TexasScientist 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/

---

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.

---

David Gross, a 2004 Nobel Laureate in physics, predicted in his tribute to Einstein that spacetime is "doomed", that it is not fundamental. So a Nobel laureate agrees. Also Nima Arkani-Hamed agrees that spacetime isn't all there is.

You're going to have to prove that reductive materialism is all there is. That spacetime emerges from nothing. You also have to prove how spacetime teleologically caused abiogenesis and to what end/purpose. You'll need a theory of everything, which is impossible given godel's incompleteness theorems. You'll need to get around black holes/gravity. You also need a mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.

Good luck, because what you have to do to prove up your faith in physicalism is impossible.

Also, are you a nihilist? You must certainly believe that any concept of human meaning is just a byproduct of brain chemicals and serves no real purpose.

Quote:

---

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.

---

The work of Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin isn't science to you? Those external and teleological boundary constraints are seen in their math.

The only wishful thinking here is the hope in an infinite number of universes to explain the finely tuned universe for life.

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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

---

....

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

---

But you also have empirical evidence that air currents, gravity, and friction exist in reality too. How do you know the cards weren't blown off the table and happened to land in that way? What is the objective, empirical evidence that makes you conclude it didn't happen that way, rather, that it was a human who did it?

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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

---

Still waiting for your proof of history wrong.

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

You've given absolutely no explanation of the biology behind subjective conscious experience. You're only telling me that brain and nerve impulses are involved. HOW are the brain and nerves producing subjective conscious experience? What is the biological mechanism behind the activation of nerves and brain translating to subjective experience, exactly? If biology is the mere interaction and movement of atoms and molecules, then how do atoms and molecules produce the "experience" of seeing color, hearing sound, and feeling texture? In other words, how does biology explain qualia?

You can't explain the biology of digestion just by saying "food goes into the stomach and through the intestines, and the result is digestion. We know this because if you remove a person's stomach and intestines, they can't digest anything." You need to explain how specialized epithelial cells in the stomach use proton pumps to create an acidic environment to break down proteins. How the liver produces bile and stores it in the gallbladder, which excretes it to digest lipids. How the pancreas secretes proteases to digest carbohydrates etc. And you can go into the biology mechanism of how cells produce these enzymes and acids, as well as the exact molecular structure and chemistry of these enzymes and exactly how they chemically break down food. We know digestion is all biological, because we have delineated the biology completely. If consciousness is all biological, as your argument requires, then you need to do the same for it.

Analagously, I'm asking for how the pictures on the TV are made. All you're telling me that it involves electrical components, and you say we know this because if you turn the TV on, the picture appears, and when you turn the TV off, the picture goes away. You are doing nothing to explain the mechanism by which these electrical components are producing the picture. I'm asking for this explanation, not what components are involved, or what turns it on and off.

"We know nerve impulses are not supernatural" - that isn't the question. I know it's easier to create a strawman so you can avoid the question that you can't answer, but I'm just gonna keep calling you out. You're wanting to stay in the kiddie pool, and I'm trying to get you to come swim in the deep end. The question before you, is exactly how do nerve impulses in the brain generate subjective conscious experience.

"We don't have to know all of the mechanics of how the brain works in order to know it is a biological process" - for the umpteenth time, if you can't produce a complete biological explanation for consciousness, then you can not claim it to be completely biological. This is just simple, basic logic that you're failing at. Funny also how you're arguing biology of the gaps.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Realization and appreciation are products of biology. If you stop respiration by cutting off air supply, consciouness and all other biological functions cease. Give me evidence that consciousness is anything but biological.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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!

---

Mathematics does not show that there have to be or are parameters externally and teleologically constrained within any limits conjured up in the figment of your imagination. A multiverse is not necessarily required for spontaneity. The idea of a multiverse grows from the concept of inflation which is a the only credible explanation we have for the flat universe we find ourselves living in. It is a far more sufficient explanation than an unseen, non-evident supernatural power that grew out of primitive minds somehow inexplicably did it.

When a man refuses to look beyond his limits, he will never see beyond his arrogance.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Realization and appreciation are products of biology. If you stop respiration by cutting off air supply, consciences and all other biological functions cease. Give me evidence that consciousness is anything but biological.

---

If you stop the electricity flow to a tv, all pictures will cease. But was the electricity, as well as all the hardware inside the tv, the source of the picture?

Evidence that subjective conscious experience is more than just biological, is that no biological mechanism can explain it, as evident by your complete failure to produce the mechanism.

Historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus shows that consciousness does NOT end with death. And you've done absolutely nothing to falsify this, except for your usual fallacious rants.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist 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/

---

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.

---

David Gross, a 2004 Nobel Laureate in physics, predicted in his tribute to Einstein that spacetime is "doomed", that it is not fundamental. So a Nobel laureate agrees. Also Nima Arkani-Hamed agrees that spacetime isn't all there is.

You're going to have to prove that reductive materialism is all there is. That spacetime emerges from nothing. You also have to prove how spacetime teleologically caused abiogenesis and to what end/purpose. You'll need a theory of everything, which is impossible given godel's incompleteness theorems. You'll need to get around black holes/gravity. You also need a mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.

Good luck, because what you have to do to prove up your faith in physicalism is impossible.

Also, are you a nihilist? You must certainly believe that any concept of human meaning is just a byproduct of brain chemicals and serves no real purpose.

---

No one as of yet has replaced general relativity in describing the properties of the universe. Even if spacetime is emergent, that doesn't mean that there is a supernatural power at work. There simply is no evidence that there is any outside force at work on our universe or on the multiverse. You're grasping at straws to hold onto primitive beliefs for which there is no credible support. The rest of what you wrote is nonsense. BTW where is your mathematical theory for the existence of a supernatural being? What caused your supernatural being, and how does it intervene in the physical universe without any evidence of such intervention? Your cell phone works off of what we have learned at the quantum level. It doesn't work through supernatural influence. Don't be so simple as to assert nihilism because you want to admit consciousness is a physical/biochemical composition.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

The work of Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin isn't science to you? Those external and teleological boundary constraints are seen in their math.

The only wishful thinking here is the hope in an infinite number of universes to explain the finely tuned universe for life.

---

Hawking and Vilenkin never asserted any teleological boundaries, or supernatural force acting with a purpose on the universe. Observation, and testing of theories is what yields reliable predictions about the universe. Nothing observable or testable predicts the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is nothing more than a mental crutch to cope with one's on mortality.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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!

---

Mathematics does not show that there have to be or are parameters externally and teleologically constrained within any limits conjured up in the figment of your imagination. A multiverse is not necessarily required for spontaneity. The idea of a multiverse grows from the concept of inflation which is a the only credible explanation we have for the flat universe we find ourselves living in. It is a far more sufficient explanation than an unseen, non-evident supernatural power that grew out of primitive minds somehow inexplicably did it.

---

It's precisely what the mathematics shows. You are the one who is asserting the spontaneous formation of the universe - well, it was Vilenkin and Hawkings who came up with the math to show how. In order for their math to work, they needed to teleologically place boundary constraints, with the directed goal in mind to get our universe with all the finely tuned universal constants. Just face it, you've lost here. You're now just resorting to denial.

I didn't say "a multiverse is required for spontaneity". I said a multiverse is required for there to be ANY microcosm of "plausibility" for our exquisitely finely tuned universe to exist by the very mechanism you are asserting. What is highly ironic, is that you are placing your belief in an idea for which there is absolutely no objective, empirical evidence - when that is exactly what you've been vehemently criticizing religion for!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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

---

....

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

---

But you also have empirical evidence that air currents, gravity, and friction exist in reality too. How do you know the cards weren't blown off the table and happened to land in that way? What is the objective, empirical evidence that makes you conclude it didn't happen that way, rather, that it was a human who did it?

---

Probability, extreme probability. I know the cards are manmade through empirical evidence and observation. Where is any evidence that a supernatural power made the cards, or that any supernatural power placed them in the shape of a house, or has ever placed them in the shape of a house. Do you believe planets orbit the sun as explained by general relativity, or some god is pushing them around the sun?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

The work of Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin isn't science to you? Those external and teleological boundary constraints are seen in their math.

The only wishful thinking here is the hope in an infinite number of universes to explain the finely tuned universe for life.

---

Hawking and Vilenkin never asserted any teleological boundaries, or supernatural force acting with a purpose on the universe. Observation, and testing of theories is what yields reliable predictions about the universe. Nothing observable or testable predicts the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is nothing more than a mental crutch to cope with one's on mortality.

---

I didn't say Hawking and Vilenkin "asserted teleological boundaries, or supernatural forces acting with a purpose on the universe". I said that the math that their ideas are based on, the same ideas you are promoting, required teleological boundary constraints (meaning, with an end goal in mind) in order for it to work. What this points to is that there exists outside our universe (i.e. supernatural).

Belief in the supernatural is recognizing that things can't all be explained naturally. It comes from an honest mind honestly seeking truth. The belief that "reality" is ONLY what we can empirically observe and test, requires just as much faith as any religion. That's what's so ironic about your rants.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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

---

....

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

---

But you also have empirical evidence that air currents, gravity, and friction exist in reality too. How do you know the cards weren't blown off the table and happened to land in that way? What is the objective, empirical evidence that makes you conclude it didn't happen that way, rather, that it was a human who did it?

---

Probability, extreme probability. I know the cards are manmade through empirical evidence and observation. Where is any evidence that a supernatural power made the cards, or that any supernatural power placed them in the shape of a house, or has ever placed them in the shape of a house. Do you believe planets orbit the sun as explained by general relativity, or some god is pushing them around the sun?

---

Exactly! Probability!

So, you agree then, that extreme probability, or improbability, is a form of empirical evidence?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Realization and appreciation are products of biology. If you stop respiration by cutting off air supply, consciousness and all other biological functions cease. Give me evidence that consciousness is anything but biological.

---

If you stop the electricity flow to a tv, all pictures will cease. But was the electricity, as well as all the hardware inside the tv, the source of the picture?

Evidence that subjective conscious experience is more than just biological, is that no biological mechanism can explain it, as evident by your complete failure to produce the mechanism.

Historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus shows that consciousness does NOT end with death. And you've done absolutely nothing to falsify this, except for your usual fallacious rants.

---

No it doesn't. It simply means we don't know fully all of the intricacies of how the brain processes consciousness. We have all the evidence we need to know it is a biological function. We don't have to fully understand all of the nuclear intricacies of how supernovas are caused to know they are due to a nuclear reaction. We certainly know that there is no reason to believe it is a supernatural event.

You have no objective or credible evidence to support your assertion of a resurrection or consciousness after death. All you have is verbal lore, hearsay that changed over time. How do you falsify that which doesn't exist?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

The work of Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin isn't science to you? Those external and teleological boundary constraints are seen in their math.

The only wishful thinking here is the hope in an infinite number of universes to explain the finely tuned universe for life.

---

Hawking and Vilenkin never asserted any teleological boundaries, or supernatural force acting with a purpose on the universe. Observation, and testing of theories is what yields reliable predictions about the universe. Nothing observable or testable predicts the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is nothing more than a mental crutch to cope with one's on mortality.

---

I didn't say Hawking and Vilenkin "asserted teleological boundaries, or supernatural forces acting with a purpose on the universe". I said that the math that their ideas are based on, the same ideas you are promoting, required teleological boundary constraints (meaning, with an end goal in mind) in order for it to work. What this points to is that there exists outside our universe (i.e. supernatural).

Belief in the supernatural is recognizing that things can't all be explained naturally. It comes from an honest mind honestly seeking truth. The belief that "reality" is ONLY what we can empirically observe and test, requires just as much faith as any religion. That's what's so ironic about your rants.

---

There doesn't have to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. Hawking certainly didn't believe there was any purpose behind those laws.

The history of science is one of discovering explanations for what once 'couldn't' be explained naturally, and eliminating the need to attribute what was once unexplainable to the supernatural.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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

---

....

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

---

But you also have empirical evidence that air currents, gravity, and friction exist in reality too. How do you know the cards weren't blown off the table and happened to land in that way? What is the objective, empirical evidence that makes you conclude it didn't happen that way, rather, that it was a human who did it?

---

Probability, extreme probability. I know the cards are manmade through empirical evidence and observation. Where is any evidence that a supernatural power made the cards, or that any supernatural power placed them in the shape of a house, or has ever placed them in the shape of a house. Do you believe planets orbit the sun as explained by general relativity, or some god is pushing them around the sun?

---

Exactly! Probability!

So, you agree then, that extreme probability, or improbability, is a form of empirical evidence?

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Realization and appreciation are products of biology. If you stop respiration by cutting off air supply, consciousness and all other biological functions cease. Give me evidence that consciousness is anything but biological.

---

If you stop the electricity flow to a tv, all pictures will cease. But was the electricity, as well as all the hardware inside the tv, the source of the picture?

Evidence that subjective conscious experience is more than just biological, is that no biological mechanism can explain it, as evident by your complete failure to produce the mechanism.

Historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus shows that consciousness does NOT end with death. And you've done absolutely nothing to falsify this, except for your usual fallacious rants.

---

No it doesn't. It simply means we don't know fully all of the intricacies of how the brain processes consciousness. We have all the evidence we need to know it is a biological function. We don't have to fully understand all of the nuclear intricacies of how supernovas are caused to know they are due to a nuclear reaction. We certainly know that there is no reason to believe it is a supernatural event.

You have no objective or credible evidence to support your assertion of a resurrection or consciousness after death. All you have is verbal lore, hearsay that changed over time. How do you falsify that which doesn't exist?

---

In order to claim that supernovas are ENTIRELY due to a nuclear reaction, then yes, you need to explain the mechanism in full. Otherwise, how do you know for sure?

You don't need to explain the intracacies of the biology. Just offer me a conceptual mechanism for how biology can produce subjective conscious experience, like experiencing the color red. If you can't do it, then you can't claim it is entirely biological. This is inescapable.

Still waiting for you to falsify the history of Jesus' resurrection. If you can't do it, then you can't claim it never happened. This also is inescapable.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

The work of Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin isn't science to you? Those external and teleological boundary constraints are seen in their math.

The only wishful thinking here is the hope in an infinite number of universes to explain the finely tuned universe for life.

---

Hawking and Vilenkin never asserted any teleological boundaries, or supernatural force acting with a purpose on the universe. Observation, and testing of theories is what yields reliable predictions about the universe. Nothing observable or testable predicts the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is nothing more than a mental crutch to cope with one's on mortality.

---

I didn't say Hawking and Vilenkin "asserted teleological boundaries, or supernatural forces acting with a purpose on the universe". I said that the math that their ideas are based on, the same ideas you are promoting, required teleological boundary constraints (meaning, with an end goal in mind) in order for it to work. What this points to is that there exists outside our universe (i.e. supernatural).

Belief in the supernatural is recognizing that things can't all be explained naturally. It comes from an honest mind honestly seeking truth. The belief that "reality" is ONLY what we can empirically observe and test, requires just as much faith as any religion. That's what's so ironic about your rants.

---

There doesn't have to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. Hawking certainly didn't believe there was any purpose behind those laws.

The history of science is one of discovering explanations for what once 'couldn't' be explained naturally, and eliminating the need to attribute what was once unexplainable to the supernatural.

---

I didn't say that there has to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. I said that in order for our universe to have arisen spontaneously as you claim, there needed to be an end goal in mind for the math to work out.

You may not be capable of following. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

BusyTarpDuster2017: " I might as well be talking to a brick wall."

Nah, walls don't argue they came into existence spontaneously.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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

---

....

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

---

But you also have empirical evidence that air currents, gravity, and friction exist in reality too. How do you know the cards weren't blown off the table and happened to land in that way? What is the objective, empirical evidence that makes you conclude it didn't happen that way, rather, that it was a human who did it?

---

Probability, extreme probability. I know the cards are manmade through empirical evidence and observation. Where is any evidence that a supernatural power made the cards, or that any supernatural power placed them in the shape of a house, or has ever placed them in the shape of a house. Do you believe planets orbit the sun as explained by general relativity, or some god is pushing them around the sun?

---

Exactly! Probability!

So, you agree then, that extreme probability, or improbability, is a form of empirical evidence?

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

You didn't answer the question: Is extreme improbability a form of empirical evidence and/or objective proof? You were asked what empirical evidence or objective proof you had for believing the house of cards was not by chance. You said extreme improbability. So either you are conceding that yes, it is empiric evidence and/or objective proof, OR you are demonstrating that you do NOT base your beliefs solely on empiric evidence or objective proof. You can't have it both ways, so which is it?

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist 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/

---

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.

---

David Gross, a 2004 Nobel Laureate in physics, predicted in his tribute to Einstein that spacetime is "doomed", that it is not fundamental. So a Nobel laureate agrees. Also Nima Arkani-Hamed agrees that spacetime isn't all there is.

You're going to have to prove that reductive materialism is all there is. That spacetime emerges from nothing. You also have to prove how spacetime teleologically caused abiogenesis and to what end/purpose. You'll need a theory of everything, which is impossible given godel's incompleteness theorems. You'll need to get around black holes/gravity. You also need a mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.

Good luck, because what you have to do to prove up your faith in physicalism is impossible.

Also, are you a nihilist? You must certainly believe that any concept of human meaning is just a byproduct of brain chemicals and serves no real purpose.

---

No one as of yet has replaced general relativity in describing the properties of the universe. Even if spacetime is emergent, that doesn't mean that there is a supernatural power at work. There simply is no evidence that there is any outside force at work on our universe or on the multiverse. You're grasping at straws to hold onto primitive beliefs for which there is no credible support. The rest of what you wrote is nonsense. BTW where is your mathematical theory for the existence of a supernatural being? What caused your supernatural being, and how does it intervene in the physical universe without any evidence of such intervention? Your cell phone works off of what we have learned at the quantum level. It doesn't work through supernatural influence. Don't be so simple as to assert nihilism because you want to admit consciousness is a physical/biochemical composition.

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist 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/

---

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.

---

David Gross, a 2004 Nobel Laureate in physics, predicted in his tribute to Einstein that spacetime is "doomed", that it is not fundamental. So a Nobel laureate agrees. Also Nima Arkani-Hamed agrees that spacetime isn't all there is.

You're going to have to prove that reductive materialism is all there is. That spacetime emerges from nothing. You also have to prove how spacetime teleologically caused abiogenesis and to what end/purpose. You'll need a theory of everything, which is impossible given godel's incompleteness theorems. You'll need to get around black holes/gravity. You also need a mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.

Good luck, because what you have to do to prove up your faith in physicalism is impossible.

Also, are you a nihilist? You must certainly believe that any concept of human meaning is just a byproduct of brain chemicals and serves no real purpose.

---

No one as of yet has replaced general relativity in describing the properties of the universe. Even if spacetime is emergent, that doesn't mean that there is a supernatural power at work. There simply is no evidence that there is any outside force at work on our universe or on the multiverse. You're grasping at straws to hold onto primitive beliefs for which there is no credible support. The rest of what you wrote is nonsense. BTW where is your mathematical theory for the existence of a supernatural being? What caused your supernatural being, and how does it intervene in the physical universe without any evidence of such intervention? Your cell phone works off of what we have learned at the quantum level. It doesn't work through supernatural influence. Don't be so simple as to assert nihilism because you want to admit consciousness is a physical/biochemical composition.

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

The natural is evidence for the supernatural. One does not require the Bible as a source for this to be the case.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Realization and appreciation are products of biology. If you stop respiration by cutting off air supply, consciousness and all other biological functions cease. Give me evidence that consciousness is anything but biological.

---

If you stop the electricity flow to a tv, all pictures will cease. But was the electricity, as well as all the hardware inside the tv, the source of the picture?

Evidence that subjective conscious experience is more than just biological, is that no biological mechanism can explain it, as evident by your complete failure to produce the mechanism.

Historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus shows that consciousness does NOT end with death. And you've done absolutely nothing to falsify this, except for your usual fallacious rants.

---

No it doesn't. It simply means we don't know fully all of the intricacies of how the brain processes consciousness. We have all the evidence we need to know it is a biological function. We don't have to fully understand all of the nuclear intricacies of how supernovas are caused to know they are due to a nuclear reaction. We certainly know that there is no reason to believe it is a supernatural event.

You have no objective or credible evidence to support your assertion of a resurrection or consciousness after death. All you have is verbal lore, hearsay that changed over time. How do you falsify that which doesn't exist?

---

In order to claim that supernovas are ENTIRELY due to a nuclear reaction, then yes, you need to explain the mechanism in full. Otherwise, how do you know for sure?

You don't need to explain the intracacies of the biology. Just offer me a conceptual mechanism for how biology can produce subjective conscious experience, like experiencing the color red. If you can't do it, then you can't claim it is entirely biological. This is inescapable.

Still waiting for you to falsify the history of Jesus' resurrection. If you can't do it, then you can't claim it never happened. This also is inescapable.

---

It's called biochemistry and neurophysics.

There is no history other than oral rumors and lore. You're making the extraordinary claim. Prove it happened. You can't. You can't even prove that it can happen. Prove that is something other than a made up oral traditon.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

The work of Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin isn't science to you? Those external and teleological boundary constraints are seen in their math.

The only wishful thinking here is the hope in an infinite number of universes to explain the finely tuned universe for life.

---

Hawking and Vilenkin never asserted any teleological boundaries, or supernatural force acting with a purpose on the universe. Observation, and testing of theories is what yields reliable predictions about the universe. Nothing observable or testable predicts the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is nothing more than a mental crutch to cope with one's on mortality.

---

I didn't say Hawking and Vilenkin "asserted teleological boundaries, or supernatural forces acting with a purpose on the universe". I said that the math that their ideas are based on, the same ideas you are promoting, required teleological boundary constraints (meaning, with an end goal in mind) in order for it to work. What this points to is that there exists outside our universe (i.e. supernatural).

Belief in the supernatural is recognizing that things can't all be explained naturally. It comes from an honest mind honestly seeking truth. The belief that "reality" is ONLY what we can empirically observe and test, requires just as much faith as any religion. That's what's so ironic about your rants.

---

There doesn't have to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. Hawking certainly didn't believe there was any purpose behind those laws.

The history of science is one of discovering explanations for what once 'couldn't' be explained naturally, and eliminating the need to attribute what was once unexplainable to the supernatural.

---

I didn't say that there has to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. I said that in order for our universe to have arisen spontaneously as you claim, there needed to be an end goal in mind for the math to work out.

You may not be capable of following. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

---

There is no evidence of any underlying purpose to the universe. You want to presuppose a purpose when there obviously is none.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist 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/

---

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.

---

David Gross, a 2004 Nobel Laureate in physics, predicted in his tribute to Einstein that spacetime is "doomed", that it is not fundamental. So a Nobel laureate agrees. Also Nima Arkani-Hamed agrees that spacetime isn't all there is.

You're going to have to prove that reductive materialism is all there is. That spacetime emerges from nothing. You also have to prove how spacetime teleologically caused abiogenesis and to what end/purpose. You'll need a theory of everything, which is impossible given godel's incompleteness theorems. You'll need to get around black holes/gravity. You also need a mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness.

Good luck, because what you have to do to prove up your faith in physicalism is impossible.

Also, are you a nihilist? You must certainly believe that any concept of human meaning is just a byproduct of brain chemicals and serves no real purpose.

---

No one as of yet has replaced general relativity in describing the properties of the universe. Even if spacetime is emergent, that doesn't mean that there is a supernatural power at work. There simply is no evidence that there is any outside force at work on our universe or on the multiverse. You're grasping at straws to hold onto primitive beliefs for which there is no credible support. The rest of what you wrote is nonsense. BTW where is your mathematical theory for the existence of a supernatural being? What caused your supernatural being, and how does it intervene in the physical universe without any evidence of such intervention? Your cell phone works off of what we have learned at the quantum level. It doesn't work through supernatural influence. Don't be so simple as to assert nihilism because you want to admit consciousness is a physical/biochemical composition.

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

The natural is evidence for the supernatural. One does not require the Bible as a source for this to be the
case.

---

Then make your case.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

The work of Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin isn't science to you? Those external and teleological boundary constraints are seen in their math.

The only wishful thinking here is the hope in an infinite number of universes to explain the finely tuned universe for life.

---

Hawking and Vilenkin never asserted any teleological boundaries, or supernatural force acting with a purpose on the universe. Observation, and testing of theories is what yields reliable predictions about the universe. Nothing observable or testable predicts the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is nothing more than a mental crutch to cope with one's on mortality.

---

I didn't say Hawking and Vilenkin "asserted teleological boundaries, or supernatural forces acting with a purpose on the universe". I said that the math that their ideas are based on, the same ideas you are promoting, required teleological boundary constraints (meaning, with an end goal in mind) in order for it to work. What this points to is that there exists outside our universe (i.e. supernatural).

Belief in the supernatural is recognizing that things can't all be explained naturally. It comes from an honest mind honestly seeking truth. The belief that "reality" is ONLY what we can empirically observe and test, requires just as much faith as any religion. That's what's so ironic about your rants.

---

There doesn't have to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. Hawking certainly didn't believe there was any purpose behind those laws.

The history of science is one of discovering explanations for what once 'couldn't' be explained naturally, and eliminating the need to attribute what was once unexplainable to the supernatural.

---

I didn't say that there has to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. I said that in order for our universe to have arisen spontaneously as you claim, there needed to be an end goal in mind for the math to work out.

You may not be capable of following. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

---

There is no evidence of any underlying purpose to the universe. You want to presuppose a purpose when there obviously is none.

---

We live in a random universe.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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

---

....

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

---

But you also have empirical evidence that air currents, gravity, and friction exist in reality too. How do you know the cards weren't blown off the table and happened to land in that way? What is the objective, empirical evidence that makes you conclude it didn't happen that way, rather, that it was a human who did it?

---

Probability, extreme probability. I know the cards are manmade through empirical evidence and observation. Where is any evidence that a supernatural power made the cards, or that any supernatural power placed them in the shape of a house, or has ever placed them in the shape of a house. Do you believe planets orbit the sun as explained by general relativity, or some god is pushing them around the sun?

---

Exactly! Probability!

So, you agree then, that extreme probability, or improbability, is a form of empirical evidence?

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

You didn't answer the question: Is extreme improbability a form of empirical evidence and/or objective proof? You were asked what empirical evidence or objective proof you had for believing the house of cards was not by chance. You said extreme improbability. So either you are conceding that yes, it is empiric evidence and/or objective proof, OR you are demonstrating that you do NOT base your beliefs solely on empiric evidence or objective proof. You can't have it both ways, so which is it?

---

Empirical probability is backed by experimental evidence. There is a difference with theoretical probability. You can't demonstrate any experimental evidence attributable to the supernatural.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Realization and appreciation are products of biology. If you stop respiration by cutting off air supply, consciousness and all other biological functions cease. Give me evidence that consciousness is anything but biological.

---

If you stop the electricity flow to a tv, all pictures will cease. But was the electricity, as well as all the hardware inside the tv, the source of the picture?

Evidence that subjective conscious experience is more than just biological, is that no biological mechanism can explain it, as evident by your complete failure to produce the mechanism.

Historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus shows that consciousness does NOT end with death. And you've done absolutely nothing to falsify this, except for your usual fallacious rants.

---

No it doesn't. It simply means we don't know fully all of the intricacies of how the brain processes consciousness. We have all the evidence we need to know it is a biological function. We don't have to fully understand all of the nuclear intricacies of how supernovas are caused to know they are due to a nuclear reaction. We certainly know that there is no reason to believe it is a supernatural event.

You have no objective or credible evidence to support your assertion of a resurrection or consciousness after death. All you have is verbal lore, hearsay that changed over time. How do you falsify that which doesn't exist?

---

In order to claim that supernovas are ENTIRELY due to a nuclear reaction, then yes, you need to explain the mechanism in full. Otherwise, how do you know for sure?

You don't need to explain the intracacies of the biology. Just offer me a conceptual mechanism for how biology can produce subjective conscious experience, like experiencing the color red. If you can't do it, then you can't claim it is entirely biological. This is inescapable.

Still waiting for you to falsify the history of Jesus' resurrection. If you can't do it, then you can't claim it never happened. This also is inescapable.

---

It's called biochemistry and neurophysics.

There is no history other than oral rumors and lore. You're making the extraordinary claim. Prove it happened. You can't. You can't even prove that it can happen. Prove that is something other than a made up oral traditon.

---

You're not even giving any sort of a biological concept. WHAT biochemistry? WHAT neurophysics?

It's because you can't. Why not just admit it? Everyone already knows there is no explanation. I do enjoy watching you dance around, though.

I have reliable and authentic historical evidence and testimony from firsthand witnesses or firsthand contacts of those witnesses. That is a rational basis for belief. YOU are the one who needs to prove all of this is false, since YOU are claiming that it didn't happen.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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

---

....

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

---

But you also have empirical evidence that air currents, gravity, and friction exist in reality too. How do you know the cards weren't blown off the table and happened to land in that way? What is the objective, empirical evidence that makes you conclude it didn't happen that way, rather, that it was a human who did it?

---

Probability, extreme probability. I know the cards are manmade through empirical evidence and observation. Where is any evidence that a supernatural power made the cards, or that any supernatural power placed them in the shape of a house, or has ever placed them in the shape of a house. Do you believe planets orbit the sun as explained by general relativity, or some god is pushing them around the sun?

---

Exactly! Probability!

So, you agree then, that extreme probability, or improbability, is a form of empirical evidence?

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

You didn't answer the question: Is extreme improbability a form of empirical evidence and/or objective proof? You were asked what empirical evidence or objective proof you had for believing the house of cards was not by chance. You said extreme improbability. So either you are conceding that yes, it is empiric evidence and/or objective proof, OR you are demonstrating that you do NOT base your beliefs solely on empiric evidence or objective proof. You can't have it both ways, so which is it?

---

Empirical probability is backed by experimental evidence. There is a difference with theoretical probability. You can't demonstrate any experimental evidence attributable to the supernatural.

---

So, you consider empirical probability as empirical, objective evidence, yes?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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

---

....

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

---

But you also have empirical evidence that air currents, gravity, and friction exist in reality too. How do you know the cards weren't blown off the table and happened to land in that way? What is the objective, empirical evidence that makes you conclude it didn't happen that way, rather, that it was a human who did it?

---

Probability, extreme probability. I know the cards are manmade through empirical evidence and observation. Where is any evidence that a supernatural power made the cards, or that any supernatural power placed them in the shape of a house, or has ever placed them in the shape of a house. Do you believe planets orbit the sun as explained by general relativity, or some god is pushing them around the sun?

---

Exactly! Probability!

So, you agree then, that extreme probability, or improbability, is a form of empirical evidence?

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

You didn't answer the question: Is extreme improbability a form of empirical evidence and/or objective proof? You were asked what empirical evidence or objective proof you had for believing the house of cards was not by chance. You said extreme improbability. So either you are conceding that yes, it is empiric evidence and/or objective proof, OR you are demonstrating that you do NOT base your beliefs solely on empiric evidence or objective proof. You can't have it both ways, so which is it?

---

You can't demonstrate any experimental evidence attributable to the supernatural.

---

Can you demonstrate the computer programmer, by only using the computer program? Or demonstrate the painter, by only using the paint? Or demonstrate that a human mind made the house of cards, by only using the cards? In other words, can you demonstrate the designer, by using the design itself?

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

The work of Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin isn't science to you? Those external and teleological boundary constraints are seen in their math.

The only wishful thinking here is the hope in an infinite number of universes to explain the finely tuned universe for life.

---

Hawking and Vilenkin never asserted any teleological boundaries, or supernatural force acting with a purpose on the universe. Observation, and testing of theories is what yields reliable predictions about the universe. Nothing observable or testable predicts the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is nothing more than a mental crutch to cope with one's on mortality.

---

I didn't say Hawking and Vilenkin "asserted teleological boundaries, or supernatural forces acting with a purpose on the universe". I said that the math that their ideas are based on, the same ideas you are promoting, required teleological boundary constraints (meaning, with an end goal in mind) in order for it to work. What this points to is that there exists outside our universe (i.e. supernatural).

Belief in the supernatural is recognizing that things can't all be explained naturally. It comes from an honest mind honestly seeking truth. The belief that "reality" is ONLY what we can empirically observe and test, requires just as much faith as any religion. That's what's so ironic about your rants.

---

There doesn't have to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. Hawking certainly didn't believe there was any purpose behind those laws.

The history of science is one of discovering explanations for what once 'couldn't' be explained naturally, and eliminating the need to attribute what was once unexplainable to the supernatural.

---

I didn't say that there has to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. I said that in order for our universe to have arisen spontaneously as you claim, there needed to be an end goal in mind for the math to work out.

You may not be capable of following. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

---

There is no evidence of any underlying purpose to the universe. You want to presuppose a purpose when there obviously is none.

---

We live in a random universe.

---

No, we live in a very ordered universe.

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

If it is just a biologic function of physics, then any assumption, evaluation, or decision you make is still the determined result of physics. Your whole learned frame of reference is the product of deterministic physics, you had no choice in the matter. Anything that stems from this learned frame of reference, likewise, is strictly determined by physics alone.

If this is the case, then why do you care about those who believe in religion? They had no choice but to believe it, physics determined it. In your grand scheme of things, their belief in religion is not "wrong" because there is no such thing as "wrong" in determinism.

In addition, since your thinking is similarly dispositioned, there is no basis on which to claim your perceptions accurately reflect ultimate reality and truth. Your "objectivity" and "empiricism" are determined only by physics, and so any reasoning derived from these is only confirming the learned frame of reference from which they themselves are derived....a learned frame of reference that itself is also derived only from physics. In essence, you are claiming that physical reality is ultimate truth and reality....because of physics. Circular logic, a fallacy.