallucinations, and alteration of personal behavior from what is normal. Do you really think the crackhead shouting gibberish on the street corner is really acting under the influence of god or some supernatural being? Or, do you think they just might have biochemically damaged their brain to the point that it is impaired from normal function. One should give some consideration to the thought that extreme religious indoctrinations, reinforced through time and culture similarly can damage or impair rational neurological processes.

---

Quantum fluctuations do not create spacetime, they are spacetime. You can't point to spacetime/physicalism as causality to further spacetime/physicalism or you have a situation of infinite regress and a paradox of turtles all the way down.

Just because our brains alter consciousness does not mean the brain is where it's derived from. You have no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.

---

If spacetime are quantum variables, then spacetime can spontaneously arise with the particles, laws, and energy that make up the universe.

I don't need a mathematical theory to understand what observation confirms. Analogously, we don't have a mathematical theory that explains what gravity is, but we understand from observation and mathematics what it does. Saying god does it is intellectually deficient.

---

And for the umpteenth time, the math behind the quantum fluctuations must be constrained within limits. This constraint by necessity must exist OUTSIDE spacetime. Spacetime can not constrain the conditions of it's own origin, before it even existed. That's a circular logic failure.

What it points to is the existence of something outside of spacetime, i.e. supernatural. It's funny how you're desperately promoting the idea of quantum fluctuations to get AWAY from the supernatural, when that is exactly what it's leading to.

---

Spacetime itself can be a quantum fluctuation and can spontaneously arise along with the laws that govern that particular universe. Those laws can be unique to that specific universe.

---

A quantum fluctuation that MUST follow a mathematical construction that has been constrained from the outside, in order for this theory to even be possible.

I'll keep repeating it for you, since you are slow to get it.

---

I'll repeat it for you again. It's plausible that the fundamental laws that govern our universe may spontaneously arise at the same time as the universe. If there is multiverse, each component universe may have its own unique laws that govern it. We don't know. But it is entirely plausible, and that is what makes belief (faith without evidence) in the supernatural irrelevant.

---

If the mathematics show that parameters had to be externally and teleologically constrained within limits in order for this universe to be produced, then NO - you can not claim spontaneity, because you don't know the nature of this outside reality that is constraining it, nor it's effect. Therefore, you can NOT make the claim there was NO causation coming from this outside reality. You don't seem to have the depth of mind to understand this point. I can't help you there.

"Entirely plausible" - LOL. It's so plausible, that they had to come up with the idea of infinite universes in order to make the notion (that our finely tuned universe for life was simply the product of chance "spontaneity") have even a SNIFF of plausibility. And here's the kicker: to do so, they had to resort to FAITH in a multiverse, i.e. belief in something for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence for! Hahaha!