The BIBLE and SCIENCE

charter.rights · February 1, 2010

What is wrong with you? I read between the lines and buddy you are not christian and if you try to get through the The pearly gates you will be tossed into the reject bin. All your ideas are East Indian Philosophy. Hari Krishna is your God whether you realize it or not. The only one who is delusional is you. I suggest you start using words in their context. The world we are in is the Real world. The world you are talking about is between you and your drugs. I suggest you pick up a dictionary and start looking up the meaning of the words you are using. Of course you don't need to because in your world all words mean the same so why bother having a dictionary.

Maybe you need a Bible lesson. You certainly are out of touch with the real meanings.

I never said I was a Christian, but I am in Christ - something lost on religious dogmatics like you.

Edited February 1, 2010 by charter.rights

whowhere · February 1, 2010

Maybe you need a Bible lesson. You certainly are out of touch with the real meanings.

I never said I was a Christian, but I am in Christ - something lost on religious dogmatics like you.

Sure you are in christ or is christ in Hari Krishna? Which is it. Trust me that is your God. You are not in Christ, and if you were jesus just took a dump into the toilet, and out you go.

jbg · February 1, 2010

So you don't understand any of it. I knew you wouldn't because well....some blonds are not very smart....

**************

Your response is so comical that I can't stop laughing long enough to type out anything in terms that you might understand. Of course I could use a Dick, Jane and Spot analogy but I'm afraid given your last response even that would be too complicated for you. So I'll just leave you with something pertinent:

Brain matter, thinking and neurons are not anymore real than you putting makeup on and pretending that you are someone else. All it is, is an illusion (and very much a delusion). Take a look in the night sky and then ask yourself...what is the Milky Way? We all have something in common.

This entire thread has degenerated into inane, childish trash. And the post to which I'm responding hopefully marks a nadir.

jbg · February 1, 2010

What is wrong with you? I read between the lines and buddy you are not christian and if you try to get through the The pearly gates you will be tossed into the reject bin. All your ideas are East Indian Philosophy. Hari Krishna is your God whether you realize it or not. The only one who is delusional is you. I suggest you start using words in their context. The world we are in is the Real world. The world you are talking about is between you and your drugs. I suggest you pick up a dictionary and start looking up the meaning of the words you are using. Of course you don't need to because in your world all words mean the same so why bother having a dictionary.

Maybe you need a Bible lesson. You certainly are out of touch with the real meanings.

I never said I was a Christian, but I am in Christ - something lost on religious dogmatics like you.

Sure you are in christ or is christ in Hari Krishna? Which is it. Trust me that is your God. You are not in Christ, and if you were jesus just took a dump into the toilet, and out you go.

This entire thread has degenerated into inane, childish trash. And the post to which I'm responding hopefully marks a nadir.

I guess the level of discussion was still plummeting as I posted #628.

jbg · February 1, 2010

Sure you are in christ or is christ in Hari Krishna? Which is it. Trust me that is your God. You are not in Christ, and if you were jesus just took a dump into the toilet, and out you go.

This is among the great religious thinkers of the day.

charter.rights · February 1, 2010

All detractors are stuck in their respective religious dogma. On one side there are those who think that science stands alone and on the other that religion stands alone. I merely point out the it is possible to prove the existence of God using both. They are not mutually exclusive.

Charles Anthony · February 1, 2010

Everybody,

Stop the personal attacks.

Just focus on the discussion without making things personal. There is no need for attacking the messenger.

Ch. A.

GostHacked · February 1, 2010

All detractors are stuck in their respective religious dogma. On one side there are those who think that science stands alone and on the other that religion stands alone. I merely point out the it is possible to prove the existence of God using both. They are not mutually exclusive.

How does one prove god by using the Bible?

How does one prove god by using science?

How does one prove god by using both?

I am not interested in looking at it through biblical glasses or anything like that. It's kind of like giving you the answer before you even ask the question you did not intend to ask in the first place.

ToadBrother · February 1, 2010

All detractors are stuck in their respective religious dogma. On one side there are those who think that science stands alone and on the other that religion stands alone. I merely point out the it is possible to prove the existence of God using both. They are not mutually exclusive.

No, it's not possible to prove the existence of God with science. Science is, in long form, methodological naturalism. God is a supernatural being, and thus beyond the scope of science. Those who attempt to use science to prove or disprove the existence of God do not understand science.

whowhere · February 1, 2010

No, it's not possible to prove the existence of God with science. Science is, in long form, methodological naturalism. God is a supernatural being, and thus beyond the scope of science. Those who attempt to use science to prove or disprove the existence of God do not understand science.

You should define science? Science is stating the objective, outlining the process, testing the process, and putting forward the conclusion/Summary. When it comes to God, CR should state his objective in two sentences. ie, Transmitting thought to fellow christian. Ok, we can put CR to the test and have him project his thought to another christ conscious. The process would be to have an observer write down a message for CR to project to another likeminded CR Christ Conscious. Another observer would have to probe this likeminded CR Christ conscious for the message. Outcome/Summary, CR is full of BS, and science has been used to dismiss his bunk.

So yes, Science Can be used to throw water on the exuberant.

Oleg Bach · February 1, 2010

I can bare the content of most of the old testiment..and only a bit of of the NT is tolerable and useful..Western and some eastern Judaic Christianity is all about glorifying violence and deception. As I mature and think about it..and look at the British and American empires all I see are a bunch of pricks who got to where they were though force - though violence - and justified it through some creepy shit out of a collection of achievements where the so called Christians and Jews - killed the other guy to either take his wife - land and money...I have given up on these concepts and no longer respect most of what scripture is.

GostHacked · February 1, 2010

You should define science? Science is stating the objective, outlining the process, testing the process, and putting forward the conclusion/Summary.

Objective : Using science to prove god's existence through though projection.

Process :Both sender and receiver are to be like minded ... example - they must both be Christ Conscious. (Biblical Glasses?)

Summary : It's been tested, but for different items of inquiry. (See Remote Viewers) Results were not promising. Mind reading is also shown to be bunk as well.

When it comes to God, CR should state his objective in two sentences. ie, Transmitting thought to fellow christian. Ok, we can put CR to the test and have him project his thought to another christ conscious. The process would be to have an observer write down a message for CR to project to another likeminded CR Christ Conscious.

I hope CR can do better than this. This seems like failure before the experiment is even started.

Oleg Bach · February 1, 2010

Objective : Using science to prove god's existence through though projection.

Process :Both sender and receiver are to be like minded ... example - they must both be Christ Conscious. (Biblical Glasses?)

Summary : It's been tested, but for different items of inquiry. (See Remote Viewers) Results were not promising. Mind reading is also shown to be bunk as well.

I hope CR can do better than this. This seems like failure before the experiment is even started.

All great concepts are hyjacked by violent jerks - the concepts of Christ were twisted all out of shape and resulted in violence and oppression for most of the world - just like the concepts devised by that other Jew that got hyjacked and became the atomic bomb...."Violent men try to take heaven by force" _ they sure have made a mess of this earthly heaven - violence...it is all about deception and if that does not work - hitting the other guy on the head with a rock - then...taking a postion of honour - Look at all the men who we know that have the title HONOURABLE...all of them are liar and in the end wage war on their fellows..time to stop respecting anyman that states he has honour.

whowhere · February 1, 2010

Objective : Using science to prove god's existence through though projection.

Process :Both sender and receiver are to be like minded ... example - they must both be Christ Conscious. (Biblical Glasses?)

Summary : It's been tested, but for different items of inquiry. (See Remote Viewers) Results were not promising. Mind reading is also shown to be bunk as well.

I hope CR can do better than this. This seems like failure before the experiment is even started.

Nonetheless science is a tool/process/testing to establish validation of objective. Regardless, if CR claims he has a christ conscious, and another as well and they are able to telepathetically transmit information he has established a scientific proof. Like it or not.

GostHacked · February 1, 2010

Nonetheless science is a tool/process/testing to establish validation of objective. Regardless, if CR claims he has a christ conscious, and another as well and they are able to telepathetically transmit information he has established a scientific proof. Like it or not.

It would not be really considered proof with just one instance of it. It would have to be done multiple times, with multiple senders/receivers. This way we can test if it's a one off or there is validity in it.

But telepathy is extra sensory. It is not one of the 5 senses that we humans use to explore the natural world. This is critical to understand. Telepathy uses a '6th' sense which for all intents and purposes is supernatural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy

Among the reasons the concept has not been accepted by the scientific community is that there is no accepted mechanism by which telepathy can work. As well, there is no definition which unambiguously distinguishes it from a number of other related concepts such as clairvoyance.[4]

This is why I say the test fails before it starts.

The only example I can give that might prove valid in some way are conjoined twins. I do recall the Hensel girls.

http://www.weirdcoolpictures.com/2008/02/abigail-and-britney-hensel-siamese.html

They have the ability to think as one. However they are essentially one. Physically connected. But they can finish each others sentences and often do. So it can show two minds working as one. but as far as telepathy goes, it's not a good example.

ToadBrother · February 1, 2010

But telepathy is extra sensory. It is not one of the 5 senses that we humans use to explore the natural world. This is critical to understand. Telepathy uses a '6th' sense which for all intents and purposes is supernatural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy

There are a number of problems with telepathy claims. First and foremost, there is no theory of telepathy. No one has put forth an actual testable hypothesis as to how something like that would work. The brain works at such low energy levels that it actually takes fairly powerful instruments to detect brain activity (in fact, a lot of tests don't work directly on the very low power electrical activity but rather on blood flow and oxygenation).

The other substantial problem is that there's no evidence for it. That's kind of the steepest hill to climb. Before we can begin hypothesizing on any phenomenon, it's best to have evidence that it exists. But, as with string theory, one can bend that rule to the degree that one admits that the hypothesis is not yet testable, but as it is an interesting model. But again, telepathy advocates can't even come up with a hypothesis that even sticks to physics. That's why they invoke words like "quantum". It's snake oil. If you use enough "sciency" buzzwords, you can usually fool enough people to sell books or magnets or whatever crap your peddling.

GostHacked · February 2, 2010

There are a number of problems with telepathy claims. First and foremost, there is no theory of telepathy. No one has put forth an actual testable hypothesis as to how something like that would work.

Indeed. I don't even know how you would start. We are just starting to have a smidgen of an idea on how the brain really works. So I suspect we won't see major progress in this field anytime soon. And if telepathy was even possible and existing already, there would be documented cases of it happeneing. Also if it was true, science would love to test it.

And if telepathy was in fact real, you would be able to find them in courts across the land.

Defendant. 'I plead not guilty', Telepath. 'He is lying your honour!' Judge. 'Life without parole!'.

The brain works at such low energy levels that it actually takes fairly powerful instruments to detect brain activity (in fact, a lot of tests don't work directly on the very low power electrical activity but rather on blood flow and oxygenation).

Some of us are barely able to fire a couple synapses in a row. Emmissions so low, it makes California jealous!

whowhere · February 2, 2010

It would not be really considered proof with just one instance of it. It would have to be done multiple times, with multiple senders/receivers. This way we can test if it's a one off or there is validity in it.

But telepathy is extra sensory. It is not one of the 5 senses that we humans use to explore the natural world. This is critical to understand. Telepathy uses a '6th' sense which for all intents and purposes is supernatural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy

This is why I say the test fails before it starts.

The only example I can give that might prove valid in some way are conjoined twins. I do recall the Hensel girls.

http://www.weirdcoolpictures.com/2008/02/abigail-and-britney-hensel-siamese.html

They have the ability to think as one. However they are essentially one. Physically connected. But they can finish each others sentences and often do. So it can show two minds working as one. but as far as telepathy goes, it's not a good example.

Perhaps its not esp except he has better hearing than you? The human ear only detects up to 20 000 hz. Dogs have a greater hearing range. It really doesn't matter what's involved as long as the process is clearly outlined in advance and it can duplicated by independent testers.

kimmy · February 2, 2010

Nonetheless science is a tool/process/testing to establish validation of objective. Regardless, if CR claims he has a christ conscious, and another as well and they are able to telepathetically transmit information he has established a scientific proof. Like it or not.

We'll let C-R prove she can transmit information telepathically first.

However, even if she can, I don't see how that proves the claim that this communication is facilitated by Christ or any other religious entity.

And even if it were... which one?

-k

ToadBrother · February 2, 2010

We'll let C-R prove she can transmit information telepathically first.

However, even if she can, I don't see how that proves the claim that this communication is facilitated by Christ or any other religious entity.

And even if it were... which one?

-k

That's the wonderful thing about quackery and pseudoscience. When you build your house on top of BS, why not just keeping building more BS. It is must be liberating to be so free of reason, logic and plausibility.

Edited February 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

kimmy · February 2, 2010

So you don't understand any of it. I knew you wouldn't because well....some blonds are not very smart....

Translated: you can't actually address anything I've said and you're afraid to dig yourself into a deeper hole by even trying.

You are soooooo lost that maybe you might want to stop eating ice cream while reading all this. Brain freeze has obviously taken over.

Your response is so comical that I can't stop laughing long enough to type out anything in terms that you might understand. Of course I could use a Dick, Jane and Spot analogy but I'm afraid given your last response even that would be too complicated for you.

I stand behind everything I've written, and everything I've written here stands unchallenged.

You, on the other hand... most of what you've written has been nonsense with no scientific meaning, and on the few occasions you've tried to employ real science in your arguments, your efforts have been crushed flat like empty pop-cans (which is an apt metaphor for everything you've written on this subject.)

So I'll just leave you with something pertinent:

Brain matter, thinking and neurons are not anymore real than you putting makeup on and pretending that you are someone else. All it is, is an illusion (and very much a delusion).

Science says that sub-atomic particles are real.

Science also says that the forces that bind sub-atomic particles together to form atoms are equally real, not an illusion.

Science also says that the forces that bind atoms together to form molecules are equally real, not an illusion.

Science also says that the forces that bond molecules into larger structures are equally real, not an illusion.

Science also says that the larger structures formed out of molecules bound together are equally real, not an illusion.

If you are denying the reality of any of these things, then you're not talking about science, you're off in the realm of metaphysics (or in your case, off in the realm of nonsense.)

Take a look in the night sky and then ask yourself...what is the Milky Way? We all have something in common.

Sure. We all have an enormous amount in common. Including the fact that we're all made of stuff that's identical to the stuff that every other object in the universe is made out of. But that doesn't have anything to do with the argument you're trying to present.

-k

charter.rights · February 2, 2010

Nah. None of you get it.

It isn't about telepathy. It is about perception. Perception changes with understanding.

I related to y'all that my definition of God for the sake of this discussion is:

Quantum reality - the connection between all things.

And yes that has already been proven by science and I pull a few stanzas out of the Bible to suggest that Jesus knew of it.

So unless you can prove that quantum reality does not exist, then I have made my case. I win.

February 2, 2010

Pick up a science book and find out what the science actually says.

charter.rights · February 2, 2010

You lose. I am wayyyyy beyond your simple perceptions.

Shwa · February 2, 2010

That sounds like "telepathy" to me, but call it what you wish.

I dunno about that - collective conciousness = telepathy? That is an equation that is unequal on terms.

Telepathy: communication from one mind to another by extrasensory means

Collective Conciousness: refers to the shared beliefs and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society

So I don't see those terms interchangeable. To that I add:

Collective Unconciousness: a part of the unconscious mind, expressed in humanity and all life forms with nervous systems, and describes how the structure of the psyche autonomously organizes experience.

Of course the pioneer in this field Carl Jung, as we all know, is completely discredited as a scientist right? No place for mystics within science at all of course. :lol:

The problem with Jung - as with Freud - is that they dared take on these questions - about conciousness and unconciousness. They dared to venture into the ethereal and try and make sense of it. What were they thinking?? (you can find out by the many books they wrote, or the many books their followers wrote, or the many books everyone else who was influenced by them wrote.)

Here is an interesting quote from another crackpot pseudo-scientist (this guy was a patent clerk for gawdsakes):

"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. So to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that which is impenetretrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."

Oh wait, I am one of those Internet crazies who invokes Einstein when discussing religion, spirituality and quantum reality:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

Einstein, 1954

So now, if you would be so kind, I would like to hear your arguments against Jung and Einstein.