Mr Strawberry
Newbie
.
.
And I see you were unwilling to explain the "dynamics" of the magical kingdom of your invisible friend you claim is in our midst. Not even an "I don't know" from you.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Changing beliefs
- Thread starter UnderstandForgive
- Start date
And I see you were unwilling to explain the "dynamics" of the magical kingdom of your invisible friend you claim is in our midst. Not even an "I don't know" from you.
Mr Strawberry
Newbie
Yes, sadly I don't have the metaphysical experiences you do, but then I'm probably not putting the same petrol in my engine as you, so to speak.
A yes, these dynamics. Please explain these dynamics in detail please, as you seem to be privy to all sorts of insights about them.
Strange, I'm not the one making outrageous claims with nothing to back them up. I'd say the dilemma is all yours.
Ironic as I've never seen you actually progress beyond outrageous claims of spiritual awareness in any forum discussion. You've practically pitched a tent on square one.
Upvote
0
.
With your intellect you have concluded the Kingdom of Heaven in our midst as imaginary. Imaginary is one of your favorite words to apply to realities you have zero awareness of.
Your dilemma prevails. Your blindness can only temporarily make the Spiritual Realm go away. What a position in life to be in, Dr. Arrived. Talking about temporal mindset!
Tell us all again how Eternal Beings in our midst don't exist. Show us your blindness again!
.
Upvote
0
Mr Strawberry
Newbie
No "dynamics"? You've dropped that word like a hot potato I notice. But "square one" claims of spiritual awareness are still much to the fore. In fact that's all you have. Unfortunately nothing to back them up with. As usual.
And you seem to be getting a little excited in your last paragraph. "Show us your blindness again!" I can almost see you taking a swig after writing it.
Upvote
0
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell
Upvote
0
Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness -- ScienceDaily
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news and burst your bubble, but there's actually a number well defined mathematical models for ""soul" just like for 'dark energy' or inflation. There's even more *empirical evidence* (on Earth evidence) for soul too!
The fact you don't *like* those mathematical models or you *disagree* with the so called 'evidence' is irrelevant. Compared to half the nonsense that comes from hypothetical physics, you have absolutely nothing to complain about.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Why would that burst our bubble? You think we want there not to be an afterlife? Plus, even if you would consider that energy to be a soul, it doesn't prove it continues to exist with our memories after death.
Upvote
0
Sure, except when it comes to your bogus unsupported claims about exotic matter even *after* three straight falsifications in the lab.
Compared to Penrose's concept of *soul*, which did/does make predictions that can be tested in the lab, and have been *found* in the lab too, you guys have *nothing* to complain about.
Upvote
0
The point I was making is that the concept of soul absolutely *does* enjoy mathematical models just like all forms of hypothetical physics. It has models that make *real predictions* too, predictions that have been 'tested' and worked out in the lab.
SUSY theory on the other hand has *zippity-do-da* in terms of empirical support in the lab, in fact it's been falsified three straight times in just the last 18 months.
Upvote
0
I am not real sure what you mean here by paleontology having a difficult time in this context. Could you clarify a bit?
Really all theories are models so the differentiation is not overly important. If your way of looking at it does not conflict with the evidence I have no problem at all with how you find a way for it all to work for you. Whatever works, works. My theology is the way it all makes sense to me and by necessity is my personal way of looking at it.
OK, since we have no idea of how times passes in Heaven, there I see no conflict here.
Dizredux
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Sure, except when it comes to your bogus unsupported claims about exotic matter even *after* three straight falsifications in the lab.
We aren't complaining, I don't understand why people think we aren't open to being proven wrong. I honestly hope I am in some cases, such as the existence of an afterlife (well, nonexistence for me, I suppose, is more accurate). Links to soul study please.
Upvote
0
In fairness, I didn't get the impression that you personally were complaining, but:
That sure sounds like he's complaining about a perceived "lack of evidence" where none actually exists. Like all areas of theoretical physics, there are mathematical expressions of 'soul', and "tests" that have actually produced tangible verification in the lab.
It's nothing personal in my experience, but all people resist being 'proven wrong' to some degree or another, usually it's a function of ego/financial investment.
In this case, having gone from theist, to atheist, and full circle to theist again, I can assure you that the 'ego fry' of coming back to theism is *way* more difficult than getting over one's fears of mortality, and ceasing to exist. It's intense, and difficult, I assure you.
Scientists offer quantum theory of soul's existence | News.com.au
Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness -- ScienceDaily
Those articles should get you started. I can round up the papers for you later if they aren't somewhere in the article already.
Pretty much all hypothetical areas of physics are based on mathematical predictions, and how well those mathematical predictions work out, preferably in *controlled* conditions (like on Earth). In this case, Penrose et all came up with predictions that have since been verified.
That's really about the best any area of hypothetical physics could hope to do. Mr. Strawberry really has nothing to complain about.
Upvote
0
Sure, except when it comes to your bogus unsupported claims about exotic matter even *after* three straight falsifications in the lab.
Upvote
0
The amusing part is that if you did let your falsified theory die a normal empirical death after those string of lab falsifications, I'd let it go too. In fact I'd let it got in a heartbeat. Unfortunately that SUSY horse died three times in the last 18 months and you keep pointing at the gamma rays in the sky and whipping on that dead horse and claiming "Get up you lazy horse"!
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Like I said before, there's always a "scientific' aspects of the dogma that comes into direct conflict with the data. When that happens, there's really only one of two things that can occur. They can *accept* the data, and get rid of the bad dogma, or they can cling to the bad dogma, and try to deny the data. In almost all cases there is a strong emotional need to ignore the conflicting data at all costs, and repeat the erroneous dogma. It really doesn't matter what the topic might be, the behaviors are virtually identical.
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
(I almost missed your post) That is the attitude I held. A system work does not mean it is true.
I am not a paleontologist. But I have a few paleontology friends. So I heard strange stories sometimes. For example, a recently one is that a type of shallow sea clam at Permian (?) time lived in water of 40°C temperature. The poor guy has trouble to either believe in the fossil or to believe in the isotope data (which gives the T).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
