• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Life From Dirt?

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
True, but many scientists still believe in God. They can see the difference between the subject---- science----, which needs a certain type of evidence to study the material universe, and the evidence they need to believe in God.
While true , it's a personal conviction that is always kept out of the scientific process as they have no choice but to do so.

I'm sure such scientists if honest, will readily admit they cannot apply science at all to their own personal conviction and object of belief.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
People interpret the story in different ways, each according to their needs and their natures. Yet it has remained a meaningful and significant story to a lot of people for a long time. I think that's because the core ideal in the story rings both as being true and as being a desirable goal for a lot of us.
How would you word the goal you speak of?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Define those 2 words you use.

In the sentence,
Objective is real because I have experienced it with my senses.
The experience is subjective from the pov of others because they have not experienced it and have to rely on what you tell them about it. So to them I have subjectively experienced something that may or may not be real and to me I have actually, objectively experienced it and so it is real.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
It is not good enough me or science. We all know that Bible was compiled in the 3rd Century. NT is an addition to an older book.
Sure, if something is not proven, I would not believe it.

So nothing is true unless it is proven by science?
btw compiled in the 3rd century does not mean written in the 3rd century.

I sought for half my life and found what I needed, but it is not any God. I found the truth in Brahman, 'physical energy', the sole constituent of all that exists in the universe.

Materialism.
But beauty and love and consciousness are not physical energy.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Coz they are not.
And you sure can't give examples of
your fantasy "examples".

Instead of trying to put it on me, like I am
lying when I comment on you making things up,
how about elevating the level of discourse- and
your credibility- by not so wantonly mixing in your
made up " facts"?

Instead of trying to put it on me, like I am lying about examples, how about showing how the examples are not real?

So why are the following examples not real examples of claims by atheist or science that are unsubstantiated?
An example might be that science has shown that God is not needed or that science has shown that naturalistic abiogenesis is true or that science has shown that naturalistic evolution is true.
Why can I not say they are unsubstantiated even if you think they are substantiated?
Why do you say they are made up facts?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
More like sad, really.

Like saying someone didnt have it in him,
to finish high school.
Actually, a lot like that.

That sounds like a value judgement by you.
And of course many so called science deniars have finished high school and multiple science degrees.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
See, you made that up too.
And tossed in an extreme insult to intelligence.
Only a really stupid or totally uneducated person
would think proof of god, orcany physical
evidence exists or is possible.
Smooth move.

There is plenty of physical evidence for God but atheists don't see it as evidence or the type of evidence that they require.
So now I'm not only a liar but am really stupid. :)
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Did you figure out that the " idol" worship of ancoent times is indistinguishable from the Christian
version today?

Yes there seem to be Christians who reverence statues etc far more than the reality of the statues deserve it seems.
I don't know exactly what the ancients thought of their images.
I also don't know what those Christians who bow to images think of them.
I would say that there is no suggestion of idol worship where I fellowship.
But people are always tempted to put other things or people ahead of God and that would be seen as idolatry.
The prohibition of idols is for the Jews in the OT and the description of idols compared to the living God is for everyone.
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
While true , it's a personal conviction that is always kept out of the scientific process as they have no choice but to do so.

I'm sure such scientists if honest, will readily admit they cannot apply science at all to their own personal conviction and object of belief.

I imagine that the further they learn in science, the more evidence they see of God, even if it is not what science might call evidence that can be used in science.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
In the sentence,
Objective is real because I have experienced it with my senses.
The experience is subjective from the pov of others because they have not experienced it and have to rely on what you tell them about it. So to them I have subjectively experienced something that may or may not be real and to me I have actually, objectively experienced it and so it is real.
There are other types of objective data that go beyond the five sense. For example, we have all had dreams to know that dreams exist, even though dreams do not enter our brain via our five senses. Dreams start from within the brain. We normaly see dreams with our eyes closed, as we sleep. One can learn to be objective to your dreams, so you can collect this internal data and write it down.

The problem is not your ability to be objective to your dreams, but the inability those, who depend only on their fives senses, to be objective to your dreams. This is like explaining a sunset to a blind man. Since he cannot see, he thinks your dream is misleading him or he imagines something you are not saying. This internal data is where the science herd becomes subjective to objective data. Some scientists, who study dreams objectify dreams with devices for measuring brain activity, so the eyes have something to see. But that alone does not give you the detailed data that an objective person can see from within.

The philosophy of science made a line in the sand that only includes data that enters the brain from the outside via the five senses. It decided not to take into account objective awareness to data that comes from the inside of the brain. This is why science does not know how to deal with religion and faith. Faith is connected internal data. Faith is the belief in data not seen by the five senses; dreams and visions. I like to think of myself as a more advanced type of scientist, who can go beyond this limiting philosophy of the just the five senses, and include internal data that the brain can generate.

The brain is the most important tool of science. How can you calibrate this important tool, if you do not take into account its internally generated data, that will parallel and process the raw external data? This could explain the over dependency on casino science. Subjective theory needs fuzzy dice to help simulate what the five senses cannot objectively see; affect of water on life. We cannot see, hear, taste, smell, and touch the future, yet we know it will exist. Winning the lottery is something we know will happen, somewhere, tomorrow. But we cannot yet see who will win, tomorrow, so we build a bridge between the inside and outside; odds makers.

Addendum: The signals that come into our brain, from the fives senses, converge in a central processing area of the brain; thalamus, located in the center of the brain. The thalamus is the most wired part of the brain; zone of highest complexity/entropy. The thalamus processes the raw data and then returns the massaged data output to the cerebral matter and body. What you are seeing and sensing, is not the raw sensory data, but the raw sensory data in the context of how you you naturally and artificially trained to interpret it.

The thalamus overlay is connected to the inner self, with your awareness of sensory data having an internal middleman, that impacts our conscious calibration. Dreams allow us to see the overlay that operates in the background. It can become a useful entry portal needed for calibration.

The brain uses 90% of its metabolic energy pumping and exchanging sodium and potassium cations. This energy input is designed to fight against the 2nd law. It lowers the cationic entropy; separates and concentrates these two cations, thereby setting an entropic potential with the 2nd law. Since entropy have to increase; enforce the 2nd law, neurons will ultimately, fire, thereby allowing the cations to mix and flow between and within neurons. Neuron firing, in turn, triggers our memory.

However, the real power stroke is not the neuron firing. Instead it is all that fresh energy input that restores cationic order which lowers the entropy. This energy intensive lowering of cationic entropy releases free energy; stable entropic states The metabolic energy is not only used to store potential energy that when released will trigger memory, but it directly goes into organizing this memory into lowered entropic states, with entropic potential; innovation.

The letters of any alphabet are simple memories. They define key lower entropy states, with a large entropy potential. They allow the endless complexity of language. The energy intensive lowering of entropy, into lowered entropy states; letters, gives off energy; combining letters into language. We may forget what was said, but the letters are constantly restored; into states, for further entropic potential; spontaneous and planned thought and speech.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
As a basis for making accurate statements about the real world, the world external to the self. Examinable evidence is innately much stronger. That's why cops use videos, for example.

A video can be better than a witness statement but witnesses are good, esp if they agree.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
There are other types of objective data that go beyond the five sense. For example, we have all had dreams to know that dreams exist, even though dreams do not enter our brain via our five senses. Dreams start from within the brain. We normaly see dreams with our eyes closed, as we sleep. One can learn to be objective to your dreams, so you can collect this internal data and write it down.

The problem is not your ability to be objective to your dreams, but the inability those, who depend only on their fives senses, to be objective to your dreams. This is like explaining a sunset to a blind man. Since he cannot see, he thinks your dream is misleading him or he imagines something you are not saying. This internal data is where the science herd becomes subjective to objective data. Some scientists, who study dreams objectify dreams with devices for measuring brain activity, so the eyes have something to see. But that alone does not give you the detailed data that an objective person can see from within.

The philosophy of science made a line in the sand that only includes data that enters the brain from the outside via the five senses. It decided not to take into account objective awareness to data that comes from the inside of the brain. This is why science does not know how to deal with religion and faith. Faith is connected internal data. Faith is the belief in data not seen by the five senses; dreams and visions. I like to think of myself as a more advanced type of scientist, who can go beyond this limiting philosophy of the just the five senses, and include internal data that the brain can generate.

The brain is the most important tool of science. How can you calibrate this important tool, if you do not take into account its internally generated data, that will parallel and process the raw external data? This could explain the over dependency on casino science. Subjective theory needs fuzzy dice to help simulate what the five senses cannot objectively see; affect of water on life. We cannot see, hear, taste, smell, and touch the future, yet we know it will exist. Winning the lottery is something we know will happen, somewhere, tomorrow. But we cannot yet see who will win, tomorrow, so we build a bridge between the inside and outside; odds makers.

Addendum: The signals that come into our brain, from the fives senses, converge in a central processing area of the brain; thalamus, located in the center of the brain. The thalamus is the most wired part of the brain; zone of highest complexity/entropy. The thalamus processes the raw data and then returns the massaged data output to the cerebral matter and body. What you are seeing and sensing, is not the raw sensory data, but the raw sensory data in the context of how you you naturally and artificially trained to interpret it.

The thalamus overlay is connected to the inner self, with your awareness of sensory data having an internal middleman, that impacts our conscious calibration. Dreams allow us to see the overlay that operates in the background. It can become a useful entry portal needed for calibration.

The brain uses 90% of its metabolic energy pumping and exchanging sodium and potassium cations. This energy input is designed to fight against the 2nd law. It lowers the cationic entropy; separates and concentrates these two cations, thereby setting an entropic potential with the 2nd law. Since entropy have to increase; enforce the 2nd law, neurons will ultimately, fire, thereby allowing the cations to mix and flow between and within neurons. Neuron firing, in turn, triggers our memory.

However, the real power stroke is not the neuron firing. Instead it is all that fresh energy input that restores cationic order which lowers the entropy. This energy intensive lowering of cationic entropy releases free energy; stable entropic states The metabolic energy is not only used to store potential energy that when released will trigger memory, but it directly goes into organizing this memory into lowered entropic states, with entropic potential; innovation.

The letters of any alphabet are simple memories. They define key lower entropy states, with a large entropy potential. They allow the endless complexity of language. The energy intensive lowering of entropy, into lowered entropy states; letters, gives off energy; combining letters into language. We may forget what was said, but the letters are constantly restored; into states, for further entropic potential; spontaneous and planned thought and speech.

OK thanks for that, I think.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
As a basis for making accurate statements about the real world, the world external to the self. Examinable evidence is innately much stronger. That's why cops use videos, for example.


Probably don’t use the cops when looking for God. Perhaps that’s where you’ve been going wrong.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A video can be better than a witness statement but witnesses are good, esp if they agree.
Well, in the bible (or anywhere else) there is no contemporary account, no eyewitness account, and no independent account of the resurrection. Each of the biblical six mentions (Paul, say 20 years after the traditional date, Gospels (about 45, 55, 55 and 65-70 years after, and Acts 1) conflicts with the other five in major ways. The event is innately incredible even before we begin to weight those biblical claims too, and as you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinarily good demonstration.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Probably don’t use the cops when looking for God. Perhaps that’s where you’ve been going wrong.
So you agree God is a purely mental phenomenon, whether as ideas, concepts, things imagined, and not found in objective reality (the world external to the self)? Yes, I think that's the only credible explanation.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
In the sentence,
Objective is real because I have experienced it with my senses.
The experience is subjective from the pov of others because they have not experienced it and have to rely on what you tell them about it. So to them I have subjectively experienced something that may or may not be real and to me I have actually, objectively experienced it and so it is real.

And it is real and objective that I experience with my senses something different. So the same apply to that I as follows as me:

Objective is real because I have experienced it with my senses.
The experience is subjective from the pov of others because they have not experienced it and have to rely on what you tell them about it. So to them I have subjectively experienced something that may or may not be real and to me I have actually, objectively experienced it and so it is real.

Now you just have to show that you are the real "I" and I am not and then I just answer that I am the real one and you are not.
So right back at you. I am the real one for I and you are not!!! ;)
 
Top