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.
And failed utterly.I have tried to provided you with a logical and entirely *natural* way to support that claim.
You would need to demonstrate that these fields can actually influence us in the way that he says. So far, there is less than 0 evidence that it can. The EM fields needed to influence brain processes are way higher than the ones measured to occur naturally.If we live inside of a living organism, then God is as near to us as the atoms in our bodies, the neutrinos that flow through our bodies, and the EM fields that surround our bodies.
How much closer could he get?
<snipped irrelevant obsession>
Nope. Even if you are correct in your statement that the odds of a macroscopic intelligence can be calculated, which I highly doubt, this still doesn't give you any indication of the likelihood that one beat the other one to the punch. The ability to calculate an odds does not tell you anything about the odds themselves.
Could be =/= is
Oh but you forget.....
The Earth itself is only maybe 4.6 billion years old, whereas the plasmas of spacetime may be eternal for all anyone knows. Human's could not even evolve here at all until 4.6 billion years ago when the Earth formed, whereas a macroscopic intelligence that we now call 'God' may have evolved hundreds of trillion of years ago. Even if they took exactly the same amount of time, the universe has had more 'time' to evolve.
Right after you show that:
So now you are moving the goalposts from one probability being larger than the other to the probability of a "macroscopic intelligence" being irrelevant, because if (and that's a big if given the evidence) the universe is eternal, it will already have happened regardless of the probability. If that was what you meant, just fess up and state it outright.Oh but you forget.....
The Earth itself is only maybe 4.6 billion years old, whereas the plasmas of spacetime may be eternal for all anyone knows. Human's could not even evolve here at all until 4.6 billion years ago when the Earth formed, whereas a macroscopic intelligence that we now call 'God' may have evolved hundreds of trillion of years ago. Even if they took exactly the same amount of time, the universe has had more 'time' to evolve.
And failed utterly.
The God helmet experiments demonstrate that EM fields *can* influence human thought. I don't know how 'God' might manipulate the EM fields of spacetime however. Since "God' would technically be 'in' every atom, it could happen *inside* the brain for all I know! You're asking for more than anyone could give you without *actively experimenting in the lab*.You would need to demonstrate that these fields can actually influence us in the way that he says. So far, there is less than 0 evidence that it can. The EM fields needed to influence brain processes are way higher than the ones measured to occur naturally.
So now you are moving the goalposts
The laws of physics *insist* that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and you have zero evidence that there was ever a time when physical matter did not exist. Even Alfven proposed a 'bang' theory that doesn't require or predict all mass to have ever been concentrated to a "point'. Even if the universe is expanding, there is no guarantee that all mass energy was ever collected into one tiny region of spacetime. Even that claim is outrageous.from one probability being larger than the other to the probability of a "macroscopic intelligence" being irrelevant, because if (and that's a big if given the evidence) the universe is eternal, it will already have happened regardless of the probability. If that was what you meant, just fess up and state it outright.
This thread isn't about your obsessions with Big Bang comsology.
No, it's about the entirely *natural* living universe.
May have? Could have?
Why don't you present evidence that something is?
No, I'm not. I'm simply adding the element of 'time' to the question. Humans can't evolve on a planet until a planet exists.
The laws of physics *insist* that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and you have zero evidence that there was ever a time when physical matter did not exist. Even Alfven proposed a 'bang' theory that doesn't require or predict all mass to have ever been concentrated to a "point'. Even if the universe is expanding, there is no guarantee that all mass energy was ever collected into one tiny region of spacetime. Even that claim is outrageous.
Compared to the amount of *time* that humans have had to evolve on Earth, the universe has had an infinitely longer time to 'evolve'.
My choice is apparently a 'natural' explanation for God and the universe, or a completely *supernatural* creation mythology that requires me to "put my faith" in three invisible sky deities? Give me a break. It's not even close.
And we are back to your inability to distinguish between empirical and subjective evidence.That is only because you subjectively choose to simply *ignore* all the testimonies of billions of humans, and all the NDE accounts, and all the *physical possibilities*. Compared to what so called 'science' has to offer as an explanation for our universe, you have *nothing* to complain about. Evidence can almost *always* be 'interpreted' in a variety of subjective ways.
<snipped obsession irrelevant to the thread>
At levels much higher than occurring naturally. I did not state that EM fields cannot influence human thought. I stated that there is no evidence that they can at levels measured to occur naturally. Please respond to the claims I actually make, not the ones you dream up in your head.The God helmet experiments demonstrate that EM fields *can* influence human thought. I don't know how 'God' might manipulate the EM fields of spacetime however. Since "God' would technically be 'in' every atom, it could happen *inside* the brain for all I know! You're asking for more than anyone could give you without *actively experimenting in the lab*.
<snipped obsession irrelevant to the thread>
I "observe" the effect of "God" on humans in everything from music to NDE's.
Where did you read that in the opening post? Last I checked, it is about the supposed limitations of naturalism.
Again:No, I'm not. I'm simply adding the element of 'time' to the question. Humans can't evolve on a planet until a planet exists.
The laws of physics *insist* that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and you have zero evidence that there was ever a time when physical matter did not exist. Even Alfven proposed a 'bang' theory that doesn't require or predict all mass to have ever been concentrated to a "point'. Even if the universe is expanding, there is no guarantee that all mass energy was ever collected into one tiny region of spacetime. Even that claim is outrageous.
Compared to the amount of *time* that humans have had to evolve on Earth, the universe has had an infinitely longer time to 'evolve'.
My choice is apparently a 'natural' explanation for God and the universe, or a completely *supernatural* creation mythology that requires me to "put my faith" in three invisible sky deities? Give me a break. It's not even close.
I think we just demonstrated the limitations of naturalism quite nicely. Ultimately any 'belief' about the universe we live it requires an 'act of faith'.
And here we can end the discussion. Because if we are now not just attributing spiritual experiences to "God", but also music, the concept has just become completely meaningless.I "observe" the effect of "God" on humans in everything from music to NDE's.
And we are back to your inability to distinguish between empirical and subjective evidence.
You can verify that "Yep, those photons are redshifted alright". That's all you can verify with a telescope.There is a difference between objective evidence used to build up empirical models, and subjective evidence. I can (in principle) check the redshift, measure it again, and reproduce the effects.
Likewise I can't get a single astronomer to tell me where dark energy comes from so I can 'verify' their claims. I can't get them to tell me where to find any inflation or how to control it to see if has some effect on a photon. I can't verify that these things even exist in nature, let alone that they have some effect on a photon. All I have are the "testimonies" of a handful of old guys that think they see invisible stuff in the sky!I cannot do so for the reported testimonies.
Technically speaking, it's entirely possible for a living organism to control it's physical "self" down to a specific atom, which in this case could be *inside* my physical form for all I know. Already you've made an *assumption* that might not even be correct to begin with.I am not ignoring them, I am pointing out that at best we cannot ascertain what is happening there, and distinguish between a genuine experience caused from the outside and an entirely psychological process.
Jesus tends to transcend human cultures today. He has followers all over the planet, located in nearly every "culture" of the world. Why?Of course, we know from the descriptions that these experiences are highly culturally colored, which would tentatively point toward a psycho-sociological explanation.
I actually think it's dubious that you're requiring the EM field "communication process" to be created/initiated on the outside of the skull rather than resonating itself through atoms on the *inside*. Wireless communication has been a part of our technologies for a long time now.At levels much higher than occurring naturally. I did not state that EM fields cannot influence human thought. I stated that there is no evidence that they can at levels measured to occur naturally. Please respond to the claims I actually make, not the ones you dream up in your head.
And here we can end the discussion. Because if we are now not just attributing spiritual experiences to "God", but also music, the concept has just become completely meaningless.
Again:
You have shifted your claim from one probability being larger than the other to the probability of a "macroscopic intelligence" being irrelevant, because if the universe is eternal, it will already have happened regardless of the probability. If that was what you meant, just fess up and state it outright.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?