Mind

[Justatruthseeker]

That is because the mind is electrical in nature, it is electrical impulses between neurons of your brain that enable you to think, to move, to breathe, your heart to beat. It is energy, of which all things are made.

 

[Strathos]

Then how can I tell if you have anything at all, other than your assumptions?

I don't suppose you can. That's your problem, though.

Again, If I were to experience it, and found it convincing, it would still not establish it as not being an illusion.

'

Maybe not to another skeptical person. But then we would both be arguing against that person instead of against each other.

Then tell me what I am to do with your opinion of these experiences you claim to have had.

Take it or leave it.

You have to die? You cannot do better than that? Seriously?

The first thing that came to mind. Still, it's a criterion for falsifiability.

And if you have no objections to them being dismissed, they are dismissed.

Then why do you continue this discussion?

That does not address my point. That which is found convincing is not necessarily real. Do you agree with that?

I take you decline to take the bicycle challenge. Is there a reason why, other than it might demonstrate that your personal experiences might prove to be unreliable? Oh, wait...

See my comment above.

Again, I still do not know what you mean by "spiritual", other than as a handwaving placemark for that which you cannot define or explain.

Spiritual - supernatural. In blatant violation of physical laws without rendering those laws incorrect. Things that scientific investigation and observation do not apply to.

By denigrate, do you mean to criticize unfairly? That is not so. I do try to apply similar levels of scepticism to all untestable, unfalsifiable, and unevidenced claims. Do you not do the same (exempting your particular religious beliefs, of course)?

I give your ideas more consideration than you seem to give mine.

I am ignostic regarding those terms. Also, I do not collect stamps.

So you do not care whether a God exists or not?

What dancing? In post #168 I said "...I credit the writers of those times with probably being of the more intelligent and educated of their peers. But, the bible stories are, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, just stories written by men." Post #113, "religious texts are simply the work of men."

This interpretation is based on observation, evidence, and parsimony, but it is still tentative, and subject to revision with new information.

Speaking of dancing, I will ask again: and yours? Without your personal experiences, which you claim are not intended to convince anyone else, on what do you base your interpretation of the bible?

That is not an interpretation of the Bible, it is an opinion as to its origin. The type of interpretation I speak of regards what certain passages mean.

 

[Davian]

I don't suppose you can. That's your problem, though.

lol. It's not my problem if you have nothing.

Maybe not to another skeptical person. But then we would both be arguing against that person instead of against each other.

And even if a billion of us were to experience it, and found it convincing, we would simply be committing the argument from popularity fallacy. It may still be an illusion.

Take it or leave it.

I'll drop it if you will.

The first thing that came to mind. Still, it's a criterion for falsifiability.

No, it is not. The results are not available to others.

Then why do you continue this discussion?

Curiosity. I respect the rationality I have seen in your posts in other threads, and wanted to see if you would apply that to your own experiences. Apparently not.

See my comment above.

Do you know how to ride a bicycle?

Spiritual - supernatural. In blatant violation of physical laws without rendering those laws incorrect. Things that scientific investigation and observation do not apply to.

Something that cannot be described by physical laws, or scientific methodology. That only tells me what it isn't. What is it? I still do not know, in any constructive way, what you mean by those words.

I give your ideas more consideration than you seem to give mine.

What have you provided for consideration besides personal experience, which is inherently faulty?

So you do not care whether a God exists or not?

Other than a characters in books, not really. However, I do find theists to be interesting, and appreciate exchanges such as this.

That is not an interpretation of the Bible, it is an opinion as to its origin. The type of interpretation I speak of regards what certain passages mean.

Given the apparent source, I don't see how the content of those stories were anything other than the people of the time trying to explain the world around them, and to create a religion, with all that entailed for their time (power/government/"science"). That people can read more into those stories without supporting correlating observations from the world around us I find baffling.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Something that cannot be described by physical laws, or scientific methodology. That only tells me what it isn't. What is it? I still do not know, in any constructive way, what you mean by those words.

Sort of like Dark matter in mainstream cosmology?

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

"We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is."

So all experiments to date have told us what it isn't, not what it is. What is it? No one knows.

"However, at this point, there are still a few dark matter possibilities that are viable. Baryonic matter could still make up the dark matter if it were all tied up in brown dwarfs or in small, dense chunks of heavy elements."

Or baryonic matter could still make up dark matter as soon as you stop pretending its gas, instead of plasma.

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

"Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to find evidence our Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in an enormous halo of hot gas that extends for hundreds of thousands of light years. The estimated mass of the halo is comparable to the mass of all the stars in the galaxy.

If the size and mass of this gas halo is confirmed, it also could be an explanation for what is known as the "missing baryon" problem for the galaxy."

So your claims of not believing in the spiritual for lack of evidence and being able to explain it fails, since you can neither explain Dark Matter nor have found any in any scientific experiment, yet still believe.

And while you are at it explain the human consciousness. We know that exists, but can not explain how or why. Just that we think by electrical currents emitted in our brains.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sort of like Dark matter in mainstream cosmology?

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

"We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is."

So all experiments to date have told us what it isn't, not what it is. What is it? No one knows.

"However, at this point, there are still a few dark matter possibilities that are viable. Baryonic matter could still make up the dark matter if it were all tied up in brown dwarfs or in small, dense chunks of heavy elements."

Or baryonic matter could still make up dark matter as soon as you stop pretending its gas, instead of plasma.

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

"Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to find evidence our Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in an enormous halo of hot gas that extends for hundreds of thousands of light years. The estimated mass of the halo is comparable to the mass of all the stars in the galaxy.

If the size and mass of this gas halo is confirmed, it also could be an explanation for what is known as the "missing baryon" problem for the galaxy."

So your claims of not believing in the spiritual for lack of evidence and being able to explain it fails, since you can neither explain Dark Matter nor have found any in any scientific experiment, yet still believe.

And while you are at it explain the human consciousness. We know that exists, but can not explain how or why. Just that we think by electrical currents emitted in our brains.

Justa still does not understand simple physics and why the hot gas surrounding the galaxy is not the answer to Dark Matter.

Here is a clue, Shell theory.

 

[Davian]

Sort of like Dark matter in mainstream cosmology?

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

"We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is."

So all experiments to date have told us what it isn't, not what it is. What is it? No one knows.

"However, at this point, there are still a few dark matter possibilities that are viable. Baryonic matter could still make up the dark matter if it were all tied up in brown dwarfs or in small, dense chunks of heavy elements."

Or baryonic matter could still make up dark matter as soon as you stop pretending its gas, instead of plasma.

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

"Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to find evidence our Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in an enormous halo of hot gas that extends for hundreds of thousands of light years. The estimated mass of the halo is comparable to the mass of all the stars in the galaxy.

If the size and mass of this gas halo is confirmed, it also could be an explanation for what is known as the "missing baryon" problem for the galaxy."

So your claims of not believing in the spiritual for lack of evidence and being able to explain it fails, since you can neither explain Dark Matter nor have found any in any scientific experiment, yet still believe.

So you admit that you have no evidence or any scientific experiment for "spiritual"?

As for dark matter, I don't "believe" in it. That hypothesis makes no claim of morals, justice, afterlife, or anything that affects my day-to-day living.

I. Don't. Care.

As a scientific hypothesis, it has explanatory power for independently verified observations of galaxy rotational curves, gravitational lensing, etc. "Spritual" has none of that.

And while you are at it explain the human consciousness. We know that exists, but can not explain how or why.

The argument from ignorance fallacy. There is no evidence that I am aware of that would lead scientists to posit anything other than consciousness is a process, an emergent property of a brain. Got anything? Nothing?

Just that we think by electrical currents emitted in our brains.

It is my understanding that almost all of the brain’s synapses are chemical synapses, not electrical. On what do you base your opinion?

Also, I am still waiting for a coherent response to this post:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7765317-54/#post63999378

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you admit that you have no evidence or any scientific experiment for "spiritual"?

No more than you have for DM or DE, that's why I call my belief "religion" not science.

As a scientific hypothesis, it has explanatory power for independently verified observations of galaxy rotational curves, gravitational lensing, etc. "Spritual" has none of that.

It has no explanatory power, unless you continue to ignore 99% of what the universe is composed of. Plasma.

The argument from ignorance fallacy. There is no evidence that I am aware of that would lead scientists to posit anything other than consciousness is a process, an emergent property of a brain. Got anything? Nothing?

It is my understanding that almost all of the brain’s synapses are chemical synapses, not electrical. On what do you base your opinion?

Also, I am still waiting for a coherent response to this post:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7765317-54/#post63999378

HowStuffWorks "How Your Brain Works"

"Your brain is made of approximately 100 billion nerve cells, called neurons. Neurons have the amazing ability to gather and transmit electrochemical signals"

Electrochemistry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Electrochemistry is a branch of chemistry that studies chemical reactions which take place in a solution at the interface of an electron conductor (the electrode: a metal or a semiconductor) and an ionic conductor (the electrolyte). These reactions involve electron transfer between the electrode and the electrolyte or species in solution."

Neuron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A neuron (/ˈnjʊərɒn/ NYEWR-on or /ˈnʊərɒn/ NEWR-on; also known as a neurone or nerve cell) is an electrically excitable cell that processes and transmits information through electrical and chemical signals."

Action potential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In physiology, an action potential is a short-lasting event in which the electrical membrane potential of a cell rapidly rises and falls, following a consistent trajectory. Action potentials occur in several types of animal cells, called excitable cells, which include neurons, muscle cells, and endocrine cells, as well as in some plant cells. In neurons, they play a central role in cell-to-cell communication. In other types of cells, their main function is to activate intracellular processes. In muscle cells, for example, an action potential is the first step in the chain of events leading to contraction. In beta cells of the pancreas, they provoke release of insulin.[1] Action potentials in neurons are also known as "nerve impulses" or "spikes", and the temporal sequence of action potentials generated by a neuron is called its "spike train". A neuron that emits an action potential is often said to "fire". Action potentials are generated by special types of voltage-gated ion channels embedded in a cell's plasma membrane."

There is no ther way known, but electrical processes, since chemical reactions are also electrical.

Electromagnetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The electromagnetic force plays a major role in determining the internal properties of most objects encountered in daily life. Ordinary matter takes its form as a result of intermolecular forces between individual molecules in matter. Electrons are bound by electromagnetic wave mechanics into orbitals around atomic nuclei to form atoms, which are the building blocks of molecules. This governs the processes involved in chemistry, which arise from interactions between the electrons of neighboring atoms, which are in turn determined by the interaction between electromagnetic force and the momentum of the electrons."

Your claims of the non-electrical operation of the brain is not supported by science.

 

[Davian]

No more than you have for DM or DE, that's why I call my belief "religion" not science.

And I agree, your beliefs do not appear to be science. As for dark matter, I don't care.

It has no explanatory power, unless you continue to ignore 99% of what the universe is composed of. Plasma.

As we agreed, your beliefs do not appear to be science.

HowStuffWorks "How Your Brain Works"[/URL]

"Your brain is made of approximately 100 billion nerve cells, called neurons. Neurons have the amazing ability to gather and transmit electrochemical signals"

Electrochemistry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Electrochemistry is a branch of chemistry that studies chemical reactions which take place in a solution at the interface of an electron conductor (the electrode: a metal or a semiconductor) and an ionic conductor (the electrolyte). These reactions involve electron transfer between the electrode and the electrolyte or species in solution."

Neuron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A neuron (/ˈnjʊərɒn/ NYEWR-on or /ˈnʊərɒn/ NEWR-on; also known as a neurone or nerve cell) is an electrically excitable cell that processes and transmits information through electrical and chemical signals."

Action potential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In physiology, an action potential is a short-lasting event in which the electrical membrane potential of a cell rapidly rises and falls, following a consistent trajectory. Action potentials occur in several types of animal cells, called excitable cells, which include neurons, muscle cells, and endocrine cells, as well as in some plant cells. In neurons, they play a central role in cell-to-cell communication. In other types of cells, their main function is to activate intracellular processes. In muscle cells, for example, an action potential is the first step in the chain of events leading to contraction. In beta cells of the pancreas, they provoke release of insulin.[1] Action potentials in neurons are also known as "nerve impulses" or "spikes", and the temporal sequence of action potentials generated by a neuron is called its "spike train". A neuron that emits an action potential is often said to "fire". Action potentials are generated by special types of voltage-gated ion channels embedded in a cell's plasma membrane."

There is no ther way known, but electrical processes, since chemical reactions are also electrical.

Electromagnetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The electromagnetic force plays a major role in determining the internal properties of most objects encountered in daily life. Ordinary matter takes its form as a result of intermolecular forces between individual molecules in matter. Electrons are bound by electromagnetic wave mechanics into orbitals around atomic nuclei to form atoms, which are the building blocks of molecules. This governs the processes involved in chemistry, which arise from interactions between the electrons of neighboring atoms, which are in turn determined by the interaction between electromagnetic force and the momentum of the electrons."

Your claims of the non-electrical operation of the brain is not supported by science.

Where did I say that the brain was non-electrical in operation?

Also, I am still waiting for a coherent response to this post:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7765317-54/#post63999378

You don't have anything, do you?

 

[Strathos]

lol. It's not my problem if you have nothing.

It would only be my problem if I was trying to prove something to you.

And even if a billion of us were to experience it, and found it convincing, we would simply be committing the argument from popularity fallacy. It may still be an illusion.

Maybe.

I'll drop it if you will.

You first?

No, it is not. The results are not available to others.

They're available to anyone who will die - which is everyone.

Curiosity. I respect the rationality I have seen in your posts in other threads, and wanted to see if you would apply that to your own experiences. Apparently not.

Some things are inherently irrational.

Do you know how to ride a bicycle?

No.

Something that cannot be described by physical laws, or scientific methodology. That only tells me what it isn't. What is it? I still do not know, in any constructive way, what you mean by those words.

What it is is anything other than what it isn't.

What have you provided for consideration besides personal experience, which is inherently faulty?

It's faulty for the purposes of convincing someone else who lacks said experiences. But I am talking more of possibilities.

Other than a characters in books, not really. However, I do find theists to be interesting, and appreciate exchanges such as this.

So you don't think that the existence of a being that created reality, oversees your life and the lives of all others, and has control over your fate and afterlife would be an important or relevant thing to your life? If you had proof to your satisfaction that such a being existed, you would not care?

Given the apparent source, I don't see how the content of those stories were anything other than the people of the time trying to explain the world around them, and to create a religion, with all that entailed for their time (power/government/"science"). That people can read more into those stories without supporting correlating observations from the world around us I find baffling.

The vast majority of Biblical passages bear no resemblance to the kind of "just-so" stories you are positing they are. There are verses that are subtle, deep, multifaceted, with no obvious interpretation, that require intensive study.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justa still does not understand simple physics and why the hot gas surrounding the galaxy is not the answer to Dark Matter.

Here is a clue, Shell theory.

here's a clue, look up the word embedded.

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

"Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to find evidence our Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in an enormous halo of hot gas that extends for hundreds of thousands of light years. The estimated mass of the halo is comparable to the mass of all the stars in the galaxy."

embedded - definition of embedded by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

"1. To fix firmly in a surrounding mass: embed a post in concrete; fossils embedded in shale.2. To enclose snugly or firmly.
3. To cause to be an integral part of a surrounding whole:"

Your shell strawman doesn't stand up, and is shown to be the misdirection that it is. Our galaxy is embedded in the halo of gas, not surrounded by it like a shell. Stop with your useless misdirections already, they have been shown to be false many times.

Example 4.1: Electric field of a uniformly charged sphere

"Clearly, the electric field-strength is proportional to

inside the sphere, but falls off like

outside the sphere. "

Because you ignore one of Gauss's laws.

Charged Conductors

"This can only be the case if there are no charges enclosed by the gaussian surface."

Electric Field of a Spherical Conducting Shell

"In fact, the electric field inside any closed hollow conductor is zero (assuming that the region enclosed by the conductor contains no charges). "

Since even if it was a hollow sphere, it would enclose the galaxy itself, so charges lie within this enclosing sphere. In order for your theory to be correct we must "assume" the galaxy itself is not enclosed by this sphere.

You are wrong no matter which scientific explanation you chose to take.

 

[Davian]

It would only be my problem if I was trying to prove something to you.

What is your intent for this exchange?

Maybe.

That might explain why billions of people disagree with billions of others on theology. They cannot all be right, and, they could all be wrong.

You first?

You are the one positing that these experiences of some significance, so it's up to you to drop it or substantiate.

They're available to anyone who will die - which is everyone.

That still doesn't make it a falsifiable claim. You are not doing science.

Some things are inherently irrational.

lol. Myself, I try to keep introspection as rational as possible.

No.

No problem. Ask those around you, and see what they think about the bicycle challenge, and let me know.

What it is is anything other than what it isn't.

For the purposes of discussion, gibberish. You need to develop a positive ontology for the subject in question.

It's faulty for the purposes of convincing someone else who lacks said experiences. But I am talking more of possibilities.

Still, how do you establish these possibilities? Just because you can think of them makes them possible?

So you don't think that the existence of a being that created reality, oversees your life and the lives of all others, and has control over your fate and afterlife would be an important or relevant thing to your life? If you had proof to your satisfaction that such a being existed, you would not care?

I would make that determination at that point.

At this point, I have yet to see anything to indicate that deities are anything more than characters in books. You cannot even define what you mean by "spiritual". How can discussion begin if we cannot agree on what the words mean?

The vast majority of Biblical passages bear no resemblance to the kind of "just-so" stories you are positing they are. There are verses that are subtle, deep, multifaceted, with no obvious interpretation, that require intensive study.

You will need to provide some rational explanation for why I should think you are not simply projecting that onto what you read in your bible.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where did I say that the brain was non-electrical in operation?

It is my understanding that almost all of the brain’s synapses are chemical synapses, not electrical. On what do you base your opinion?

See my previous post as to the basis of my opinion, since electrochemical signals rely on electric processes.

Also, I am still waiting for a coherent response to this post:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7765317-54/#post63999378

You don't have anything, do you?

It began through electrical processes, the same processes that control all of chemistry and the atomic structure.

How Did Life Begin?

"One of the first clues is amino acids, the building blocks of life. In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey demonstrated that amino acids could form naturally in the environment of the early Earth. They replicated the atmosphere and chemicals present, and then used electric sparks to simulate lightning strikes. Amazingly, they found a variety of amino acids in the resulting primordial soup....


So how did life get here? We just don’t know."

But, you can assure me in wasn't caused by a being of energy, even though you admit you have not a clue, for God is energy and imparted this lifeforce to all life.

So you want life to begin with electrical activity, then ignore it in every single theory thereafter. You want E=mc^2, then ignore that energy in every other theory you have.

You give lip service to the equation E=mc^2, then pretend every bit of matter in the universe is not composed of energy, even going so far as to postulating a mythical substance that is electrically neutral, and therefore would be made of no energy at all, violating the equations you give lip service to. You ignore the fact that all of Relativity is based upon the equations of Maxwell and Lorentz, that deal exclusively with the electromagnetic force. You ignore the electrodynamics of moving bodies, and instead only consider the gravitational.

You need to study Romans 1:20:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

His power, that invisible quality is clearly seen, being understood by the things made. There is not one single thing in the entire universe that does not rely on the electromagnetic force to operate. E=mc^2, learn what that means.

You first need to undo all your mistakes taught to you in grade school that you carry in life.

Electricty Misconceptions Spread By Textbooks

Perhaps then you can grasp what E=mc^2 really means.

And then learn what voltage is, and your quest to unite the micro and macro may one day be complete.

Electrical curriculum: What is Voltage?

And while you are at it you should take a course in electromagnetic theory to help straighten out your wrongly held beliefs.

lectures

Because until you understand that, you will never understand chemistry.

Chemistry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Chemistry is sometimes called "the central science" because it bridges other natural sciences like physics, geology and biology with each other.[3][4] Chemistry is a branch of physical science but distinct from physics"

Nor chemical bonds.

Chemical bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The bond is caused by the electrostatic force of attraction between opposite charges, either between electrons and nuclei, or as the result of a dipole attraction. The strength of chemical bonds varies considerably; there are "strong bonds" such as covalent or ionic bonds and "weak bonds" such as dipole–dipole interactions, the London dispersion force and hydrogen bonding."

Coulomb's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Coulomb's law, or Coulomb's inverse-square law, is a law of physics describing the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles."

And back to the electromagnetic force we go.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That might explain why billions of people disagree with billions of others on theology. They cannot all be right, and, they could all be wrong.

That may also explain why billions of people disagree on how evolution occurs, and why we have at least 12 different theories for it. They can't all be right and they could all be wrong.

That is a two pronged argument that goes against you just as easily.

 

[Davian]

See my previous post as to the basis of my opinion, since electrochemical signals rely on electric processes.

It began through electrical processes, the same processes that control all of chemistry and the atomic structure.

I did not say that the brain was non-electrical in operation, did I?

How Did Life Begin?

"One of the first clues is amino acids, the building blocks of life. In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey demonstrated that amino acids could form naturally in the environment of the early Earth. They replicated the atmosphere and chemicals present, and then used electric sparks to simulate lightning strikes. Amazingly, they found a variety of amino acids in the resulting primordial soup....


So how did life get here? We just don’t know."

But, you can assure me in wasn't caused by a being of energy, even though you admit you have not a clue, for God is energy and imparted this lifeforce to all life.

So you want life to begin with electrical activity, then ignore it in every single theory thereafter. You want E=mc^2, then ignore that energy in every other theory you have.

You give lip service to the equation E=mc^2, then pretend every bit of matter in the universe is not composed of energy, even going so far as to postulating a mythical substance that is electrically neutral, and therefore would be made of no energy at all, violating the equations you give lip service to. You ignore the fact that all of Relativity is based upon the equations of Maxwell and Lorentz, that deal exclusively with the electromagnetic force. You ignore the electrodynamics of moving bodies, and instead only consider the gravitational.

You need to study Romans 1:20:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Invisible qualities clearly seen? I always see this as a weak attempt at biblical humour.

His power, that invisible quality is clearly seen, being understood by the things made. There is not one single thing in the entire universe that does not rely on the electromagnetic force to operate. E=mc^2, learn what that means.

You first need to undo all your mistakes taught to you in grade school that you carry in life.

Electricty Misconceptions Spread By Textbooks

Perhaps then you can grasp what E=mc^2 really means.

And then learn what voltage is, and your quest to unite the micro and macro may one day be complete.

Electrical curriculum: What is Voltage?

And while you are at it you should take a course in electromagnetic theory to help straighten out your wrongly held beliefs.

lectures

Because until you understand that, you will never understand chemistry.

Chemistry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Chemistry is sometimes called "the central science" because it bridges other natural sciences like physics, geology and biology with each other.[3][4] Chemistry is a branch of physical science but distinct from physics"

Nor chemical bonds.

Chemical bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The bond is caused by the electrostatic force of attraction between opposite charges, either between electrons and nuclei, or as the result of a dipole attraction. The strength of chemical bonds varies considerably; there are "strong bonds" such as covalent or ionic bonds and "weak bonds" such as dipole–dipole interactions, the London dispersion force and hydrogen bonding."

Coulomb's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Coulomb's law, or Coulomb's inverse-square law, is a law of physics describing the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles."

And back to the electromagnetic force we go.

You said, "I have a religion of how life began consistent with observations". If there are no observations for how life began, you are lying, or mistaken.

You don't have anything, do you?

 

[Davian]

That may also explain why billions of people disagree on how evolution occurs, and why we have at least 12 different theories for it.

The scientific theory of evolution certainly consists of more than one theory, even competing theories. That is not an issue incompatible with scientific methodology.

They can't all be right and they could all be wrong.

They could be, and are subject to falsification and updating as we discover new information. Do you have anything that would falsify, in a small or a broad sense, the theory of evolution? No? I didn't think so. Or you wouldn't be here, would you?

That is a two pronged argument that goes against you just as easily.

I am not an evolutionist, or claim to be one, so you are wrong again.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I did not say that the brain was non-electrical in operation, did I?

You tell me.

It is my understanding that almost all of the brain’s synapses are chemical synapses, not electrical. On what do you base your opinion?

Invisible qualities clearly seen? I always see this as a weak attempt at biblical humour.

So you have seen electric and magnetic fields? Or have you merely observed the effects that they have on other particles? Yet clearly science has no problem believing in electric and magnetic fields that can not be seen, but only understood by the things that are made.

Have you ever observed a quark? Yet clearly science has no problem believing in things that can not be seen, only understood by the things that are made.

Why would you make fun of science????

You said, "I have a religion of how life began consistent with observations". If there are no observations for how life began, you are lying, or mistaken.

You don't have anything, do you?

I know electrical processes are the force behind everything known, why would I discount it in how life began? Your own theorists consider this the best possible explanation of the beginning of life. Unless we want to throw in the hypothesis of life from comets, but then we have to ask how that life began, so back to square one.

On the other hand we have laboratory evidence that amino acids can be formed from electrical processes. Considering God is a being of pure energy, controlling energy, the basis of all matter in existence, would not be a problem. E=mc^2, nothing exists that is not composed of energy.

The atom itself is electrical, chemical bonds are electrical, the brain is electrical, made up of atoms that are electrical that form molecules through electrical bonding.

I don't know why you are arguing against creation, since you have your own creation event 13.7 billion years ago. A creation event proposed by a priest no less. The most energetic event ever imagined.

Your own science agrees energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so always existed, as God has always existed. because God is energy. Your own thoughts work through electrical processes, how can you deny the possibility of a being of pure energy existing, since thought is nothing but energy?

You can't see your thoughts, but I bet you don't deny they exist. If they didn't we wouldn't be having this conversation. Scientists may not be able to quantify consciousness, but I for one know I am here, and think and percieve, so I don't need their quantification's to know I exist. Only someone deluded would think consciousness was not real, just because it can't be explained. As someone once said, I think, therefore I am.

 

[Davian]

You tell me.

I don't see where I did that. Try again?

So you have seen electric and magnetic fields? Or have you merely observed the effects that they have on other particles? Yet clearly science has no problem believing in electric and magnetic fields that can not be seen, but only understood by the things that are made.

Have you ever observed a quark? Yet clearly science has no problem believing in things that can not be seen, only understood by the things that are made.

Why would you make fun of science????

I only make fun of your attempts to shoehorn your theology into your straw-man versions of scientific theories.

I know electrical processes are the force behind everything known, why would I discount it in how life began? Your own theorists consider this the best possible explanation of the beginning of life. Unless we want to throw in the hypothesis of life from comets, but then we have to ask how that life began, so back to square one.

My own theorists? You are mistaken - I don't have any of those.

On the other hand we have laboratory evidence that amino acids can be formed from electrical processes. Considering God is a being of pure energy, controlling energy, the basis of all matter in existence, would not be a problem. E=mc^2, nothing exists that is not composed of energy.

Did you not say earlier than the brain was electrochemical? That would rule out this "pure energy being" of yours working anything like we see in a brain.

The atom itself is electrical, chemical bonds are electrical, the brain is electrical, made up of atoms that are electrical that form molecules through electrical bonding.

I don't know why you are arguing against creation, since you have your own creation event 13.7 billion years ago. A creation event proposed by a priest no less. The most energetic event ever imagined.

Why does it matter that it was a priest? Cannot a priest be a scientist?

Your own science

My own science? Cool. How did that happen. Does it pay well? Where do I collect?

agrees energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so always existed,

Not according to inflation theory. Energy can be created, in balance with negative energy, without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Are you not familiar with the standard model of cosmology and inflation theory?

as God has always existed.

Or, based on available evidence, it is just a character in a book.

because God is energy. Your own thoughts work through electrical processes, how can you deny the possibility of a being of pure energy existing, since thought is nothing but energy?

It was the part where you said that the brain was electrochemical in process. That would rule out a being of pure energy, unless you can present evidence to the contrary.

You can't see your thoughts, but I bet you don't deny they exist. If they didn't we wouldn't be having this conversation. Scientists may not be able to quantify consciousness, but I for one know I am here, and think and percieve, so I don't need their quantification's to know I exist. Only someone deluded would think consciousness was not real, just because it can't be explained. As someone once said, I think, therefore I am.

Philosophers, working within neuroscience, have moved beyond the 17th century.

My understanding is that the updated version would be more like: My brain thinks, and in that process temporarily creates a "transparent self-model".

Being No One with Thomas Metzinger - YouTube

 

[Strathos]

What is your intent for this exchange?

I don't know. You're the one who started it.

That might explain why billions of people disagree with billions of others on theology. They cannot all be right, and, they could all be wrong.

And you could also be wrong.

You are the one positing that these experiences of some significance, so it's up to you to drop it or substantiate.

They have significance to me.

That still doesn't make it a falsifiable claim. You are not doing science.

Just because you have to wait for it to be falsified doesn't mean it can't be. Although if I could take a time machine back to see Jesus not perform any miracles, not rise from the dead, and not ascend to Heaven that would also be a bit discouraging (assuming it wasn't some alternate timeline or something... thinking about time travel even abstractly makes my head hurt).

lol. Myself, I try to keep introspection as rational as possible.

Introspection is the examination of one's own consciousness - there is possibly nothing less objective or rational.

No problem. Ask those around you, and see what they think about the bicycle challenge, and let me know.

There is a big difference between different types of experience. I can easily imagine what it's like to walk down the street (even if I have never actually walked down this particular street before), but it's quite a bit more difficult to imagine what it's like to walk on the moon.

For the purposes of discussion, gibberish. You need to develop a positive ontology for the subject in question.

If I define what it isn't, and say that it is anything other than that, that is logically equivalent. For example: What is 3? All numbers other than those which are not 3.

Still, how do you establish these possibilities? Just because you can think of them makes them possible?

Sure, or even possibilities that we cannot conceive of could be possible.

I would make that determination at that point.

At this point, I have yet to see anything to indicate that deities are anything more than characters in books. You cannot even define what you mean by "spiritual". How can discussion begin if we cannot agree on what the words mean?

I'm talking hypothetically here - if you had proof to your satisfaction, you would not care?

You will need to provide some rational explanation for why I should think you are not simply projecting that onto what you read in your bible.

Well there is the fact that I myself find many passages to be counter-intuitive or even objectionable, which I take to mean I either need to adjust my thinking on these matters or interpret them more deeply.

 

[Davian]

I don't know. You're the one who started it.

That does not explain why you return to this thread. If it were for me, I would hope your would be less evasive.

And you could also be wrong.

And my being wrong does not make you or anyone else right. I have already stated that my position on theology is tentative and subject to revision on new information. It would appear that your theology is beyond scrutiny (from yourself).

They have significance to me.

Again, You are the one positing that these experiences of some significance, so it's up to you to drop it or substantiate. This isn't Michael, is it?

Just because you have to wait for it to be falsified doesn't mean it can't be. Although if I could take a time machine back to see Jesus not perform any miracles, not rise from the dead, and not ascend to Heaven that would also be a bit discouraging (assuming it wasn't some alternate timeline or something... thinking about time travel even abstractly makes my head hurt).

If you have to do what appears to be impossible to falsify something, it is not falsifiable.

Introspection is the examination of one's own consciousness - there is possibly nothing less objective or rational.

Certainly, from the perspective of 17th century philosophy.

There is a big difference between different types of experience. I can easily imagine what it's like to walk down the street (even if I have never actually walked down this particular street before), but it's quite a bit more difficult to imagine what it's like to walk on the moon.

Okay - explain how to walk down the street, in a manner that would be useful to a programmer of a bipedal walking robot. Don't leave anything out. (hint: the bicycle challenge is far simpler).

If I define what it isn't, and say that it is anything other than that, that is logically equivalent. For example: What is 3? All numbers other than those which are not 3.

Failed analogy - numbers are abstract. Again, you need to develop a positive ontology for the subject in question.

Sure, or even possibilities that we cannot conceive of could be possible.

Do you check under your Christmas tree on Christmas day, with hope that Santa left you presents?

When you see a rainbow, do you take any time to search for the leprechaun with his pot of gold?

I'm talking hypothetically here - if you had proof to your satisfaction, you would not care?

Hypothetically, sure. In real life, I contemplate it as much as I do of the wishes that a leprechaun would give me in exchange for his release (assuming I could catch him).

Well there is the fact that I myself find many passages to be counter-intuitive or even objectionable, which I take to mean I either need to adjust my thinking on these matters or interpret them more deeply.

Again, you will need to provide some rational explanation for why I should think you are not simply projecting that onto what you read in your bible.

 

[Strathos]

That does not explain why you return to this thread. If it were for me, I would hope your would be less evasive.

Perhaps I have nothing better to do. You obviously don't.

And my being wrong does not make you or anyone else right. I have already stated that my position on theology is tentative and subject to revision on new information. It would appear that your theology is beyond scrutiny (from yourself).

Nope, in fact I even gave you a criteria for falsifiability already. You just arbitrarily rejected it.

Again, You are the one positing that these experiences of some significance, so it's up to you to drop it or substantiate. This isn't Michael, is it?

How would one go about proving personal significance to another person, to whom it does not apply?

If you have to do what appears to be impossible to falsify something, it is not falsifiable.

Dying is impossible? Gaining more accurate information about the past is impossible?

Certainly, from the perspective of 17th century philosophy.

What are you proposing?

Okay - explain how to walk down the street, in a manner that would be useful to a programmer of a bipedal walking robot. Don't leave anything out. (hint: the bicycle challenge is far simpler).

I don't see what you're getting at here. You're now giving a situation where something would be difficult to explain, where before you seemed to be suggesting it would be easy.

Failed analogy - numbers are abstract. Again, you need to develop a positive ontology for the subject in question.

Why? You can't just dismiss my analogy by calling it abstract. Spirituality is abstract too, in a way.

Do you check under your Christmas tree on Christmas day, with hope that Santa left you presents?

When you see a rainbow, do you take any time to search for the leprechaun with his pot of gold?

No, but I would not begrudge someone who did.

Hypothetically, sure. In real life, I contemplate it as much as I do of the wishes that a leprechaun would give me in exchange for his release (assuming I could catch him).

So the issue of whether god(s) exist or not is relevant to you, if you encountered that situation. Besides, I'm fairly certain that most people who are familiar with the concept have wondered, at least once in their lives, what they would wish for if given a supernatural Aladdin-style wish.

Again, you will need to provide some rational explanation for why I should think you are not simply projecting that onto what you read in your bible.

Because if I was I would claim to understand it perfectly.