It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Lie of Evolution from a Credible Scientist

page: 11
26
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 




You are referring to something that MIGHT happen and claiming it means the bible predicted it. That's nothing more than a guess based on a simple language that doesn't even translate fully and properly to English. The bible dates back so long that of course you can force the scriptures to refer to any event. That doesn't mean its true.


I have demonstrated more evidence in this thread than any evolutionary theory can show. What I have show in this thread makes sense of the theory that evolution misses. Evolution happens. The problem is, evolution is not a cause. It is a result. The cause is consciousness and design. We can see it from micro to macro. Let's ask Rob. All his videos back me up. This video demonstrates the current view by mentioning the names of major physicists that agree. Evolution as a cause is a lie. We know this now. Why do people miss it? Because it means God is honest in the Bible. He says that anyone who does not cling to faith will miss what the spirit reveals. There is truth that must be risen to beyond our own pride. Once you get over the pride, God then returns the universe to you the right way. Truth has sides. You take one or the other. We all do.

We are the Third dimension. Time is the fourth. Infinity is the 5th dimension of indeterminate choice available to us. God rises to the 10th where the next infinity begins. Likely, there is no end. We live in a flat universe that will be rolled up like a scroll, just as Psalm 19 describes. The Bible cannot be argued. Science will meet its friend religion when it grows up and becomes more than a child learning.





edit on 22-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.



Originally posted by EnochWasRight
The Bible cannot be argued.


So we should stone to death all the women who marry after losing their virginity?


P.s. I think the Bible can be argued, however arguing with its fundamentalist believers is pointless.
edit on 22-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by XyZeR

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
My premise is not that evolution is not real. Things do evolve for sure. My premise is that evolution is a result and not a cause of results.


Have you ever read your own sentences?
Because you've contradicted yourself thrice now in 3 sentences, ( perhaps a new ATS record?)
and yet you expect us to have a reasonable discussion with you?

An elaborate troll is what you are imho.




This is what amazes me too. Not only is his entire argumentation based on "god of the gaps" and "argument complexity", but even worse, the original video posted doesn't even promote creationism, and he continues to contradict himself.


God has left no gaps. The gaps are by perspective of paradox. Infinity must have paradox or there is not duality offering free choice. The gaps that science likes to call "the God of the gaps" can only stand if God can stand in all gaps. He can and will. Truth is impenetrable. This is the state whereby two things cannot occupy the same space. One will push the other aside. If we didn't have the Bible, we would be lost on the issue. Because we have the Bible, we have evidence. God is infinity. We can try to push him aside, but the battle will not be won. The Law of Inverse Squares denies us as two diverging realities approach each other. As we approach the singularity of knowledge, population and collapsing time, God emerges as the unity of the whole. This is mathematically certain when we view finite reality against the infinity we emerge from.

This video gives a view that is unique.




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Hi Enocwashere, Thank you for those, they are perfect.

I love your posts and I am right there with you and I have seen Randy's posts on other threads and he has it right too! Good work you guys! and I have seen others at ATS that understand this, I think we are making some big brake throughs now. I find it so very joyful when I read threads like these. These ideas are to be gotten out now and it is important to help bring this Good News so others can understand their True Self. You are saying it very well and I am enjoying the videos too.

Know the Truth and Truth will set you Free--- and I find it so exciting and wonderful, such freedom from the false beliefs in 'matter and mortal mind' et al--- It is wonderful and I am glad you are writing about it in such a clear and helpful way.

As a very wise friend of mine said: "The final discipline involves the correct apprehension of Identity and passing that clear perception along to our world as quickly as we can." I'd say you are doing a good job here!

Yes, we are really Light Information, I do understand that. I was just saying that since Consciousness is "first" and everything 'happens' within It ---and realizing that consciousness is not a possession of the 'body' then, getting some clarity on Reality, perhaps for those who insist on evolution, they might do themselves a favor to think of themselves as evolving into "Light Beings" or as being made of pure Information, information that is coming into the fullness of Its own Self Knowing. Life, Mind, and God are One---or we might say "we" are the functioning of Divine Mind (Uncaused First Cause) as this awareness right here, right now, and this Awareness we call Life is God's own Self-Discovery.

Well, anyway, I just thought you would love to read William Samuel's books because he is saying what you are saying and he is brilliant and I thought his work would be a nice 'reenforcement' for you.

Also, wanted to mention the Gospel According to Thomas seems to be Jesus speaking from his view of Life in these more subjective "quantum physics" terms:

(50) Jesus said : "If they say to You, 'Where did You come from ?', say to them : 'We came from the light, the place where the light came into being of itself, established itself and revealed itself in their image. If they say to You : 'Who are You ?', say : 'We are its sons. We are the elect of the Living Father.' If they ask You : 'What is the sign of Your Father in You ?', say to them : 'It is movement and rest.'


And here is one for you to encourage you to keep up the Good Work:

(33) Jesus said : "Preach from Your roof-tops that which You will hear in Your ear. For no one lights a lamp and puts it under a bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden place, but rather he sets it on a lamp-stand so that all who come in and go out will see its light."



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.



Originally posted by EnochWasRight
The Bible cannot be argued.


So we should stone to death all the women who marry after losing their virginity?


P.s. I think the Bible can be argued, however arguing with its fundamentalist believers is pointless.
edit on 22-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


You can argue from ignorance and be incorrect by context to our day and age. That's all. The spirit of what is said demonstrates a respect for truth and honor rather than stealing, killing and destroying. The side of truth always rests with the innocent. Man's laws evolve. God's are symbols of truth based on the day and age they were issued. The only law is love and doing unto others with justice and dignity.

Matthew Henry

Verses 13-30

These laws relate to the seventh commandment, laying a restraint by laying a penalty upon those fleshly lusts which war against the soul.

I. If a man, lusting after another woman, to get rid of his wife slander her and falsely accuse her, as not having the virginity she pretended to when he married her, upon the disproof of his slander he must be punished, Deut. 22:13-19. What the meaning of that evidence is by which the husband’s accusation was to be proved false the learned are not agreed, nor is it at all necessary to enquire—those for whom this law was intended, no doubt, understood it: it is sufficient for us to know that this wicked husband, who had thus endeavoured to ruin the reputation of his own wife, was to be scourged, and fined, and bound out from ever divorcing the wife he had thus abused, Deut. 22:18, 19. Upon his dislike of her he might have divorced her if he had pleased, by the permission of the law (Deut. 24:1), but then he must have given her her dowry: if therefore to save that, and to do her the greater mischief, he would thus destroy her good name, it was fit that he should be severely punished for it, and for ever after forfeit the permission to divorce her. Observe, 1. The nearer any are in relation to us the greater sin it is to belie them and blemish their reputation. It is spoken of as a crime of the highest nature to slander thy own mother’s son (Ps. 50:20), who is next to thyself, much more to slander thy own wife, or thy own husband, that is thyself: it is an ill bird indeed that defiles its own nest. 2. Chastity is honour as well as virtue, and that which gives occasion for the suspicion of it is as great a reproach and disgrace as any whatsoever: in this matter therefore, above any thing, we should be highly tender both of our own good name and that of others. 3. Parents must look upon themselves as concerned to vindicate the reputation of their children, for it is a branch of their own.
edit on 22-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 


Awesome posts. Thank you. Sorry if I came across as disputing you. I was trying to add more. Part of what I was saying is sent out in addition to the previous comments made ahead of yours. Sometimes I tend to be locked on one thought against others.



Also, wanted to mention the Gospel According to Thomas seems to be Jesus speaking from his view of Life in these more subjective "quantum physics" terms:

(50) Jesus said : "If they say to You, 'Where did You come from ?', say to them : 'We came from the light, the place where the light came into being of itself, established itself and revealed itself in their image. If they say to You : 'Who are You ?', say : 'We are its sons. We are the elect of the Living Father.' If they ask You : 'What is the sign of Your Father in You ?', say to them : 'It is movement and rest.'


And here is one for you to encourage you to keep up the Good Work:

(33) Jesus said : "Preach from Your roof-tops that which You will hear in Your ear. For no one lights a lamp and puts it under a bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden place, but rather he sets it on a lamp-stand so that all who come in and go out will see its light."



Have you read my previous thread on The Gospel of Thomas? This one was written when I was Superiored. ATS banned me. You can read earlier in this thread to see why.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 

Oh cool, so this is one of those passages we shouldn't read literally? Is there like some kind of list somewhere that points which passages are to be read literally (apparently at least stuff concerning creation and the ones arguing against homosexuality, but I suppose this depends on from who you ask) and which are not to be read literally? Is the part about Jews wandering in the desert really about intergalactic space flight? Is the Jonah and the whale stuff really about alien submarine? "Thou shall not kill" really means thou shall not eat kebab? Please do tell. Also understand that if the Bible is not to be taken literally, it's value as a guide for anything equals zero, as there is an infinite number of ways to interpret every single sentence in it.
edit on 22-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Oh gosh, I thank you for sending me to your old Gospel of Thomas thread. That is fabulous stuff! You already knew all that! Nice work! thank you for sharing it all.

Loved your other threads I saw there too!

Well, keep on saying and sharing and doing, I can tell that you are getting It straight from the Heart, that is for sure.

Anyway, I cannot figure out how to post you a PM, although I have posted PM's to someone else once, but now I don't see where or how I did it? So, I want to say that if you would like a copy of "The Child Within Us Lives!" as an ebook--- go to www.williamsamuel.com you can email the contact there and they will send you a copy as a gift, free. Just ask--- I think you would love this book, it is an important book, written for these days we are in now.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined

So, who or what decided there should be life at all? Who or what decided what kind of life would exist on the earth to begin with?



Still making wild unsupported assumptions? how do you know life isn't inevitabile?

what makes you think a choice needs to be made? are you really that incapable of imagining a universe that wasn't created by a supernatural entity?


Originally posted by Deetermined

Wouldn't nature have to have some kind of intelligence to be able to "select" anything? Who or what determines which species is ultimately going to be the stronger one over the weaker one? Who or what decided which animals were going to eat plants and which ones were going to eat meat?



You didn't look it up.......i'm always left aghast and amused after meeting people who reject or dismiss anything without taking the time to understand it first. If you had looked it up, you would've realised just how ridiculous responses like the one above actually are.


Originally posted by Deetermined

Seriously? What is even remotely random or chaotic about that? It does rain and snow for a reason, right? We know how and why that happens and it has an order to it like everything else. If anything, the design of the snowflake is more proof of intelligent design.




Yurp the weather is a completely ordered and predictable system.......


edit on 22-3-2012 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 



What? Who created the need for living systems to propagate and reproduce? They have "instinct"? Then you say, "but it was developed because evolution decided"? So, now evolution has it's own form of intelligence because it has "instinct" and it's capable of "deciding"? Really?

You clearly haven't understood a single thing I said have you? "Instinct" is not intelligence, and I didn't say evolution has instinct, I said the life forms which arise from evolution have instincts, these instincts enable them to survive more efficiently then a life form without such instincts. Evolution is a mindless process, it doesn't consciously decide anything, what ever "choices" evolution makes are purely unconscious and result from the way evolution works. It's the same thing as when you look at a desert from above, you will see ripples and patterns in the sand... the particles of sand didn't consciously choose to order themselves like that did they? It's an unconscious process that results in structures of order. Evolution is an unconscious process which results in life forms which get better and better at surviving and propagating because the weak die off quicker than the stronger life forms. The small mutations that occur in their genes results in life forms which randomly develop better and better ways of surviving and propagating their genes, over time, these small mutations add up to massive changes in said life form. Due to these changes the life forms develop certain instincts which help them survive more efficiently in the world. I mean really, do I need to explain everything? Why don't you people actually study evolution before acting like you understand it.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 



My premise is not that evolution is not real. Things do evolve for sure. My premise is that evolution is a result and not a cause of results. An oak tree is always going to be an oak tree. The programming in the oak tree may adapt to its surroundings over time. We don't have evidence for this. The theory that all life is the result of matter arising to purpose and design is a false notion. The reason the evolution paradigm cannot stop using words that describe consciousness is because consciousness is needed to change the states of matter. You are correct to see that the argument is futile. It is. When we see a paradox of two reflections, both are not false. They are each true by the excluded middle. Here's an example.

Man why do I keep reading your responses. I need to stop. But... I... just... can't... help... myself...


Anyway, I think you are wrong. Evolution can cause all sorts of changes in any life form. Lets start with these FACTS:

* DNA can and does undergo random mutations for a number of different reasons, most of these mutations result in deformities and birth defects.
* Some of the mutations may just happen to be of benefit to the life form and result in genetic changes which are desirable.
* These random mutations will result in some life forms which are stronger and also some which are weaker than other life forms of that species.

Now we can make some fairly obvious assumptions:

* When the mutations are beneficial to a life form it probably live longer and have a higher chance of propagating its genes.
* These small genetic changes will eventually build up into very large changes, however undesirable changes will be discarded.
* Eventually this process will result in very complex systems, the life forms will develop techniques and instincts that help them survive.

So far consciousness has not entered into the equation. There is nothing about any of this that needs to involve any sort of conscious design process or conscious life forms. We can prove this process works as stated by simulating it on computers much faster than it happens in real life.

By giving a computer a problem and then allowing the computer to piece together random code we then measure how well the random code performs and then we discard the weaker performing code. Add in some random changes to the best code and repeat the process.

When this process is repeated over and over again eventually the code developed by this random unconscious process will perform exceptionally well at solving the problem we have tasked it with. The solutions developed will be extremely hard to comprehend and reverse-engineer.

This has nothing to do with "purpose", even though you may see it like that. There is really no meaningful purpose in life, except what purpose you choose to give life. Evolution is an inevitable process based on simple underlying rules which create things unconscionably and without purpose.

Although in the computer simulations we dictate the task and problem which the computer must solve (through random trial and error), the process of evolution works on a whole other level than that. It is not a process that happens because it has been tasked to achieve something. It "just happens that way".

The process in and of its self dictates that the genes of stronger life forms will propagate most effectively, the result of which is life forms with ever increasing complexity. There is no meaningful purpose to this effect just as their is no meaningful purpose to the way sand particles order themselves in the desert.

The real question is, could this process eventually create code so complex it becomes self-aware? Or could evolution eventually create life forms so complex they become self-aware? And I believe the answer is yes for both those questions, although we cannot prove it yet.

It is undeniable that these computer simulations prove a random process of trial and error can indeed produce extremely complex solutions to very complex problems. However, we set up all the laws. We gave the rules of how the system should develop solutions.

Essentially, we have supplied the laws of the Universe in which these systems are tested. These solutions would never be developed unless we provided the framework for them to exist. So again we come back to the most important questions.

Who or what created the laws in this Universe, who supplied us with this framework in which things like evolution may take place? Where did all the energy come from in the first place? This is what you really need to focus on. Trying to prove evolution wrong is futile, and a mistake.

The Universe is one big random process that isn't being consciously controlled by anyone or anything. THINGS JUST HAPPEN. The result can be beautiful and wondrous. There is little excitement in watching the behavior of something one has created, for they know everything about it.

It is much more interesting to watch the development and behavior of something which has developed through natural random processes. The Universe may simply be the equivalent of our little computer simulations which develop solutions on their own.
edit on 23-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


No, I understood what you said, forgive me for using the word "evolution" over the intended word "life forms". However, I still disagree with you for the most part, as I believe that "instinct" is something that's encoded and is a form of intelligence.

I'm glad to see that you at least recognize that there must be a set of laws in place in order to set it all in motion.

All life has meaning and purpose. Just because we don't understand why mutations create stronger life forms and others die off doesn't mean it's random or has no purpose. It just means we don't understand it. I could be wrong on this to a degree, when it comes to plant forms and certain animal species, but anything related to humans is entirely by design. Humans did not evolve from anything else.
edit on 23-3-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 



However, I still disagree with you for the most part, as I believe that "instinct" is something that's encoded and is a form of intelligence.

"Instinct" is far from true sentient intelligence. It's a reaction to a stimulus. There doesn't need to be any consciousness involved. I can put a light sensor on a robot and program it to avoid strong light sources and that would be an unconscious instinct of the robot. It's simply acting in the way it was coded, but it most certainly isn't conscious, it simply exhibits traits that give the illusion it might be conscious.



All life has meaning and purpose. Just because we don't understand why mutations create stronger life forms and others die off doesn't mean it's random or has no purpose.

We do understand it actually. Some mutations create a genetic change with have beneficial effects. Of course any life forms who has that advantage is probably going to live longer than other life forms of it's species. There is no purpose or underlying reason why it works that way. It's just the way it works due to the laws of the Universe, it's completely logical and rather easy to comprehend.


but anything related to humans is entirely by design. Humans did not evolve from anything else.

Yes we did actually. We aren't special, other than the fact we are the most advanced life form on this planet. All you are doing is stroking your ego when you try to believe we are special divine beings. You want to believe there is some magical purpose to why we are here, you want to feel that warm fuzzy feeling on the inside when you think you understand the Universe and our purpose. In reality all you are doing is lying to yourself. It's simply chance that we evolved to the state we are at today, and I will bet you anything that there are much more advanced life forms in the Universe who have evolved far beyond us.
edit on 23-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

"Instinct" is far from true sentient intelligence. It's a reaction to a stimulus. There doesn't need to be any consciousness involved. I can put a light sensor on a robot and program it to avoid strong light sources and that would be an unconscious instinct of the robot. It's simply acting in the way it was coded, but it most certainly isn't conscious, it simply exhibits traits that give the illusion it might be conscious.


You can say it's "unconscious instinct of the robot", but it took intelligence to "program" the robot. As I said earlier, instinct is encoded in us.


We do understand it actually. Some mutations create a genetic change with have beneficial effects. Of course any life forms who has that advantage is probably going to live longer than other life forms of it's species. There is no purpose or underlying reason why it works that way. It's just the way it works due to the laws of the Universe, it's completely logical and rather easy to comprehend.


I agree that it works due to the laws given to the Universe. To say there is no underlying reason or purpose for what it does is, I believe is error. In fact, maybe you yourself just came up with an explanation for the purpose of the process when you made the statement below:


The real question is, could this process eventually create code so complex it becomes self-aware? Or could evolution eventually create life forms so complex they become self-aware? And I believe the answer is yes for both those questions, although we cannot prove it yet.


As for humans...


Yes we did actually. We aren't special, other than the fact we are the most advanced life form on this planet. All you are doing is stroking your ego when you try to believe we are special divine beings. You want to believe there is some magical purpose to why we are here, you want to feel that warm fuzzy feeling on the inside when you think you understand the Universe and our purpose. In reality all you are doing is lying to yourself. It's simply chance that we evolved to the state we are at today, and I will bet you anything that there are much more advanced life forms in the Universe who have evolved far beyond us.


Well, you can't explain spirituality to someone who's never experienced it, so I can't help you to change your mind on this one, so I won't try.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

You can say it's "unconscious instinct of the robot", but it took intelligence to "program" the robot. As I said earlier, instinct is encoded in us.

And it took evolution to encode instincts into different life forms. Evolution doesn't need to be a conscious intelligence, as I have explained in great detail.


I agree that it works due to the laws given to the Universe. To say there is no underlying reason or purpose for what it does is, I believe is error. In fact, maybe you yourself just came up with an explanation for the purpose of the process when you made the statement below:


The real question is, could this process eventually create code so complex it becomes self-aware? Or could evolution eventually create life forms so complex they become self-aware? And I believe the answer is yes for both those questions, although we cannot prove it yet.

Even if the Universe had different laws, given enough time self-aware creatures would still probably turn up. The laws aren't there to create self-aware creatures, self-aware creatures are simply a result of those laws when given enough time to play out. They could be changed to a high degree and evolution would still work.


Well, you can't explain spirituality to someone who's never experienced it, so I can't help you to change your mind on this one, so I won't try.

Spirituality is completely different from religious beliefs. Religious beliefs just happen to incorporate some spirituality. For instance, I believe we each have a soul, and I believe things such as astral-project are real. However, I also believe that those things can be explained in purely scientific terms. Science just hasn't got that far yet because it chooses to ignore theories which sound so absurd.
edit on 23-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

And it took evolution to encode instincts into different life forms. Evolution doesn't need to be a conscious intelligence, as I have explained in great detail.



Even is the Universe had different laws, given enough time self-aware creatures would still probably turn up. The laws aren't there to create self-aware creatures, self-aware creatures are simply a result of those laws when given enough time to play out. They could be changed to a high degree and evolution would still work.


Now you're just speaking in circles with your above statements. Regardless, it started with Universal law that was created by intelligence. How far the intelligence is carried out through the law is only speculation.


Spirituality is completely different from religious beliefs. Religious beliefs just happen to incorporate some spirituality. For instance, I believe we each have a soul, and I believe things such as astral-project are real. However, I also believe that those things can be explained in purely scientific terms. Science just hasn't got that far yet because it chooses to ignore theories which sound so absurd.


OK, you believe in spirituality, but have you ever experienced it?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 



OK, you believe in spirituality, but have you ever experienced it?

That is a very broad question that has no answer. Lots of different things could be considered a spiritual experience. And those experiences are only labelled as spiritual because they seem outside the laws of the Universe, they aren't properly understood by science. They are still just like any other experience, just more interesting and hard to explain in scientific terms. No, I have not spoken to god or spirits, but I have experienced certain things that science would declare bogus. I've simply experienced certain phenomena that most people don't believe in, but my believing in those experiences do not mean I am religious or that I think evolution is false. I am agnostic and I believe in many scientific theories which have adequate evidence and valid logic backing them up.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Looks like we're still waiting for EunichWasWrong to give us an example of consciousness existing without matter......
edit on 23-3-2012 by Firepac because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Do you mind sharing one of those experiences along with any scientific theory that you have to go along with it?

I'm not trying to go off topic, but I think an example of spirituality/science combined would be very helpful in the research of consciousness vs. randomness.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Firepac
 


Maybe a Google search on "Matter is Consciousness" would help.

You've commented that there is proof that matter can exist without consciousness, but that consciousness has never been proven to be without matter. How do you know that matter exists without consciousness? Are you absolutely sure?
edit on 23-3-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join