Are any of you here a Sensitive?

[Zaehet Strife]

I can claim with high probability that i know gravity exists. I have knowledge of it, because i can experience it within reality. This is because everyone in the world can physically pick up and object, let go, and watch it drop to the ground... we made a sound to describe this... we call it gravity, everyone can experience it first hand, so i now have knowledge that gravity exists within this reality.

God is something intangible, you can't touch it, you cant show it to anyone, you can only imagine it. If the idea of god is only in our imaginations, rather than the idea of gravity (something everyone can easily experience), then imagination does not pertain to reality. What we can imagine may or may not be reality, but until we find a way for everyone to experience the idea first hand... it stays in the realm of imagination.

Since the idea of god does not pertain to reality, and only in imagination, the certainty of it is impossible.

Strut, fret, cry out as you will, nothing you say, or do, will provide anyone with enough credible, tangible evidence to promote your claim of god existing until you can present it within reality instead of imagination (The same goes for those who claim god doesn't exist). Regardless of what you think you know, it doesn't matter, because what we can claim to have knowledge of is specifically based on reality, not imagination. As far as we human animals can tell, god only exists in imagination, and is not known.

You can pretend that you know that god exists, which is EXACTLY what you are doing. People do it all the time. The more intelligent and wise stance would be to admit the truth. That you are not certain of gods existence, but you like the idea so much that you are going to hold onto it and believe it is true, regardless of the evidence, or lack there of. And that's ok, just as long as you don't try to tell others that your faith in your imagination is the truth, because it may not be.

 

[Padawanbater2]

When it comes to imagination and our consciousness, I think The Stoned Ape Theory played a bigger role in it than alien intervention. Also, 70000 years ago we all of the sudden developed a much greater imagination capable of art, songs, story telling, and the realization of god, the best explanation for that is powerful psychedelics. Its funny that we know next to nothing about 'hallucinations' but we dismiss them as saying nothing about reality and has more to do with insanity. I do think aliens have helped us with our genetics though, the most recent addition is our blue eyes 10000 years ago.

70,000 years ago seems like a bit of a stretch, I think the earliest known art is on caves in France dating back around 30,000 years. The development of spoken language is difficult to determine as it didn't leave any actual trace evidence behind to study.

Eye color is a simple genetic mutation, blue and green are recessive genes.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

I can claim with high probability that i know gravity exists. I have knowledge of it, because i can experience it within reality. This is because everyone in the world can physically pick up and object, let go, and watch it drop to the ground... we made a sound to describe this... we call it gravity, everyone can experience it first hand, so i now have knowledge that gravity exists within this reality.

God is something intangible, you can't touch it, you cant show it to anyone, you can only imagine it. If the idea of god is only in our imaginations, rather than the idea of gravity (something everyone can easily experience), then imagination does not pertain to reality. What we can imagine may or may not be reality, but until we find a way for everyone to experience the idea first hand... it stays in the realm of imagination.

Since the idea of god does not pertain to reality, and only in imagination, the certainty of it is impossible.

Strut, fret, cry out as you will, nothing you say, or do, will provide anyone with enough credible, tangible evidence to promote your claim of god existing until you can present it within reality instead of imagination (The same goes for those who claim god doesn't exist). Regardless of what you think you know, it doesn't matter, because what we can claim to have knowledge of is specifically based on reality, not imagination. As far as we human animals can tell, god only exists in imagination, and is not known.

You can pretend that you know that god exists, which is EXACTLY what you are doing. People do it all the time. The more intelligent and wise stance would be to admit the truth. That you are not certain of gods existence, but you like the idea so much that you are going to hold onto it and believe it is true, regardless of the evidence, or lack there of. And that's ok, just as long as you don't try to tell others that your faith in your imagination is the truth, because it may not be.

Im not trying to prove god to you man lol thats not my business, it is nearly impossible to do when discussing with an atheist. Im just saying that you dont know, but you shove your belief into everyones face like you do know, it is you who is doing the recruitment, we are just trying to compare our similar beliefs and ideas.

My friend can prove the existence of the soul to anyone he sees is ready, consistent results every time, its not his purpose to prove anything to anyone though. Oh, but there might be a evil fairy demon whispering magic deceitful words into my metaphysical ear thus changing my view of reality? lol I love your examples, I find it fun recreating them.

You dont know, Z, quit telling people that you know, your just making shit up, and I will never get tired of explaining this lol.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

70,000 years ago seems like a bit of a stretch, I think the earliest known art is on caves in France dating back around 30,000 years. The development of spoken language is difficult to determine as it didn't leave any actual trace evidence behind to study.

Eye color is a simple genetic mutation, blue and green are recessive genes.

Im not too confident in carbon dating. It can make a mistake that a somewhat fresh dead body has been existing for 3000 years (could of been 30000, cant remember the study). I read that the oldest art works ranging from 30000 to 42000 may be 70000 years old because carbon dating cannot be fully trusted.

 

[Heisenberg]

Im not trying to prove god to you man lol thats not my business, it is nearly impossible to do when discussing with an atheist. Im just saying that you dont know, but you shove your belief into everyones face like you do know, it is you who is doing the recruitment, we are just trying to compare our similar beliefs and ideas.

My friend can prove the existence of the soul to anyone he sees is ready, consistent results every time, its not his purpose to prove anything to anyone though. Oh, but there might be a evil fairy demon whispering magic deceitful words into my metaphysical ear thus changing my view of reality? lol I love your examples, I find it fun recreating them.

You dont know, Z, quit telling people that you know, your just making shit up, and I will never get tired of explaining this lol.

When has the idea of recruitment been decided to be wrong? You are a flake, if you want to discuss fantasy with other flakes then nothing is stopping you, unless you see dissenting opinion as an obstacle, in which case you can use email or the PM system.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

When has the idea of recruitment been decided to be wrong? You are a flake, if you want to discuss fantasy with other flakes then nothing is stopping you, unless you see dissenting opinion as an obstacle, in which case you can use email or the PM system.

Its not an obstacle, more annoying and pointless because you guys get nothing accomplished. Though its good you acknowledge that what you present is merely opinion.

 

[cannabineer]

Im not trying to prove god to you man lol thats not my business, it is nearly impossible to do when discussing with an atheist. Im just saying that you dont know, but you shove your belief into everyones face like you do know, it is you who is doing the recruitment, we are just trying to compare our similar beliefs and ideas.

My friend can prove the existence of the soul to anyone he sees is ready, consistent results every time, its not his purpose to prove anything to anyone though. Oh, but there might be a evil fairy demon whispering magic deceitful words into my metaphysical ear thus changing my view of reality? lol I love your examples, I find it fun recreating them.

You dont know, Z, quit telling people that you know, your just making shit up, and I will never get tired of explaining this lol.

It's no easier doing it with/for a theist. The affinities of the partner in conversation have no effect on ease of proof. What having a simpatico interlocutor does bring is the mutual agreement that a proof isn't needed. That isn't either here or there considering the issue, though.

To the blue, I can only say that that does rather beg the question. Which at best only illustrates the disconnect between reason and spirit, imo. cn

 

[Padawanbater2]

Im not too confident in carbon dating. It can make a mistake that a somewhat fresh dead body has been existing for 3000 years (could of been 30000, cant remember the study). I read that the oldest art works ranging from 30000 to 42000 may be 70000 years old because carbon dating cannot be fully trusted.

Fortunately they don't use carbon dating to date non-organic substances, like cave art.

Carbon dating is highly accurate, within 1-3% accurate. Have you actually investigated the method in which it measures things or are you just reciting something you heard somewhere? Look into it, it's so accurate it's used in forensic cases.

 

[Heisenberg]

Its not an obstacle, more annoying and pointless because you guys get nothing accomplished. Though its good you acknowledge that what you present is merely opinion.

Never the less it will continue despite the annoyance it represents to you. If you are uncomfortable start your own forums, otherwise expect your ideas and words to be considered and responded to. If your only recourse is to attack anothers right to respond then you may need to mine your idea for more substance.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Never the less it will continue despite the annoyance it represents to you. If you are uncomfortable start your own forums, otherwise expect your ideas and words to be considered and responded to. If your only recourse is to attack anothers right to respond then you may need to mine your idea for more substance.

I am used to it now. You guys speak to your audience and I speak to my audience and the audience stays the same no matter what the opposition has to say. Im also doing what you guys do, I found an obvious flaw in Z's philosophy and will continue to point it out every time he lies and says he knows.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

...not from the same guy. I don't know about that one. I've known about that through other studies, ooooooooold stuff. I'd list sources but I have thousands of bookmarks to go through. I'm just speaking from the soup of info in (and of) my experiences.

...yes, I think primitive sexual nature chases away much of what we could do. Think about it this way, if man and woman's seed can create life, what could it create if stored in the 'womb of the body', retained and not fired off (scattered) into infinity. Does the energy released from that spasm go anywhere? Back to the sun to come back to us to try again? Or, kept in the system to sustain it? Your choice.

...crazy sht.

I was gunna reply to this much sooner, but I as watching Weeds.

That is some crazy shit, gave me something think about and it does make some sense. Do you believe sex can be very spiritual as well when doing it for love rather than lust? I think theres some spiritual boost when loving male and female energy get freaky with each other lol.

 

[Heisenberg]

I am used to it now. You guys speak to your audience and I speak to my audience and the audience stays the same no matter what the opposition has to say. Im also doing what you guys do, I found an obvious flaw in Z's philosophy and will continue to point it out every time he lies and says he knows.

You have found a way to misrepresent Z's opinion in a strawman, meaning, the words coming out of his mouth are not easy to counter, and so you put some words in there that are. But i'll leave that for him to sort out.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

You have found a way to misrepresent Z's opinion in a strawman, meaning, the words coming out of his mouth are not easy to counter, and so you put some words in there that are. But i'll leave that for him to sort out.

How is it a strawman when I say Z's opinion is not fact but merely an opinion? Now even you called it an opinion. Thats all Im trying to say. Z's belief that its impossible to know if gods or souls exist is merely an opinion, not fact, an opinion that he likes to shove in peoples faces as if it were fact.

 

[Padawanbater2]

How would it be possible to know if God exists?

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

How would it be possible to know if God exists?

Are we really going to start this broken record, unconvincing argument of subjectivity, the fallible mind and imagination again?

 

[Heisenberg]

Are we really going to start this broken record, unconvincing argument of subjectivity, the fallible mind and imagination again?

A non-answer to a simple question.

 

[cannabineer]

How is it a strawman when I say Z's opinion is not fact but merely an opinion? Now even you called it an opinion. Thats all Im trying to say. Z's belief that its impossible to know if gods or souls exist is merely an opinion, not fact, an opinion that he likes to shove in peoples faces as if it were fact.

One thing on which I imagine we can agree is that it is impossible to demonstrate that Gods or souls exist. How it might be possible to know that souls exist but not demonstrate it ... I cannot say. I would be so bold as to say it becomes a question of faith. cn

To be fair to Zaehet, I seem to remember him saying that we cannot be truly certain that anything exists. To pick out (and on) spirit in this context seems petty. Jmo.

 

[ganja man23]

The thing is, no matter how much evidence is provided, you will always be able to say "we don't have all the evidence". "All the evidence" is a never ending search, with more answers to questions, it only provides more questions to answer.

An example of this is the "no transitional fossil" fallacy. Pretend each letter represents an extinct animal. Fossil A, fossil B, fossil C, and fossil D...

A...B...C...D...

4 gaps

We find a transitional species between B and C, we'll call it b, now the sample looks like this;

A...B...b...C...D...

Now there are 5 gaps

The discovery of another animal caused more questions to be raised. "What does the animal between B and b look like?" "Was it water dwelling or did it live on the land?"...

You will always be able to say "there's not enough evidence" or "we don't have all the facts", but you fail to realize, the collection of facts we do have all add up to a scientifically sound theory of the overall process, with more species we discover, the theory gets stronger.

If you disagree with this, then the obvious question would be;

How much evidence would you require to believe it? Where would you draw the line between right now | and into believing it?

I don't think we differ much on what we consider actual evidence versus speculation. I just want to mention that I have yet to deal with a situation in which anything spiritual has been debunked by any scientific study. You are all merely suggesting that science is the only method to understanding and I can't disagree with that any more seeing as how i believe speculation is the very thing that fuels science. I mean by this that any experiment that is conducted was first imagined. Yes too much imagination in life is dangerous, but too little is anal. Balance is key for forward progression of course. Think of it this way; if you are only here for 70 years or so then why are you waiting for science as a validation. If you want to disprove a creator why not create a hypothesis and then form an experiment and see your conclusions. Unless you contribute to science directly by conducting experiments, you are just an observer waiting for the scientists to "show you the answers" so to speak. All i want to state is that there are a great deal of things within the universe that we don't understand. You need imagination and validation to accomplish something spectacular within a life span. If you're just waiting around for science to prove things for you then haven't you missed on an equal half of your consciousness; imagination. It's all about how you apply your imagination to your physicality (what you all call "reality") since we are all so convinced that this is the only way to perceive things. How are we to go anywhere without imagining a way first? If the path is wrong, we will know. How will we know? Watch the news. Mostly stories of people starving, getting shot, starting wars, etc. We are doing something wrong because the world is abundant for at least the 7 billion people on it so why are there so many suffering? There is only one direction for humanity to collectively progress towards and that is unity with each other and our surroundings.

 

[ganja man23]

Fortunately they don't use carbon dating to date non-organic substances, like cave art.

Carbon dating is highly accurate, within 1-3% accurate. Have you actually investigated the method in which it measures things or are you just reciting something you heard somewhere? Look into it, it's so accurate it's used in forensic cases.

I believe carbon 12 has a half life of approximately 6000 years. I remember learning about carbon dating in chemistry and I believe that this meant that after 12,000 years the carbon atoms have mostly decayed and therefore the accuracy of those results decrease dramatically after that amount of time. The 1-3% you speak of is only accurate within 12,000 years at the most. I've read that scientists conduct the experiments and if they get more than one possible scenario, they simply use the one that most supports their hypothesis which would be incorrect.

Anything dating back further than that time frame is using based on another type of dating, which would be radioactive dating through certain isotopes. The problem with this is that you need an abundant enough source of radioactive materials to find something and when dealing with ancient civilizations, why the hell would they have such materials nearby? For example a certain phosphorus isotope has a half life of 32 days whereas a certain uranium isotope has a half life of up to 4.5 billion years.

If you're curious, they take a sample of material, they measure it's mass and they measure the amount of radioactivity it emits. Uranium decays into other isotopes at a constant rate therefore you can accurately date the sample based on ratio between the mass and the radioactivity (each atom also emits a certain amount of radiation so it's not exactly a "rocket science" calculation). The same thing is done with carbon dating.

In conclusion: carbon-12 dating (building block of life) will not show us anything over 12,000 years old. For that we must rely on other materials, many of which are rare to find in most archeological discoveries since we haven't used them in the past.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Are we really going to start this broken record, unconvincing argument of subjectivity, the fallible mind and imagination again?

You said Z claiming it's impossible to know if God exists is an opinion, I don't see how you can make that claim unless you believe it is possible to know, so, how is it possible to know?

Pretty straightforward question..