Total Posts:162|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Scientific method.

Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".

My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

If so, how would you go about proving these things exist using the scientific method?

Does the scientific method fail in those areas?
If so, what method is used in detecting things like conscience, imagination, morality, goodness, etc,

Can we prove they exist or do we simply take some things in life for granted regardless of lack of physical evidence of their existence?

If something exists only in human imagination, human perception and human emotion, does it exist in reality or not?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 11:10:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".
My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

Yes, Sky. If we can recognise these things by an observable manifestation, then they can be detected and studied. Scientists can identify behavioural and neurological manifestations for conscience, love and altruism, for example.

It is a popular myth that science has no pronouncements on emotional ideals like love or hope. In fact, such things are studied, papers are written, and insights presented.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 11:20:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For centuries probably, there were cynics who claimed romantic love didn't really exist, it was an imaginary emotion self-delusion but then science found the testosterone hormone connection that correlates with emotional love behavior. The God Gene or ability of the human brain to have and process spiritual experiences shows that there's lots more to be learned about the ways in which Spirit operates in the material world to influence its development.

Creation is the vehicle by which Life is transformed into Intelligence and then Humanity (in the fullest sense of that word) and then into God at the End of Days. We are creating the God who created us. So of course, there comes a time when science and spiritual consciousness overlap as this process was a done deal from the very start of the Big Bang to the very end of the Black Hole annihilation.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 11:22:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 11:10:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".
My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

Yes, Sky. If we can recognise these things by an observable manifestation, then they can be detected and studied. Scientists can identify behavioural and neurological manifestations for conscience, love and altruism, for example.

It is a popular myth that science has no pronouncements on emotional ideals like love or hope. In fact, such things are studied, papers are written, and insights presented.

How would you prove something invisible like conscience exists using the scientific method? Can you give me an example of how you might go about it?

Please fill in the blanks for me as if I was a five year old and knew nothing about the scientific method. Pretend you are teaching a small child and do it as simply as you possibly can.

1. Ask a question...The question is.....
2. Do background research.... The background research would be to........
3. Construct a hypothesis... The hypothesis is.......
4. Test the hypothesis by doing an experiment. The experiment or test is...
5. Analyze the data a draw a conclusion.... The analysis is................
6. Report the result..... The result or conclusion is..........
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 11:39:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 11:10:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

It is a popular myth that science has no pronouncements on emotional ideals like love or hope. In fact, such things are studied, papers are written, and insights presented.

If science can "prove" that Love exists and one of the definitions of God in the bible is that God IS Love, does it not follow that if science can prove LOVE exists and God IS LOVE that IF they have evidence of Love they also have evidence of the God which is Love?

If they do not, they are obviously using a different definition of God than the bible gives them which is that God IS Love.

The bible also calls Love a SPIRIT. It also calls God a SPIRIT.
Today we might not call Love a spirit but rather call it an emotion or an attitude or a feeling or a vibe, but does it make any difference to LOVE whether you call it an attitude or a feeling or a spirit? Do the words attitude, spirit, vibe, etc in relation to describing or defining Love confuse people as to what Love actually is?

If LOVE ( attitudes, spirits) exists and God is LOVE ( attitudes, spirits) , does it not follow that logically God must be an attitude or spirit or vibe which exists?
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 11:55:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".

My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

If so, how would you go about proving these things exist using the scientific method?

Does the scientific method fail in those areas?
If so, what method is used in detecting things like conscience, imagination, morality, goodness, etc,

Can we prove they exist or do we simply take some things in life for granted regardless of lack of physical evidence of their existence?

If something exists only in human imagination, human perception and human emotion, does it exist in reality or not?

Yes conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc. could all be studied, measured and tested using the scientific method.

The part I like is that we already study all of those things.

It's our favorite subject after all, ourselves.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 11:58:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 11:20:43 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
For centuries probably, there were cynics who claimed romantic love didn't really exist, it was an imaginary emotion self-delusion but then science found the testosterone hormone connection that correlates with emotional love behavior. The God Gene or ability of the human brain to have and process spiritual experiences shows that there's lots more to be learned about the ways in which Spirit operates in the material world to influence its development.


Are you saying God is the testosterone hormone?
What exactly is God in your perception?
What exactly is Spirit in your perception? Is it an attitude, a motivation, a vibe, a feeling, an intuition, or something else?

Creation is the vehicle by which Life is transformed into Intelligence and then Humanity (in the fullest sense of that word) and then into God at the End of Days. We are creating the God who created us. So of course, there comes a time when science and spiritual consciousness overlap as this process was a done deal from the very start of the Big Bang to the very end of the Black Hole annihilation.

I could say reproduction is the vehicle through which intelligent life produces/creates intelligent life and unintelligent life produces/creates unintelligent life.
When is intelligence transformed into humanity? The way you put it sounds like intelligence is formed first and then a human body is formed. Consider the creation of a person in the womb of the mother. Their intelligence is not formed first. The body is formed first, the brain is formed before any intelligence is formed in it. Some people are born and live life without ever seeming to gain or develop any intelligence at all.
What do you mean by Life being transformed into God? Can you express it differently to make it clearer as to what you are trying to say?
IF God created all things including humans how can humans create God?
Can a creation create its own creator?
Can a creation be its own creator?

As for any Big Bang and Black Hole annihilation, I personally see those things as science fiction.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 12:04:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 11:55:48 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".

My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

If so, how would you go about proving these things exist using the scientific method?

Does the scientific method fail in those areas?
If so, what method is used in detecting things like conscience, imagination, morality, goodness, etc,

Can we prove they exist or do we simply take some things in life for granted regardless of lack of physical evidence of their existence?

If something exists only in human imagination, human perception and human emotion, does it exist in reality or not?

Yes conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc. could all be studied, measured and tested using the scientific method.

The part I like is that we already study all of those things.

It's our favorite subject after all, ourselves.

Why do you think so many people have such a problem with the concept of God being Love and seem to imagine "him" as something different from Love when the bible clearly defines God as Love?

IF God is LOVE, ( 1 John 4:8 ) are we not studying God in action when we study and observe Love in action?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 12:13:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".

My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

If so, how would you go about proving these things exist using the scientific method?

Does the scientific method fail in those areas?
If so, what method is used in detecting things like conscience, imagination, morality, goodness, etc,

Can we prove they exist or do we simply take some things in life for granted regardless of lack of physical evidence of their existence?

If something exists only in human imagination, human perception and human emotion, does it exist in reality or not?

Yes conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc. could all be studied, measured and tested using the scientific method.

The part I like is that we already study all of those things.

It's our favorite subject after all, ourselves.

Why do you think so many people have such a problem with the concept of God being Love and seem to imagine "him" as something different from Love when the bible clearly defines God as Love?

Because He is also "clearly" defined as a variety of other things in the Bible as well, which run contradictory to "Love".

IF God is LOVE, ( 1 John 4:8 ) are we not studying God in action when we study and observe Love in action?

Much in the same way we are studying paleontology by watching Jurassic Park. Or Barney.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 12:46:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".

My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

If so, how would you go about proving these things exist using the scientific method?

Does the scientific method fail in those areas?
If so, what method is used in detecting things like conscience, imagination, morality, goodness, etc,

Can we prove they exist or do we simply take some things in life for granted regardless of lack of physical evidence of their existence?

If something exists only in human imagination, human perception and human emotion, does it exist in reality or not?

Science has proved many things that prove what you're asking about. The power of love can be proven through its superior frequency over hate. The water crystal experiments prove this. Google it for yourself, but don't come back and say it is pseudo science, because that is a lie. This is a study that abides all laws to vibration.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 1:25:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 12:04:05 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:55:48 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".

My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

If so, how would you go about proving these things exist using the scientific method?

Does the scientific method fail in those areas?
If so, what method is used in detecting things like conscience, imagination, morality, goodness, etc,

Can we prove they exist or do we simply take some things in life for granted regardless of lack of physical evidence of their existence?

If something exists only in human imagination, human perception and human emotion, does it exist in reality or not?

Yes conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc. could all be studied, measured and tested using the scientific method.

The part I like is that we already study all of those things.

It's our favorite subject after all, ourselves.

Why do you think so many people have such a problem with the concept of God being Love and seem to imagine "him" as something different from Love when the bible clearly defines God as Love?

IF God is LOVE, ( 1 John 4:8 ) are we not studying God in action when we study and observe Love in action?

No we are not studying God in action when we study and observe love in action we are studying ourselves, but if the subjects change their names to God then you could say you are studying God in action.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 2:58:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 12:13:34 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".

My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

If so, how would you go about proving these things exist using the scientific method?

Does the scientific method fail in those areas?
If so, what method is used in detecting things like conscience, imagination, morality, goodness, etc,

Can we prove they exist or do we simply take some things in life for granted regardless of lack of physical evidence of their existence?

If something exists only in human imagination, human perception and human emotion, does it exist in reality or not?

Yes conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc. could all be studied, measured and tested using the scientific method.

The part I like is that we already study all of those things.

It's our favorite subject after all, ourselves.

Why do you think so many people have such a problem with the concept of God being Love and seem to imagine "him" as something different from Love when the bible clearly defines God as Love?

Because He is also "clearly" defined as a variety of other things in the Bible as well, which run contradictory to "Love".

True, but if we wish to find out what that God ultimately is using the scientific method, should we not include all descriptions and definitions found in the bible and study each one as an aspect of God?
After all, if we take the word Love as an example, Does it not depend on how we humans define the word as to whether we recognize or judge it as an act of Love or not? Is it not possible for Love to be mistaken as something else like hate, cruelty, lust, abuse, jealously....etc?
Just ask a person who experiences tough love in the form of punishment for some wrong doing. Do they see it as love in the sense of being something desirable or as something undesirable?

IF God is LOVE, ( 1 John 4:8 ) are we not studying God in action when we study and observe Love in action?

Much in the same way we are studying paleontology by watching Jurassic Park. Or Barney.

There is definitely a fantasy aspect to the concept of God but there is also a very real aspect to it.

If we talk about Mother Nature, don't most adult understand we are not talking about a character but about nature itself in spite of the character being a fantasy character?
If I say Mother Nature is Nature. I am basically saying the character is a personified representation of something which is very real, ie Nature..
When I read "God is Love", I interpret that in my mind as meaning God is a personified representation of Love.

When I read "God is a Spirit" ( John 4:24) , I interpret that as God is an attitude, a "vibe", a feeling, as in the sense of celebration, ( spirit of Joy ) you sense at a party, vs.. the sense of grief ( spirit of sadness ) you would sense at a funeral.
Do those spirits exist? Do those vibes exist? Do those attitudes exist in humans?
Is it possible to discern them ? Is there any evidence of their existence?

Obviously there is a vast difference between a spirit perceived as a disembodied ghost vs a spirit as a feeling which you sense in a group of people at a party or a funeral.

Both concepts exist and both concepts can be applied to the word God.

One perspective makes God a fictional character no different to Mother Nature and the other makes God as real as Nature itself.

Therefore there is a fantasy aspect to God as well as a real aspect to God in the same way there is a fantasy aspect to Mother Nature as well as a real aspect to her/it.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 3:13:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 11:22:55 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:10:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.
It is a popular myth that science has no pronouncements on emotional ideals like love or hope. In fact, such things are studied, papers are written, and insights presented.
How would you prove something invisible like conscience exists using the scientific method? Can you give me an example of how you might go about it?

Before offering an answer, I need to tell you that I feel you risk asking the wrong sort of question, Sky. Certain kinds of philosophical questions -- especially the ontological or epistemological -- fall outside areas normally studied by science. So questions like "Is love real" or "Is hope a delusion" do not in themselves generate scientific studies -- although scientific studies might shed light on the questions.

But let's look at an example of a real scientific question related to love.

1. Ask a question...The question is
An expression of love is altruism -- providing services to others, often at one's own expense, without thought of gain -- possibly expressing a concern for the well-being of another. While many animals care for their own mates and offspring, humans are notable in their capacity to exhibit concern for strangers too. Does such altruism also exist among other animals? If it does, how does it operate, and are there potential benefits to the species from altruism, if not to the individual?

2. Do background research.... The background research would be to:
Study the more social, communicative, cooperative and intelligent animals, such as primates. The animals that spend time noticing and anticipating others and cooperating with them are more likely to have capacities that could express altruism. Especially, the two primate species closest to humans genetically are chimpanzees and bonobo apes, both intelligent and highly cooperative. If altruism is to be found between strangers in an animal species, it might be found there.

3. Construct a hypothesis... The hypothesis is.......
In a situation where individuals from a wild or semi-wild species have learned a new skill, some may use that skill on behalf of strangers if they see the stranger struggling to apply the same skill. This hypothesis is constructed to avoid the risk of false positives:

* 'Wild or semi-wild' so that the individuals have not learned altruistic behaviours from humans; and
* 'A new skill' so that the skill doesn't come with previously learned, altruistic-seeming behaviours.

: 4. Test the hypothesis by doing an experiment. The experiment or test is...
Let wild or semi-wild chimps learn to solve a door-opening puzzle with a reward at the end. Then let them see a stranger (an unrelated chimp they haven't met) attempting to open the door and solve the same puzzle. If they open this door more often when the chimp is struggling with the door than when it isn't, this will illustrate that they are seeking to help the other chimp achieve its goal.

: 5. Analyze the data a draw a conclusion.... The analysis is................
The analysis supports the hypothesis at a statistically significant rate, and compares to similar rates of altruism in the behaviour of toddlers. Moreover, in comparison to previous studies where competition for food was higher, the apes in this study were far more altruistic. Apes may therefore show spontaneous altruism more readily when freed from constraints of life in the wild.

6. Report the result..... The result or conclusion is..........
Animals don't know much about genetic kinship or future return favours. It seems that in some species, natural selection has produced psychological mechanisms designed to produce spontaneous helping that - on average and in the long run -- works to the advantage of both actors and recipients

This example is drawn from a study reported in New Scientist in 2007 Chimps may display genuine altruism [http://www.newscientist.com...]. Paper originally published in PLOS Biology in the same year [http://journals.plos.org...]. I include the abstract of the original paper below, both because the study is interesting in its own right, and so you can see how it matches with my account of things under a scientific method-style formal structure:

People often act on behalf of others. They do so without immediate personal gain, at cost to themselves, and even toward unfamiliar individuals. Many researchers have claimed that such altruism emanates from a species-unique psychology not found in humans' closest living evolutionary relatives, such as the chimpanzee. In favor of this view, the few experimental studies on altruism in chimpanzees have produced mostly negative results. In contrast, we report experimental evidence that chimpanzees perform basic forms of helping in the absence of rewards spontaneously and repeatedly toward humans and conspecifics. In two comparative studies, semi"free ranging chimpanzees helped an unfamiliar human to the same degree as did human infants, irrespective of being rewarded (experiment 1) or whether the helping was costly (experiment 2). In a third study, chimpanzees helped an unrelated conspecific gain access to food in a novel situation that required subjects to use a newly acquired skill on behalf of another individual. These results indicate that chimpanzees share crucial aspects of altruism with humans, suggesting that the roots of human altruism may go deeper than previous experimental evidence suggested.

Here we see scientists exploring altruism -- a recognised expression of love -- scientifically, in an empirical environment, using biological ideas and assumptions. Such studies not only help us understand altruism in biology, but may also help us understand the developmental role of love in humans as a species.

As I said in an earlier post, scientists will often try to capture emotional ideas behaviourally. So they may not have great insight into how a chimp feels as it helps the stranger. On the other hand, other studies correlate neurological behaviour with our reports of subjective feelings, so science is increasingly able to map feelings, motives and functions, and synthesise them into an integrated whole that both accepts the subjective, and yet can analyse its significance.

If science can "prove" that Love exists and one of the definitions of God in the bible is that God IS Love, does it not follow that if science can prove LOVE exists and God IS LOVE that IF they have evidence of Love they also have evidence of the God which is Love?

No. Although scientists can show that the phenomenon we call love manifests as a range of feelings, motives and behaviours, the statement that 'God is love' isn't a definition but either a poetic expression of praise, or else a theological claim (depending on how you choose to interpret it.) Read as a theological claim, one could read: 'Every time we see love in the world, I claim that God should take credit for being and inspiring that behaviour.'

For a range of reasons, 'God exists' is not a scientific proposition. I'd suggest that it unpacks to a bundle of disparate propositions, some (potentially) scientifically testable and some not. But rather than overload you with that, I'll end this post here, and if you'd like to ask about the broader question, I'll be happy to return to that from a professional perspective as a (former) research scientist.

Meanwhile, I hope this helps.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 3:34:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 2:58:47 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 5/30/2015 12:13:34 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".

My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

If so, how would you go about proving these things exist using the scientific method?

Does the scientific method fail in those areas?
If so, what method is used in detecting things like conscience, imagination, morality, goodness, etc,

Can we prove they exist or do we simply take some things in life for granted regardless of lack of physical evidence of their existence?

If something exists only in human imagination, human perception and human emotion, does it exist in reality or not?

Yes conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc. could all be studied, measured and tested using the scientific method.

The part I like is that we already study all of those things.

It's our favorite subject after all, ourselves.

Why do you think so many people have such a problem with the concept of God being Love and seem to imagine "him" as something different from Love when the bible clearly defines God as Love?

Because He is also "clearly" defined as a variety of other things in the Bible as well, which run contradictory to "Love".

True, but if we wish to find out what that God ultimately is using the scientific method, should we not include all descriptions and definitions found in the bible and study each one as an aspect of God?

Even the contradictory ones? At the end of such a conglomeration, such would mean God is much more of what we see in Him that He would be in reality.

After all, if we take the word Love as an example, Does it not depend on how we humans define the word as to whether we recognize or judge it as an act of Love or not? Is it not possible for Love to be mistaken as something else like hate, cruelty, lust, abuse, jealously....etc?

.... yes and no. I have never seen love confused with hate. Or cruelty.

Just ask a person who experiences tough love in the form of punishment for some wrong doing. Do they see it as love in the sense of being something desirable or as something undesirable?

"some wrong doing". What about if your being punished on say... behalf of your grandfather? Is that still 'love'? Not that such an inquiry falls in the realm of the scientific method of course, however it seems to me your are establishing a specific set of rules in which to have your criteria met.

IF God is LOVE, ( 1 John 4:8 ) are we not studying God in action when we study and observe Love in action?

Much in the same way we are studying paleontology by watching Jurassic Park. Or Barney.

There is definitely a fantasy aspect to the concept of God but there is also a very real aspect to it.

If we talk about Mother Nature, don't most adult understand we are not talking about a character but about nature itself in spite of the character being a fantasy character?
If I say Mother Nature is Nature. I am basically saying the character is a personified representation of something which is very real, ie Nature..
When I read "God is Love", I interpret that in my mind as meaning God is a personified representation of Love.

So a personification of the process around us got turned into an entity. Think about that for a second.

When I read "God is a Spirit" ( John 4:24) , I interpret that as God is an attitude, a "vibe", a feeling, as in the sense of celebration, ( spirit of Joy ) you sense at a party, vs.. the sense of grief ( spirit of sadness ) you would sense at a funeral.
Do those spirits exist? Do those vibes exist? Do those attitudes exist in humans?
Is it possible to discern them ? Is there any evidence of their existence?

Obviously there is a vast difference between a spirit perceived as a disembodied ghost vs a spirit as a feeling which you sense in a group of people at a party or a funeral.

Because they are 2 different things. Starting off "When I read... I interpret" then pawning that off as immediate fact immediately discredits any form of methodology, God has become whatever you make of the stimulus around you. Much like your Mother Nature example. Its YOU creating HIM, not visa verse.

Both concepts exist and both concepts can be applied to the word God.

One perspective makes God a fictional character no different to Mother Nature and the other makes God as real as Nature itself.

No, it doesn't. Flatly. They are both "perspectives". Having perspectives on unicorns doesn't make them real.

Look, you sort of cornered yourself by wanting to engage in scientific inquiry, then immediately bailed on that idea. Rather than imparting a spin on what we see, why don't we look directly at scripture and examine the nature of the entity it tells? I am confident, much in the same common sense applications of "Thou shalt not..." we can equally agree on what is unsound for an entity whom is to be a beacon of a certain quality.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 4:05:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".

My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

If so, how would you go about proving these things exist using the scientific method?

Does the scientific method fail in those areas?
If so, what method is used in detecting things like conscience, imagination, morality, goodness, etc,

Can we prove they exist or do we simply take some things in life for granted regardless of lack of physical evidence of their existence?

If something exists only in human imagination, human perception and human emotion, does it exist in reality or not?

Emotions are produced by the brain and not external to it, so yes I believe science will be able to locate the exact area which produces these things, if it hasn't already done so. I have much more faith in science than religious speculation.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 7:11:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 1:25:58 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 5/30/2015 12:04:05 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:55:48 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".

My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

If so, how would you go about proving these things exist using the scientific method?

Does the scientific method fail in those areas?
If so, what method is used in detecting things like conscience, imagination, morality, goodness, etc,

Can we prove they exist or do we simply take some things in life for granted regardless of lack of physical evidence of their existence?

If something exists only in human imagination, human perception and human emotion, does it exist in reality or not?

Yes conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc. could all be studied, measured and tested using the scientific method.

The part I like is that we already study all of those things.

It's our favorite subject after all, ourselves.

Why do you think so many people have such a problem with the concept of God being Love and seem to imagine "him" as something different from Love when the bible clearly defines God as Love?

IF God is LOVE, ( 1 John 4:8 ) are we not studying God in action when we study and observe Love in action?

No we are not studying God in action when we study and observe love in action we are studying ourselves, but if the subjects change their names to God then you could say you are studying God in action.

When humans study love we are merely studying one aspect of ourselves. There is a lot more to us than just one emotion.
If we wish to understand what the bible is talking about in reference to God, we need to study all aspects and all descriptions and definitions of the "thing" called God by ancient writers.

Consider that the bible also states that humans are gods. ( Psalm 82:6, John 10:34 ) If you take that into consideration, gods are not supernatural but perfectly natural the same as we are.

On the other hand, the bible also states God is NOT a man. ( Num 23:19)

In my perception, so far, we have God is Love. ( an attitude, an emotion,) ... God is a Spirit ( a vibe, a feeling, a mood ) .. God is NOT a man in spite of mankind being created in his image in the story.
In my perception, I interpret all that to mean God is not some individual person or group but is the attitude, the feelings, the emotions, the vibes, the "spirit", the life force, the self awareness, in all people.

We humans create more humans in our own image through the process of reproduction and teaching our offspring what knowledge we have gained through life. They do the same as they add to that corporate knowledge or discard and reject it as ancient myths and superstitions.

Are the modern generation just as superstitious as our own ancestors when it comes to believing the forces of nature and the universe and our own inner attitudes and judgements ( love, hate, good, evil etc ) are real supernatural characters and personifying them as such and then worshiping them as gods?

If so, will people ever grow out of that habit of personifying various manifestations of ENERGY (Life) as Gods and worshiping those Gods as one or three or however many they decide there are in the group of gods they worship as ONE group?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 7:39:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 3:13:46 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:22:55 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:10:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.
It is a popular myth that science has no pronouncements on emotional ideals like love or hope. In fact, such things are studied, papers are written, and insights presented.
How would you prove something invisible like conscience exists using the scientific method? Can you give me an example of how you might go about it?

Before offering an answer, I need to tell you that I feel you risk asking the wrong sort of question, Sky. Certain kinds of philosophical questions -- especially the ontological or epistemological -- fall outside areas normally studied by science. So questions like "Is love real" or "Is hope a delusion" do not in themselves generate scientific studies -- although scientific studies might shed light on the questions.


Is any question ever the wrong sort of question? How does one know when one is asking the right sort of question as opposed to the wrong sort of question?

I am asking whether the Scientific Method can prove or provide evidence that Love exists because I read people asking for scientific evidence of God. If it can, then in my mind the same method can be used to prove or provide evidence that God exists IF God is Love like the bible claims He/ It is.

If the question is not scientific but rather philosophical and most atheists understand that, why do so many of them ask for scientific evidence of Gods existence? Why not ask for philosophical evidence to philosophical question?
If people were looking for philosophical evidence, what kind of evidence would they expect or accept as valid or invalid for something intangible and invisible and only observable through the reactions of humans toward a concept of energy or the power of a word?

Does it matter if what we call "Love" is real or imagined when it is very real to all of us regardless of whether we are believers or unbelievers in a supernatural character who personifies this Love?

Are there any people in this world who would seriously debate that Love does not exist due to never having experienced the emotion or attitude? Don't all people experience Love to some extent through their lives?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 7:45:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 7:39:31 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 5/30/2015 3:13:46 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:22:55 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:10:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.
It is a popular myth that science has no pronouncements on emotional ideals like love or hope. In fact, such things are studied, papers are written, and insights presented.
How would you prove something invisible like conscience exists using the scientific method? Can you give me an example of how you might go about it?
Before offering an answer, I need to tell you that I feel you risk asking the wrong sort of question, Sky. Certain kinds of philosophical questions -- especially the ontological or epistemological -- fall outside areas normally studied by science. So questions like "Is love real" or "Is hope a delusion" do not in themselves generate scientific studies -- although scientific studies might shed light on the questions.
Is any question ever the wrong sort of question?

Sky, please note that after offering a warning, I answered your question extensively in full below.

You may wish to consider the answer before taking issue with my warning.

Once you have considered the answer, I would be happy to respond to this or other questions.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 8:00:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here's the deal...

It's not that these things aren't physical in some way of discerning them, it's that there is nothing tangible to present other than experiencing them. You can't hold love, take it to a lab and place it under a microscope lol, love is either expressed through our actions, or it is experienced by receiving it. The spirit is the same exact way. You can't take something that is spirit and drag it through a scientific process.

You can't present a tangible form of love, consciousness, vision, goodness ect other than either practicing it or absorbing it, it is only experienced or utilized.

Some people want us all to provide tangible presentable evidence for something that is only experienced and lived, the reason behind that mostly is because it is the easiest path to pretending like they have some legit advantage, fooling themselves they overlook what spirituality is and the nature of God.

I wouldn't really say imagination would fit with some of these descriptions, because things like love and the spirit, they are also an external force meaning they are not just a product of dreaming things up.
They are a product of applying, experiencing, extending and observing. To be able to observe something like love or the spirit they have to be either received from an outside source, or participating and extending to another.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 8:08:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 12:46:23 AM, Serato wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".

My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

If so, how would you go about proving these things exist using the scientific method?

Does the scientific method fail in those areas?
If so, what method is used in detecting things like conscience, imagination, morality, goodness, etc,

Can we prove they exist or do we simply take some things in life for granted regardless of lack of physical evidence of their existence?

If something exists only in human imagination, human perception and human emotion, does it exist in reality or not?

Science has proved many things that prove what you're asking about. The power of love can be proven through its superior frequency over hate. The water crystal experiments prove this. Google it for yourself, but don't come back and say it is pseudo science, because that is a lie. This is a study that abides all laws to vibration.

I think you've misunderstood. You do realize that Mr. Emoto himself says it is not science, right? The water crystallization stuff doesn't appear in the scientific literature and was debunked long ago. If you disagree, please find me some scientific papers on it, and I will reconsider that.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 8:15:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 4:05:51 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".

My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

If so, how would you go about proving these things exist using the scientific method?

Does the scientific method fail in those areas?
If so, what method is used in detecting things like conscience, imagination, morality, goodness, etc,

Can we prove they exist or do we simply take some things in life for granted regardless of lack of physical evidence of their existence?

If something exists only in human imagination, human perception and human emotion, does it exist in reality or not?

Emotions are produced by the brain and not external to it, so yes I believe science will be able to locate the exact area which produces these things, if it hasn't already done so. I have much more faith in science than religious speculation.

It's pretty well studied already.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.ieeg.uni-freiburg.de...
http://www.scholarpedia.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 8:58:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".

My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

If so, how would you go about proving these things exist using the scientific method?

Does the scientific method fail in those areas?
If so, what method is used in detecting things like conscience, imagination, morality, goodness, etc,

Can we prove they exist or do we simply take some things in life for granted regardless of lack of physical evidence of their existence?

If something exists only in human imagination, human perception and human emotion, does it exist in reality or not?

We are physical beings living in a physical universe, thus the scientific method is limited to studying physical reality. Love, hope, morality, etc are all manifestations of the physical so they can and are studied. You however seem to be talking about them like they are just floating around somewhere, that kind of thinking is absurd.

Considering the physical nature of our universe and our current limitations to go beyond it, I don't even know what it means when people say that something immaterial exists. It is a completely incoherent concept. Not one thing you mentioned has have ever been discovered by anyone to take place outside of a physical brain and every single one of them have had their causes revealed in the form of a specific chemical process.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 9:04:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 11:39:31 PM, Skyangel wrote:
If science can "prove" that Love exists and one of the definitions of God in the bible is that God IS Love, does it not follow that if science can prove LOVE exists and God IS LOVE that IF they have evidence of Love they also have evidence of the God which is Love?

Why do you engage is such meaningless argument? No one out there aside from people who share your passion for semantics is saying God exists, and by God they mean "love". Please start using words for what they are supposed to be... a method for communicating concepts, not a means of confusing people into saying "duh, yea I guess you make a point".

So yes, according to your semantic scenario God can be proven to exist. Except now you are speaking a different language from the rest of us.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 9:14:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 8:00:56 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Here's the deal...

It's not that these things aren't physical in some way of discerning them, it's that there is nothing tangible to present other than experiencing them. You can't hold love, take it to a lab and place it under a microscope lol, love is either expressed through our actions, or it is experienced by receiving it. The spirit is the same exact way. You can't take something that is spirit and drag it through a scientific process.

You can't present a tangible form of love, consciousness, vision, goodness ect other than either practicing it or absorbing it, it is only experienced or utilized.

Sorry, but those can be qualified and quantified by science, spirit is just a delusion in your head. Try and deal with it and get some help.

Some people want us all to provide tangible presentable evidence for something that is only experienced and lived, the reason behind that mostly is because it is the easiest path to pretending like they have some legit advantage, fooling themselves they overlook what spirituality is and the nature of God.

If it can be experienced and lived, then we should all be able to do that, but what you're experiencing is a delusion and hallucination that require medication.

I wouldn't really say imagination would fit with some of these descriptions, because things like love and the spirit, they are also an external force meaning they are not just a product of dreaming things up.
They are a product of applying, experiencing, extending and observing. To be able to observe something like love or the spirit they have to be either received from an outside source, or participating and extending to another.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 9:17:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 11:22:55 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:10:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/29/2015 11:04:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
People who want evidence of the existence of "X" generally want it given to them in the form of the "scientific method".
My question is can the scientific method provide evidence of immaterial things like conscience, imagination, goodness, love, hope, faith, morality, etc.

Yes, Sky. If we can recognise these things by an observable manifestation, then they can be detected and studied. Scientists can identify behavioural and neurological manifestations for conscience, love and altruism, for example.

It is a popular myth that science has no pronouncements on emotional ideals like love or hope. In fact, such things are studied, papers are written, and insights presented.

How would you prove something invisible like conscience exists using the scientific method? Can you give me an example of how you might go about it?

Please fill in the blanks for me as if I was a five year old and knew nothing about the scientific method. Pretend you are teaching a small child and do it as simply as you possibly can.

1. Ask a question...The question is.....
2. Do background research.... The background research would be to........
3. Construct a hypothesis... The hypothesis is.......
4. Test the hypothesis by doing an experiment. The experiment or test is...
5. Analyze the data a draw a conclusion.... The analysis is................
6. Report the result..... The result or conclusion is..........

Clearly, trying to explain that to you is far too advanced, you need to start with some elementary basics of science.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 10:26:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 9:14:34 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/30/2015 8:00:56 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Here's the deal...

It's not that these things aren't physical in some way of discerning them, it's that there is nothing tangible to present other than experiencing them. You can't hold love, take it to a lab and place it under a microscope lol, love is either expressed through our actions, or it is experienced by receiving it. The spirit is the same exact way. You can't take something that is spirit and drag it through a scientific process.

You can't present a tangible form of love, consciousness, vision, goodness ect other than either practicing it or absorbing it, it is only experienced or utilized.

Sorry, but those can be qualified and quantified by science, spirit is just a delusion in your head. Try and deal with it and get some help.

Some people want us all to provide tangible presentable evidence for something that is only experienced and lived, the reason behind that mostly is because it is the easiest path to pretending like they have some legit advantage, fooling themselves they overlook what spirituality is and the nature of God.

If it can be experienced and lived, then we should all be able to do that, but what you're experiencing is a delusion and hallucination that require medication.

I wouldn't really say imagination would fit with some of these descriptions, because things like love and the spirit, they are also an external force meaning they are not just a product of dreaming things up.
They are a product of applying, experiencing, extending and observing. To be able to observe something like love or the spirit they have to be either received from an outside source, or participating and extending to another.

Why don't you tuck your tail between your legs and find some other topics you can handle?
If it scares you that people discuss spiritual phenomena in a religious forum you don't belong here.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 10:34:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 10:26:46 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/30/2015 9:14:34 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/30/2015 8:00:56 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Here's the deal...

It's not that these things aren't physical in some way of discerning them, it's that there is nothing tangible to present other than experiencing them. You can't hold love, take it to a lab and place it under a microscope lol, love is either expressed through our actions, or it is experienced by receiving it. The spirit is the same exact way. You can't take something that is spirit and drag it through a scientific process.

You can't present a tangible form of love, consciousness, vision, goodness ect other than either practicing it or absorbing it, it is only experienced or utilized.

Sorry, but those can be qualified and quantified by science, spirit is just a delusion in your head. Try and deal with it and get some help.

Some people want us all to provide tangible presentable evidence for something that is only experienced and lived, the reason behind that mostly is because it is the easiest path to pretending like they have some legit advantage, fooling themselves they overlook what spirituality is and the nature of God.

If it can be experienced and lived, then we should all be able to do that, but what you're experiencing is a delusion and hallucination that require medication.

I wouldn't really say imagination would fit with some of these descriptions, because things like love and the spirit, they are also an external force meaning they are not just a product of dreaming things up.
They are a product of applying, experiencing, extending and observing. To be able to observe something like love or the spirit they have to be either received from an outside source, or participating and extending to another.

Why don't you tuck your tail between your legs and find some other topics you can handle?
If it scares you that people discuss spiritual phenomena in a religious forum you don't belong here.

You are funny, LOL!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 10:37:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 10:26:46 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/30/2015 9:14:34 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/30/2015 8:00:56 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Here's the deal...

It's not that these things aren't physical in some way of discerning them, it's that there is nothing tangible to present other than experiencing them. You can't hold love, take it to a lab and place it under a microscope lol, love is either expressed through our actions, or it is experienced by receiving it. The spirit is the same exact way. You can't take something that is spirit and drag it through a scientific process.

You can't present a tangible form of love, consciousness, vision, goodness ect other than either practicing it or absorbing it, it is only experienced or utilized.

Sorry, but those can be qualified and quantified by science, spirit is just a delusion in your head. Try and deal with it and get some help.

Some people want us all to provide tangible presentable evidence for something that is only experienced and lived, the reason behind that mostly is because it is the easiest path to pretending like they have some legit advantage, fooling themselves they overlook what spirituality is and the nature of God.

If it can be experienced and lived, then we should all be able to do that, but what you're experiencing is a delusion and hallucination that require medication.

I wouldn't really say imagination would fit with some of these descriptions, because things like love and the spirit, they are also an external force meaning they are not just a product of dreaming things up.
They are a product of applying, experiencing, extending and observing. To be able to observe something like love or the spirit they have to be either received from an outside source, or participating and extending to another.

Why don't you tuck your tail between your legs and find some other topics you can handle?

Poor thing, you get called out on your dishonesty and are now fully enraged that your silly arguments have been shown to be little more than delusional episodes in your head.

If it scares you that people discuss spiritual phenomena in a religious forum you don't belong here.

It's laughable, not scary. Of course, you have missed the point entirely about this. No one cares if you want to babble on about "spiritual phenomena" as we know it's just delusions in your head. The point is that you seem to believe the rest of us are incapable of discussing it with you because you believe to have special insight and knowledge that the rest of us lack, that's why you were called out, so that you can share this knowledge and we may have more interesting and effective discussions, But instead, you acted like a small child pretending to have something special while all along it was nothing more than reading the Gospels. Now, you have lost all credibility and are pissed that no one takes you seriously,

You brought it all on yourself, Deal with it.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 10:47:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 10:37:54 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/30/2015 10:26:46 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/30/2015 9:14:34 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/30/2015 8:00:56 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Here's the deal...

It's not that these things aren't physical in some way of discerning them, it's that there is nothing tangible to present other than experiencing them. You can't hold love, take it to a lab and place it under a microscope lol, love is either expressed through our actions, or it is experienced by receiving it. The spirit is the same exact way. You can't take something that is spirit and drag it through a scientific process.

You can't present a tangible form of love, consciousness, vision, goodness ect other than either practicing it or absorbing it, it is only experienced or utilized.

Sorry, but those can be qualified and quantified by science, spirit is just a delusion in your head. Try and deal with it and get some help.

Some people want us all to provide tangible presentable evidence for something that is only experienced and lived, the reason behind that mostly is because it is the easiest path to pretending like they have some legit advantage, fooling themselves they overlook what spirituality is and the nature of God.

If it can be experienced and lived, then we should all be able to do that, but what you're experiencing is a delusion and hallucination that require medication.

I wouldn't really say imagination would fit with some of these descriptions, because things like love and the spirit, they are also an external force meaning they are not just a product of dreaming things up.
They are a product of applying, experiencing, extending and observing. To be able to observe something like love or the spirit they have to be either received from an outside source, or participating and extending to another.

Why don't you tuck your tail between your legs and find some other topics you can handle?

Poor thing, you get called out on your dishonesty and are now fully enraged that your silly arguments have been shown to be little more than delusional episodes in your head.

LOL, you're delusional pal.

If it scares you that people discuss spiritual phenomena in a religious forum you don't belong here.

It's laughable, not scary. Of course, you have missed the point entirely about this. No one cares if you want to babble on about "spiritual phenomena" as we know it's just delusions in your head. The point is that you seem to believe the rest of us are incapable of discussing it with you because you believe to have special insight and knowledge that the rest of us lack, that's why you were called out, so that you can share this knowledge and we may have more interesting and effective discussions, But instead, you acted like a small child pretending to have something special while all along it was nothing more than reading the Gospels. Now, you have lost all credibility and are pissed that no one takes you seriously,

Nope, wrong again as usual. I'm not special in any way and never said so LMBO!!!!! nice try though. You can't handle spiritual discussion and it scares you, that is obvious, you don't belong here.

You brought it all on yourself, Deal with it.

Brought what on myself? Are you going to derail every thread with your made up nonsense? Stay on topic, dummy.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 10:56:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 10:47:28 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/30/2015 10:37:54 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/30/2015 10:26:46 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/30/2015 9:14:34 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/30/2015 8:00:56 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Here's the deal...

It's not that these things aren't physical in some way of discerning them, it's that there is nothing tangible to present other than experiencing them. You can't hold love, take it to a lab and place it under a microscope lol, love is either expressed through our actions, or it is experienced by receiving it. The spirit is the same exact way. You can't take something that is spirit and drag it through a scientific process.

You can't present a tangible form of love, consciousness, vision, goodness ect other than either practicing it or absorbing it, it is only experienced or utilized.

Sorry, but those can be qualified and quantified by science, spirit is just a delusion in your head. Try and deal with it and get some help.

Some people want us all to provide tangible presentable evidence for something that is only experienced and lived, the reason behind that mostly is because it is the easiest path to pretending like they have some legit advantage, fooling themselves they overlook what spirituality is and the nature of God.

If it can be experienced and lived, then we should all be able to do that, but what you're experiencing is a delusion and hallucination that require medication.

I wouldn't really say imagination would fit with some of these descriptions, because things like love and the spirit, they are also an external force meaning they are not just a product of dreaming things up.
They are a product of applying, experiencing, extending and observing. To be able to observe something like love or the spirit they have to be either received from an outside source, or participating and extending to another.

Why don't you tuck your tail between your legs and find some other topics you can handle?

Poor thing, you get called out on your dishonesty and are now fully enraged that your silly arguments have been shown to be little more than delusional episodes in your head.

LOL, you're delusional pal.

If it scares you that people discuss spiritual phenomena in a religious forum you don't belong here.

It's laughable, not scary. Of course, you have missed the point entirely about this. No one cares if you want to babble on about "spiritual phenomena" as we know it's just delusions in your head. The point is that you seem to believe the rest of us are incapable of discussing it with you because you believe to have special insight and knowledge that the rest of us lack, that's why you were called out, so that you can share this knowledge and we may have more interesting and effective discussions, But instead, you acted like a small child pretending to have something special while all along it was nothing more than reading the Gospels. Now, you have lost all credibility and are pissed that no one takes you seriously,

Nope, wrong again as usual. I'm not special in any way and never said so LMBO!!!!!

Yes, you did and now you are lying about it.

nice try though. You can't handle spiritual discussion and it scares you, that is obvious, you don't belong here.

Your delusions would be laughable if for the fact you didn't need to get professional help and medication.

You brought it all on yourself, Deal with it.

Brought what on myself? Are you going to derail every thread with your made up nonsense? Stay on topic, dummy.

Calling others a dummy when you are clearly the one who has mental disorders doesn't bode well for your credibility, of which you have very little, if any.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth