The missing link/intelligent design

[TheBeardedDude]

Clearly you haven't watched What The Bleep Do We Know?!, a perfectly accurate documentary on how quantum mechanics proves that whale song can heal amputees.

lol

I must watch that then!

 

[JYJ]

Do you have any evidence for any of these paranormal claims?

Yes.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Yes.

Well, don't leave us hanging there old chap.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes.

Can you cite this evidence, please?

 

[JYJ]

Well, don't leave us hanging there old chap.

Sorry mate. What would you have me do? Shall I use technical language to provide pathways into a certain wee area in a human brain (within a well known gland) to identify a network of particles with liquid properties yet which appear solid that are arranged in a certain manner which is without apparent reason....? Here on this forum?

Science is nearing the threshold 'tween the physical and the higher and much less substantive but equally vital existences. These are the proper beginnings. Brother Einstein yearned, searched for some "unified field" which would support his cosmology, physicists are intrigued with what they are calling "dark matter". The "other sides to black holes" are being speculated about. These paths will lead back to the individual man eventually as other investigative disciplines follow suit. And how will this be? It will be when the physicist meets the neuro-researcher on common ground.

Dreaming invokes speculation which, in time, morphs to bodies of belief as evidences accrue. These always lead to proofs though acceptances are seldom universal. Faith leads to knowledge and, as it is put to practice, to wisdom. This is the only method which is acceptable.

The only proof which is of value is that which is discovered, personally, by the man who questions. This is the argument which is at the heart of the historical tension between science and religion.

Whatever I say will be rejected. Humanity is so very good at building walls around their beliefs which dare outsiders to breech. Shall I have a go at bouncing proofs off the walls herein? Better to disassemble those barriers from the inside, to invite in the larger wonders of God's creative genius.

I will give a hint. How does God create? How does Jesus turn water into wine? These are understandable.

The Mind of God is directed, with explicit purpose, onto a field of "spiritual" matter which then "slows" forming the beginnings of our physical universe. The result of this reaction is what science has found. The lightest elements now exists. The inherent property of gravity does the rest. The moment of God's creation was the very same event described by science as the "big bang". The reason the Bible seems out of sync with this is simply because the Bible is a compilation of writings and stories some of which date from before the flood some 13,000 years ago. It is a re-write of many earlier re-writes. What became the Biblical story of creation was already being told ten thousand years before Abraham was born.

Now how does Jesus turn water into wine? He uses the mind of God which he has been given access to visualizing the molecules of water. Then he directs "spiritual mass" (which is always universally present) to congeal to form the missing elements which, specifically, are those molecules derived from grapes (or other fruits). The two then mix and wine is the result.

How does Jesus raise a dead man? The very same method as the wine. Jesus directs His mind which is in sync with the Father's (I and the Father are one) against spiritual mass with the intent of restoring the form which had begun to decay.

What Jesus did was not magic but something which is perfectly understandable. Without a spiritual universe which supports and informs Jesus could not have been able to perform any miracle. Without a spiritual universe the unified field of the thinking man could not exist. Without a spiritual universe that which we call "intuition" would be a mere word. Will the critic demand proofs of this? Probably so. It is funny, in a way, to consider that the devout religious mind will not question the existence of spirit when it is spoken of in the Bible but let it be mentioned in any other forum and watch what happens. Proofs are required. It is always this way with humans. We are certainly an interesting species. "Proofs" cannot be considered unless minds are sufficiently open.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Sorry mate. What would you have me do? Shall I use technical language to provide pathways into a certain wee area in a human brain (within a well known gland) to identify a network of particles with liquid properties yet which appear solid that are arranged in a certain manner which is without apparent reason....? Here on this forum?

Science is nearing the threshold 'tween the physical and the higher and much less substantive but equally vital existences. These are the proper beginnings. Brother Einstein yearned, searched for some "unified field" which would support his cosmology, physicists are intrigued with what they are calling "dark matter". The "other sides to black holes" are being speculated about. These paths will lead back to the individual man eventually as other investigative disciplines follow suit. And how will this be? It will be when the physicist meets the neuro-researcher on common ground.

Dreaming invokes speculation which, in time, morphs to bodies of belief as evidences accrue. These always lead to proofs though acceptances are seldom universal. Faith leads to knowledge and, as it is put to practice, to wisdom. This is the only method which is acceptable.

The only proof which is of value is that which is discovered, personally, by the man who questions. This is the argument which is at the heart of the historical tension between science and religion.

Whatever I say will be rejected. Humanity is so very good at building walls around their beliefs which dare outsiders to breech. Shall I have a go at bouncing proofs off the walls herein? Better to disassemble those barriers from the inside, to invite in the larger wonders of God's creative genius.

I will give a hint. How does God create? How does Jesus turn water into wine? These are understandable.

The Mind of God is directed, with explicit purpose, onto a field of "spiritual" matter which then "slows" forming the beginnings of our physical universe. The result of this reaction is what science has found. The lightest elements now exists. The inherent property of gravity does the rest. The moment of God's creation was the very same event described by science as the "big bang". The reason the Bible seems out of sync with this is simply because the Bible is a compilation of writings and stories some of which date from before the flood some 13,000 years ago. It is a re-write of many earlier re-writes. What became the Biblical story of creation was already being told ten thousand years before Abraham was born.

Now how does Jesus turn water into wine? He uses the mind of God which he has been given access to visualizing the molecules of water. Then he directs "spiritual mass" (which is always universally present) to congeal to form the missing elements which, specifically, are those molecules derived from grapes (or other fruits). The two then mix and wine is the result.

How does Jesus raise a dead man? The very same method as the wine. Jesus directs His mind which is in sync with the Father's (I and the Father are one) against spiritual mass with the intent of restoring the form which had begun to decay.

What Jesus did was not magic but something which is perfectly understandable. Without a spiritual universe which supports and informs Jesus could not have been able to perform any miracle. Without a spiritual universe the unified field of the thinking man could not exist. Without a spiritual universe that which we call "intuition" would be a mere word. Will the critic demand proofs of this? Probably so. It is funny, in a way, to consider that the devout religious mind will not question the existence of spirit when it is spoken of in the Bible but let it be mentioned in any other forum and watch what happens. Proofs are required. It is always this way with humans. We are certainly an interesting species. "Proofs" cannot be considered unless minds are sufficiently open.

So, a no then? A no for giving that evidence?

 

[JYJ]

So, a no then? A no for giving that evidence?

I gladly accept your rejection of my thesis... I can't help but to notice that you quote the sayings of others as a signature to your posts. Do not rely on others for wisdom friend when your own should suffice.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

I gladly accept your rejection of my thesis...

Your thesis requires the presupposition that it is true. It isn't evidence of anything other than your ability to type on a keyboard. You said you have evidence, not circular reasoning in text form.

 

[Davian]

If you find the answer to that, there's a Nobel prize awaiting you. What has been discovered is that the mind/body relationship is dualistic. Thoughts are NOT a product of the brain, but rather, the brain is a receiver of wave-borne intelligence, in similar fashion to radio and TV waves.

Read the second article, linked below, entitled, Medical Evidence for Near Death Experiences

The Bridge: A Science and Spirituality Resource: Mysticism

Do you have anything that is scientific in nature, that does not use phrases like "has never been scientifically proven"?

Another interesting fact that has been discovered from NDEs is that our eye-sight can operate without functioning eyes, i.e. those of a blind person, one of whom actually said that suddenly seeing everything was a terrifying experience. This had earlier been demonstrated by a young female saint in the 19th century, whose name, unfortunately, I didn't take on board at the time; many years ago.

Also, while technically without any brain-functioning and out of the body, some NDErs were subsequently able to identify items they could only have seen from out of the body, and likewise hear the conversations of the staff in the operating theatre and their families in the waiting area; in some case, in their home, while visiting!

Provide one case where this has been independently verified, where the subject was able to report specific information that could only have been obtained via their 'experience'. Something more than 'I saw my family in the waiting room'.

 

[JYJ]

Your thesis requires the presupposition that it is true. It isn't evidence of anything other than your ability to type on a keyboard. You said you have evidence, not circular reasoning in text form.

Science is the business of asking questions. When a proposition is forwarded by one it is tested by others. Does the idea survive the questioning? If it does it may truly be considered "evidence". Does what I say have merit? Test it by throwing questions of your own at it. Your mind will not value what mine accepts as being true. Test it for yourself in the accepted manner and see where it leads. Thus are evidences produced or strengthened. Before you can accept what I say you have to be willing to work personally. To merely sit and make demands of those who assert is not the way science achieves. Put what I claim to your own tests... You will never accept anything otherwise.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sorry mate. What would you have me do?

Cite the evidence you claim to have.

Shall I use technical language to provide pathways into a certain wee area in a human brain (within a well known gland) to identify a network of particles with liquid properties yet which appear solid that are arranged in a certain manner which is without apparent reason....? Here on this forum?

Yes. Or, failing that, you can cite peer-reviewed research which substantiates your claim.

Science is nearing the threshold 'tween the physical and the higher and much less substantive but equally vital existences.

Do you have any evidence that these "higher... vital existences" exist? What evidence do you have that science is nearing this threshold, or that such a threshold even exists?

These are the proper beginnings. Brother Einstein yearned, searched for some "unified field" which would support his cosmology, physicists are intrigued with what they are calling "dark matter". The "other sides to black holes" are being speculated about. These paths will lead back to the individual man eventually as other investigative disciplines follow suit. And how will this be? It will be when the physicist meets the neuro-researcher on common ground.

So you assert - and yet the eternal request for evidence still stands.

Dreaming invokes speculation which, in time, morphs to bodies of belief as evidences accrue. These always lead to proofs though acceptances are seldom universal. Faith leads to knowledge and, as it is put to practice, to wisdom. This is the only method which is acceptable.[/quote

The only proof which is of value is that which is discovered, personally, by the man who questions. This is the argument which is at the heart of the historical tension between science and religion.

The historic tension is far simpler than that: science works. For all the supernatural claims of religion, not one has been proven in the thousands of years of human history. Science, meanwhile, regularly reveals new and demonstrable truths about the world. It is science, not religion, that creates vaccines, designs satellites, discovers dark matter and exoplanets, and advances human knowledge.

The tension exists because science is so much better than religion at explaining the world that it's just embarrassing.

Whatever I say will be rejected.

Only if you fail to provide good reasons to substantiate your claims.

Humanity is so very good at building walls around their beliefs which dare outsiders to breech. Shall I have a go at bouncing proofs off the walls herein? Better to disassemble those barriers from the inside, to invite in the larger wonders of God's creative genius.

Perhaps, but your semantic misdirection has been noted: any objection we raise is simply proof of these imaginary walls you've conjured up. Sorry, but that's not have civil discourse works.

Feel free to pretend that people are inflexibly immune to new ideas, but you're only betraying your naivety. People can and do change their minds all the time. Give me evidence for the existence of God, and I'll spin on the spot and worship to my dying days. But despite my continued requests, no one has been able to prove God exists - all I get is fallacious arguments (the Kalam argument, the Cosmological argument, the Teleological argument, etc) or weak hand-wringing about how one must have faith...

I will give a hint. How does God create? How does Jesus turn water into wine? These are understandable.

The Mind of God is directed, with explicit purpose, onto a field of "spiritual" matter which then "slows" forming the beginnings of our physical universe. The result of this reaction is what science has found. The lightest elements now exists. The inherent property of gravity does the rest. The moment of God's creation was the very same event described by science as the "big bang". The reason the Bible seems out of sync with this is simply because the Bible is a compilation of writings and stories some of which date from before the flood some 13,000 years ago. It is a re-write of many earlier re-writes. What became the Biblical story of creation was already being told ten thousand years before Abraham was born.

Now how does Jesus turn water into wine? He uses the mind of God which he has been given access to visualizing the molecules of water. Then he directs "spiritual mass" (which is always universally present) to congeal to form the missing elements which, specifically, are those molecules derived from grapes (or other fruits). The two then mix and wine is the result.

How does Jesus raise a dead man? The very same method as the wine. Jesus directs His mind which is in sync with the Father's (I and the Father are one) against spiritual mass with the intent of restoring the form which had begun to decay.

Allegedly. Do you have any evidence that these events occurred as you claim they did?

What Jesus did was not magic but something which is perfectly understandable. Without a spiritual universe which supports and informs Jesus could not have been able to perform any miracle. Without a spiritual universe the unified field of the thinking man could not exist. Without a spiritual universe that which we call "intuition" would be a mere word. Will the critic demand proofs of this? Probably so.

Are you implying we shouldn't demand proof? We should roll over and just blindly believe anything you tell us?

It is funny, in a way, to consider that the devout religious mind will not question the existence of spirit when it is spoken of in the Bible but let it be mentioned in any other forum and watch what happens. Proofs are required. It is always this way with humans. We are certainly an interesting species. "Proofs" cannot be considered unless minds are sufficiently open.

And they are. But I have a funny feeling you will never provide the evidence we ask for.

 

[JYJ]

Are you implying we shouldn't demand proof? We should roll over and just blindly believe anything you tell us?


Yes by all means demand away but the proper method is for you to subject what I claim to your own, independent, testing. This is way science works. You will reject whatever I offer otherwise. I cannot enter your mind and turn switches on and off to satisfy your desire. Only you can do that.

Either be willing to do your own testing or reject out of hand.

On another point are you Wiccan as your avatar suggests? If so you should certainly be fully aware of the spiritual universe and how minds work to create. This is at the heart of what a Wiccan does. It seems odd that one who is purportedly a Wiccan practitioner does not understand the mechanics of spirit manipulation.

If you will not test my ideas yourself I accept your rejection of them.

 

[Davian]

How does one test the circular reasoning of another?

 

[Davian]

the problem once again is base over apex and/or vice versa for immaterial mind is not the problem but material brain is - it seems it must be repeated again and again for most til it finally registers that science has dematerialised matter - so it is not a case of no matter never mind but no matter only[immaterial] mind - there is thus no missing link or gap - there is no dualism or duality,there is only mind so mind how you go,mind what you say and mind what you accept - twinc

That was incomprehensible to me. Anyone got an explanation?

None at all.

Interestingly, I took the post to the bablefish online translation service, translated the text to Japanese and back to English, and it did not appear to have any effect on the message conveyed:

"Basic or vice versa immaterial once again issue to Apex because heart isn't the issue but no matter when science finally it it material brain - don't care may needs to be repeated almost nothing to register being dematerialised and seems to be no matter only [non-physical, mind - does not really thus missing links or gaps-but mind, the mind no dualism or double and how go just like you say, what you accept"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes by all means demand away but the proper method is for you to subject what I claim to your own, independent, testing. This is way science works. You will reject whatever I offer otherwise. I cannot enter your mind and turn switches on and off to satisfy your desire. Only you can do that.

This is incorrect.

1) The onus of proof lies on the claimant. I'm quite happy to change my mind if proven wrong, but I'm not going to do your work for you.

2) Science works by testing and observation. Anyone can do science, including you. I have enough to do without wasting my lab time studying your claims.

3) The fact remains that we asked for evidence, and you have yet to provide any.

Either be willing to do your own testing or reject out of hand.

There is a third option: provide the evidence for your own claims yourself.

On another point are you Wiccan as your avatar suggests?

No.

If you will not test my ideas yourself I accept your rejection of them.

I don't test microbiological theories yet I accept them quite happily. Why? Because they substantiate their claims. They actually meet the onus of proof and everyone quite happily change their minds. The same goes with all of science - those who make claims are required to back their claims up. It's just sheer laziness to sit back and expect other people to do the hard work for you.

 

[JYJ]

How does one test the circular reasoning of another?

An example of circular thinking would be to say that something which the Bible is true because of another part of the Bible correlates it... Both the beginning and the end are in the same book.

To speak of an absolute in terms of cause and then to offer effects in evidence where the beginning and the end are in vastly different places logically speaking is not circular.

To test the viability of an underlying spiritual universe select one specific to use as a baseline. Then stay as close as is possible to that idea in testing and see what, if anything, results.

Example: Consider the human mind and how it differs from that of an animal. We can think in concrete terms yes. We can also imagine and think abstractly. We are aware of ourselves as thinking entities. Science has discovered areas in the human brain which are involved with these functions. None of this indicates any spiritual essence. This is the baseline.

Devise conditions which cannot be explained by baseline reasoning. This is the next step. How can this be done? We might begin with an unknown which may be distasteful to us. To make it a bit easier let's call it "intuition". What, exactly, is this? We all are familiar with the term but have we ever quantified it properly? Is abstract thinking the sum of acquired memory patterns or is there more? I contend that it is both because the human brain is well used to perceiving and then adding to what is know. Is it possible that intuition is a word which refers to information coming to our awareness from outside the usual cranial mechanisms? This will be the object of our questioning. What we are attempting is to discover whether or not we have any as yet unknown senses.

It is worthy to note here that science has been actively doing research in this area for a very long time. There is a rock solid body of evidence to suggest that humans are telepathic. Libraries in institutions of higher learning are well stocked with collections of these sorts of data. What is lacking is knowledge of the means of transmission, one mind to another or could I say "one brain to another"? I have stated that "intuition" will be the test vehicle but then I mentioned telepathy almost in the same sentence. I do this because it is my contention that the two are the same. What we will do in order to question the viability of some spirit universe in which we all move and have our essence is to allow, just for the purpose of investigation, that human beings, and some animals, are possessed of more sensory abilities than science yet knows about. Can we set aside our prejudices long enough to look further? It would be easy to here resort to a tabulation of documented human experiences which have never been explained but to do so would be to avoid our purpose of discovering the medium through which these manifest. The questions must be formulated by the two disciplines of physics and psychology together in a cooperation. They must be working in an established laboratory in order to carefully protect the setting and to insure reliable results. Only then can valid conclusions be realized.

The test question will be: Can two brains communicate with each other externally of any known physical sense? Simple enough I think. I say the answer is yes. I also say that we must be disciplined in our approach to this area of human experience and not summarily and cavalierly dismiss any options just because we do not like them.

I dream about the time when a physicist, a psychologist and a religious scholar will join forces and attempt what has heretofore been impossible. This effort will require tons of both liberal and conservative thinking. The liberal minds will lead the way and the conservatives will check all advances with measures of caution. You see? This is way that God intends us to go forward... God gave us our minds which as so very like His great arch-type in the knowledge that sooner or later we would use them to bring religion and science together. This, also, is my dream and it is why I am here on a Christian forum in the first place.

The physicist will devise the means of measuring what the psychologist brings to the table. The religious scholar will moderate by citing what God has alleged through scripture. The result of this cooperation will be the discovery of something new. The ability of science to actually measure, externally of a human brain, something which is being emitted from it and received by another. It is already suspected that this occurs all the time but never before has it been expressed mathematically. You may ask who I am and I will say that my years of training and area of expertise is philosophy. Of all the sciences the world has known philosophy has always led the way.

I suppose what I am hoping here is that someone who has both the education and the means will bring it all together. Scripture tells us of the coming Kingdom of God. When it gets here it will bring with it sure knowledge of what the human soul really is. It will be found that the soul is not something which is in the body or subordinate to the personality. It is not. The human soul has a complete existence on it's own plane in spirit. This soul plane is where Jesus ascended to after He arose from the dead. It is the heaven of the believer. Religion and science will then be in perfect harmony just as God has intended all along. An unlooked for bonus to all this will be the sudden reconciliation of all three of the great Abrahamic religions of the world. Judaism, Christian and Islam will finally realize that it is God's wish that stop fighting over theology and build a new body of scripture based upon those things which they have in common only. Out with the old and in with the new. Until this is done religions will continue on their present paths of crystallization, gaining nothing. We hear talk of a "new world religion" all the time. It will come to pass.

You ask "how does one test the circular reasoning of another". One cannot. Circular reasoning is inclusive and pointless. One must avoid it at all costs.

 

[JYJ]

This is incorrect.

1) The onus of proof lies on the claimant. I'm quite happy to change my mind if proven wrong, but I'm not going to do your work for you.

2) Science works by testing and observation. Anyone can do science, including you. I have enough to do without wasting my lab time studying your claims.

3) The fact remains that we asked for evidence, and you have yet to provide any.


There is a third option: provide the evidence for your own claims yourself.


No.


I don't test microbiological theories yet I accept them quite happily. Why? Because they substantiate their claims. They actually meet the onus of proof and everyone quite happily change their minds. The same goes with all of science - those who make claims are required to back their claims up. It's just sheer laziness to sit back and expect other people to do the hard work for you.

The theories of yesteryear began as unsubstantiated ideas. What I postulate has yet to be properly quantified. Be patient friend. Have faith... I share your desire for proofs. As I said a couple of times they will come from physicists, psychologists and religious scholars. I am merely a philosopher. What are you?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thanks you for your considered answer...

You're quite welcome. Now, this evidence you claim to have for your paranormal claims - what evidence is it?

 

[JYJ]

You're quite welcome. Now, this evidence you claim to have for your paranormal claims - what evidence is it?

The theories of yesteryear began as unsubstantiated ideas. What I postulate has yet to be properly quantified. Be patient friend. Have faith... I share your desire for proofs. As I said a couple of times they will come from physicists, psychologists and religious scholars. I am merely a philosopher.

Yes! Let the torch towards "proofs" be carried by those who are trained to do so. And let the small minds who so gleefully criticize everything learn to be silent.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The theories of yesteryear began as unsubstantiated ideas.

As did a thousand incorrect ideas. The scientists who postulate those ideas go out and test them, and those which pass rigorous testing become the theories of today. But a great many ideas have been proven wrong. What makes you so sure your idea won't go the same way?

What I postulate has yet to be properly quantified.

Bingo.

Be patient friend. Have faith...

Why? I mean that as a genuine question - why? "Invisible fairies make my flowers bloom" is also an idea without empirical support. Why should I have faith in yours?

I share your desire for proofs. As I said a couple of times they will come from physicists, psychologists and religious scholars. I am merely a philosopher.

If your idea has no empirical support, what makes you so sure that physicists, psychologists, and religious scholars, will eventually prove it? As you readily admit, the idea has yet to be proven, so how do you know it's even remotely true?

Yes! Let the torch towards "proofs" be carried by those who are trained to do so. And let the small minds who so gleefully criticize everything learn to be silent.

You appear to have your wires crossed. Those who criticise everything are the great minds, the ones who are trained to and do reveal new and revolutionary truths about the universe. Criticism is the cornerstone of science, and to scoff at the sceptical and the critical is to quite spectacularly misunderstand the nature of scientific progress.