The New Guy

[beecee]

On 9/6/2018 at 1:33 AM, Kafei said:

Welcome to a place where close-minded individuals get together and talk about nothing. Yeah, thanks. Great first impression.

No welcome to the place where no matter what section you post in, and on what subject matter, you will be confronted  with scrutiny of unscientific baseless claims. So far you have failed miserably to present any concrete evidence that validates any concept of any supernatural spaghetti monster in the sky. You are not in the pulpit of your church on a Sunday, preaching to the mindless converted flock.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Kafei said:

That was my intention, that's why I attempted to use the HTML option, to make it clear that was the source, but like I said, it didn't work out. I apologize about that, but my intention was to make it clear that was the source of the quote.

IT WASN'T CLEAR THE TEXT WAS QUOTED.

Sheesh

6 minutes ago, Kafei said:

No, as I emphasized, those weren't simply "Youtube links,"

But, apart from those links, everything was copied from elsewhere, yes? The title, the body of the text (with no quotation marks or anything else to indicate it was copied from elsewhere) all copied? 

8 minutes ago, Kafei said:

So which is it? You think that hallucinations are evidence for god(s) or not?

No, of course not, I think that's a gross interpretation of the research obviously based on an unfamiliarity and ignorance of it.

And yet you said:

29 minutes ago, Kafei said:

So, yes, I submit to you and everyone that follows these threads that this scientific research has, indeed, demonstrated the existence of God.

Are you trolling or just confused?

[Kafei]

No you have presented nothing but philosophical musings Sir, and more to the point, science most certainly has shown ancient religious beliefs and myths to explain the universe around them as total nonsense...The Egyptians saw god in the Sun...other civilisations saw him/her in rivers, mountains etc.

These points are irrelevant to the research of which I'm redirecting people's attention towards.

The universe can be reasonably explained scientifically from t=10-43 seconds and work and research is continually being undertaken to further validate that picture. And of course the overwhelming evidence supporting that model [the BB] is now recognised by the Catholic church as is the theory of evolution. 

 Well, if it's recognized by the church, then what's your issue? 

  Quote

This is purely your misconception. This is your projection that God must be necessarily defined as a "deity." That is to say some type of being that's "out there" in or outside the universe, and that's not what the science is saying. Rather the science I've mentioned is congruent with the view of the major religions known as the Perennial philosophy which addresses an original etymology, not the contorted nonsense it's become today of which atheists attack. Atheists are essentially attacking a straw man argument, and this has been demonstrated by the science I've referenced.

Is it? All I see is more philosophical musings. I once came upon a quote by someone saying that speaking broadly, "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know"

Try this one, it was uttered by Hypatia, I believe, she said echoing the teachings of Plotinus, "The goal of philosophy is a mystical union with the divine." 

  Quote

  Quote

What I've presented is, in fact, science. I've reference cumulative research that has been peer-reviewed and published and has been accumulating for decades now all the way back to the work of William James.

What you have presented is nothing more then some speculative unsupported claims.

I hardly call decades worth of established scientific research "unsupported claims." I maintain this is merely your projection. You've such an emotional investment to your atheism, that you in the light of clear evidence, you'll deny what is essentially a scientific concept at this point as an "unsupported claim." I'd say the science would disagree with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s

 

  Quote

No, I'm referring to decades of scientific research that initiated with the work of William James in the early 1900s. We're well beyond speculation at this point.

Again many worthwhile speculative claims re the universe, what came before the BB and such are also presented, the difference being that those scientists specifically admit to such speculation. And of course most scientific theories and models were at one time simply speculation.

  Quote

Again, I'm not talking about speculation, and mystics have been speculating what happened to prior to the Big Bang for centuries, long before physicists and modern scientists came into the scene.

And your philosophical musings and the philosophical musings from your article, are also no where near "validated"

The article is referencing the same decades worth of cumulative scientific research that I've cited. Yes, what I'm talking about has been thoroughly validated.

  Quote

Well, one area it certainly exists in is in the science I've referenced. So, at least admit it. 

All you have referenced is philosophical musings 

All you have is false accusations.

  Quote

I challenge that. I don't think you're capable of that especially when you're you admit that you're ignorant about these things.

Challenge all you like.  I have dealt with many who under different guises attempt to invalidate some aspect of science, or alternatively, trying to validate the unscientific notion of some super magical spaghetti monster. It aint science, period!

I am challenging it. I'm saying you're essentially denying what is, indeed, raw science which has been done relative to these topics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=55m59s

Again god or any supernatural, paranormal, event is unscientific, even though science certainly has done research into those areas, and come up essentially blanck.

You see, I made this point earlier, but it's probably important to make it again. You see, it's actually a mistake on behalf of the atheists I encounter to necessarily define God as something they often express as "supernatural." Now, there's two very popular definitions of this word, there's the definition of the supernatural of that which is beyond our current scientific understanding which would be true for mystical experience. It is beyond our current scientific understanding, we haven't even explained consciousness, let alone this other phenomenon of mystical experience which is a phenomenon in consciousnesss, so in this sense mystical experience is supernatural. However, there's the definition that many atheists use which is to define the supernatural as to be that which is metaphysical in the sense that defies the natural laws.

That is to say, to define the divine with the requirement that its description should be something that defies physics or is synonymous with magic, etc. Einstein rightly referred to this as the "childish analogy of religion," and ironically it's the one notion most atheists I meet have as for their very reason for their rejection of theism. You see, the atheist essentially conjures his/her own conception of God, makes it supernatural, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. from the influence of their, shall I say, eisegesis of what they understand about religion, then proceeds to reject the very thing which they themselves conjured. Seems quite silly, but this is, in fact, the case.

The science is saying something quite different and has implications towards the very origins of the major religions, the nascency of each of the world's great faiths residing in individuals engaging what they're referring to as a "mystical experience," and have found it is, indeed, a biologically normal phenomenon. I get the impression no one is clicking these links. These aren't simply "YouTube links," as I've been at great pains to emphasize, these are lectures given by actual professionals who perform actual science relative to these topics. These studies have been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=51m18s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AifzF2BJxEE#t=22m25s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY0oGjYqhhw#t=6m26s

We have overwhelming evidence supporting the BB, we have  evidence showing that the theory of evolution of life is as close to certain as one could wish, and the simple fact that we are here, supports  Abiogenisis at least once somewhere in the universe.

I suppose you overlooked the fact that the science concluded that the mystical experience is, indeed, a natural phenomenon in consciousness. It's something that we all have the potential for.

  21 minutes ago, Kafei said:

. So, yes, I submit to you and everyone that follows these threads that this scientific research has, indeed, demonstrated the existence of God.

And I submit to you Sir, that if this was the case, it would be world wide headline news and people everywhere would be dropping to their knees. But the facts actually stand out like dog balls, in that all we have is another attempt by another newbie to try and justify the supernatural in whatever guise you chose by unsupported philsophical means and then pretentious objections when confronted.

Well, recall, that's precisely what Alex Grey said, that this research should be headline news all over the world, it's a very shame that it's not, and I think that's more of a reflection of our society's maturation rather than the incontrovertible evidence presented by the research.

 

@beecee  No welcome to the place where no matter what section you post in, and on what subject matter, you will be confronted  with scrutiny of unscientific baseless claims. So far you have failed miserably to present any concrete evidence that validates any concept of any supernatural spaghetti monster in the sky. You are not in the pulpit of your church on a Sunday, preaching to the mindless converted flock.

Maybe because I'm not speaking of research that is validating the "supernatural spaghetti monster in the sky," this parody is precisely why many atheists cannot grasp this research, including celebrity atheists like Matt Dillahunty or even Richard Dawkins. Einstein rightly referred to as this the parody of what he called the "childish analogy of religion," and rightly so, and yet this is the concept most atheists have for their conception of God. What I've presented is legitimate science, by the way. Where's your evidence that what I've presented is supposedly, "unscientific baseless claims." That in and of itself is a baseless assertion.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Kafei

[Moontanman]

I am guilty. I am the friend that suggested he bring his assertions to the forum, we had a prolonged discussion about this topic and ended up in a stand still. I suggested he post here where assertions had to be backed up and the mods made sure if was fair. 

[Kafei]

IT WASN'T CLEAR THE TEXT WAS QUOTED.

Sheesh

Irrelevant. My point is I cited my source, and intended to emphasize the source of the quote. It was no attempt to plagiarize, if that's what you're insinuating. 

  29 minutes ago, Kafei said:

No, as I emphasized, those weren't simply "Youtube links,"

But, apart from those links, everything was copied from elsewhere, yes? The title, the body of the text (with no quotation marks or anything else to indicate it was copied from elsewhere) all copied? 

Yes, and I wasn't attempting to hide that fact. I agreed with the entire context of which was displayed. I thought it to be an accurate representation of this research. 

  29 minutes ago, Kafei said:

So which is it? You think that hallucinations are evidence for god(s) or not?

No, of course not, I think that's a gross interpretation of the research obviously based on an unfamiliarity and ignorance of it.

And yet you said:

  50 minutes ago, Kafei said:

So, yes, I submit to you and everyone that follows these threads that this scientific research has, indeed, demonstrated the existence of God.

Are you trolling or just confused?

No, I assure you, I'm not trolling. I sincerely am redirecting your attention to science which upholds this claim. Please, feel free to ask any questions. I'm quite familiar with this research and have been following it for about a decade now only to realize, as I've said, it has a very rich history initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s.

@Moontanman I am guilty. I am the friend that suggested he bring his assertions to the forum, we had a prolonged discussion about this topic and ended up in a stand still. I suggested he post here where assertions had to be backed up and the mods made sure if was fair. 

I don't agree with that. We didn't end in a stand still, perhaps in your eyes. All I saw was someone denying what is otherwise legitimate scientific research of which I've emphasized has been established by decades of research.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Kafei

[Moontanman]

7 minutes ago, Kafei said:

@Moontanman I am guilty. I am the friend that suggested he bring his assertions to the forum, we had a prolonged discussion about this topic and ended up in a stand still. I suggested he post here where assertions had to be backed up and the mods made sure if was fair. 

I don't agree with that. We didn't end in a stand still, perhaps in your eyes. All I saw was someone denying what is otherwise legitimate scientific research of which I've emphasized has been established by decades of research.

You utterly failed to show that your assertions were anything but hallucinations, your assertions of effects outside the participants were no different that the effects of falling in love or nearly getting killed. Just because an experience changes your outlook on life doesn't mean god or some other supernatural cause was involved. 

I asked you to not post youtube videos and stick to peer reviewed papers yet youtube videos are all you have which is tantamount to an appeal to authority fallacy.   You claim you can do better, I suggest you do so and stop dancing around the issue... 

[Kafei]

@Moontanman You utterly failed to show that your assertions were anything but hallucinations, your assertions of effects outside the participants were no different that the effects of falling in love or nearly getting killed. Just because an experience changes your outlook on life doesn't mean god or some other supernatural cause was involved. 

What I've emphasized is this comment is a complete failure at actually understanding what this research conveys. No one is arguing mystical experiences are just mere hallucinations, not even the professionals involved in this research. Rather what they refer to as the "complete" mystical experience is something concretely defined, and they've recognized it reported within the scripture of all the world's major religions.

Edit: There's a reason why these experiences are calling "mystical experiences" as opposed to "hallucinations." 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s

 

I asked you to not post youtube videos and stick to peer reviewed papers yet youtube videos are all you have which is tantamount to an appeal to authority fallacy.   You claim you can do better, I suggest you do so and stop dancing around the issue... 

And I emphasized the fact that what you're calling "YouTube videos" are actually lectures on the peer-reviewed and published studies. You keep overlooking this fact. The lectures are only to help people understand what this research is about. I've also linked to the peer-reviewed studies throughout this thread that have been published in the Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Kafei

[beecee]

37 minutes ago, Kafei said:

These points are irrelevant to the research of which I'm redirecting people's attention towards. 

As irrelevant as is the philosophical research you are supposedly directing people to.

Quote

Well, if it's recognized by the church, then what's your issue? 

I havn't got an issue, other then your pointless rhetorical repeats of what you supposedly claim in lengthy posts...so much to say with so little substance.

Anyway I'm rather tired of answering all your mythical nonsensical claims so we'll skip to your final paragraph.....

Quote

Maybe because I'm not speaking of research that is validating the "supernatural spaghetti monster in the sky," this parody is precisely why many atheists cannot grasp this research, including celebrity atheists like Matt Dillahunty or even Richard Dawkins. Einstein rightly referred to as this the parody of what he called the "childish analogy of religion," and rightly so, and yet this is the concept most atheists have for their conception of God. What I've presented is legitimate science, by the way. Where's your evidence that what I've presented is supposedly, "unscientific baseless claims." That in and of itself is a baseless assertion.

The real reason why it is not headlines is simply because it is not as you claim...that is scientific evidence for some magical spaghetti monster.

So now please tell this forum, and little old ignorant me, what is this empirical evidence that supports some being of supernatural qualities, or any interpretation that you seem to have. Please state this evidence/s and show how it is validated. ..show me some of this legitimate science and the empirical evidence supporting this concept...no links, no lengthy rhetorical excuses, what is this evidence.

 

ps: I should also say that I have never yet taken any drugs [other then alcohol, coffee and tea] and that includes what we commonly call grass, or LSD which raised its ugly head when I was a young bloke and/or any other hallucinating crap.NEVER!!! 

Edited September 8, 2018 by beecee

[Kafei]

As irrelevant as is the philosophical research you are supposedly directing people to.

What do you mean by "philosophical research"? I never said anything about "philosophical research." This, again, is your projection. Perhaps you're referring to the Perennial philosophy? What must be emphasized is that the Perennial philosophy is not necessarily a philosophy, per se. It's rather a perspective on the major religions which views them as sharing a single universal divine source glimpsed in the mystical experience. You may see the word "philosophy" in the name "Perennial philosophy," but this view on the world's great faith traditions has also been referred to as the Perennial wisdom or Perennialism. To quote Dr. Bill Richards, a professional involved in this research :

"This mystical consciousness we've come to, at least, I would argue that it's evidence of the so-called Perennial philosophy. In each of the great world's religions, there's a word that points to it. You know, samadhi in Hinduism, nirvana in Buddhism, sekhel mufla in Judaism, Theoria or the The Beatific vision in Christianity, baqá wa faná in Islam, The One in Neoplatonism, it is the Gnosis of the Gnostics and so on. It just seems to be something that's intrinsic to the human organism, and it can be facilitated in many different ways. Not everyone has to take psychedelics drugs, and actually there are many people who take psychedelics and don't have this experience, but it happens in some wonderful meditative states, it happens in sensory isolation and sensory flooding, sometimes it happens in natural childbirth. We guys can't explore that option. Sometimes it happens in midst of creative performance or athletic heights as in the runner's high, but it's just there, and some people would say that it comes purely as a gift of grace, you know, some people just wake up in the middle of the night and POOF! There it is. And it's so profound in its many variance. I like to distinguish between the visionary states of consciousness where there's an ego, you're everyday personality kind of looking, beholding, relating to something that is incredibly inspiring, but it's within the subject-object dichotomy. Then there's the unitive mystical consciousness where the ego or everyday personality seems to die, and immersed in this unitive state, sort of like the Hindu drop of water merging with the ocean, and then the rebirth of the ego afterwards. I would define that as the 'complete' mystical consciousness." - Dr. William (Bill) A. Richards 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s

  Quote

Well, if it's recognized by the church, then what's your issue? 

I havn't got an issue, other then your pointless rhetorical repeats of what you supposedly claim in lengthy posts...so much to say with so little substance.

Anyway I'm rather tired of answering all your mythical nonsensical claims so we'll skip to your final paragraph.....

That point I'm trying to emphasize is that the major religions at their very root were about something concrete which our modern science is now recognizing and making people aware of today.

  Quote

Maybe because I'm not speaking of research that is validating the "supernatural spaghetti monster in the sky," this parody is precisely why many atheists cannot grasp this research, including celebrity atheists like Matt Dillahunty or even Richard Dawkins. Einstein rightly referred to as this the parody of what he called the "childish analogy of religion," and rightly so, and yet this is the concept most atheists have for their conception of God. What I've presented is legitimate science, by the way. Where's your evidence that what I've presented is supposedly, "unscientific baseless claims." That in and of itself is a baseless assertion.

The real reason why it is not headlines is simply because it is not as you claim...that is scientific evidence for some magical spaghetti monster.

The research is emphasizing something more complicated than the parody of the spaghetti monster which is akin to Russell's teapot, it's a childish conception of the divine as Einstein rightly points out. Again, I believe it's more a comment on the maturation and the level to which people can grasp this research rather than it not being sufficient. It definitely is sufficient, and I'd maintain you're simply intellectually set-up to doubt simply because A.) you've not had a mystical experience, and B.) you've not fully grasped the implications of the research. You do realize when atheists volunteer for the so-called "complete" mystical experience, they no longer identify with atheism after this event? The science has demonstrated this to be the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s

So now please tell this forum, and little old ignorant me, what is this empirical evidence that supports some being of supernatural qualities, or any interpretation that you seem to have. Please state this evidence/s and show how it is validated. ..show me some of this legitimate science and the empirical evidence supporting this concept...no links, no lengthy rhetorical excuses, what is this evidence.

You're asking a loaded question, what do you mean by supernatural? I've already explained that this is a misconception of atheists. If I have to reiterate the point again, I guess it must be so, but I'll say it again... 

 

You see, it's actually a mistake on behalf of the atheists I encounter to necessarily define God as something they often express as "supernatural." Now, there's two very popular definitions of this word, there's the definition of the supernatural of that which is beyond our current scientific understanding which would be true for mystical experience. It is beyond our current scientific understanding, we haven't even explained consciousness, let alone this other phenomenon of mystical experience which is a phenomenon in consciousnesss, so in this sense mystical experience is supernatural. However, there's the definition that many atheists use which is to define the supernatural as to be that which is metaphysical in the sense that defies the natural laws.

That is to say, to define the divine with the requirement that its description should be something that defies physics or is synonymous with magic, etc. Einstein rightly referred to this as the "childish analogy of religion," and ironically it's the one notion most atheists I meet have as for their very reason for their rejection of theism. You see, the atheist essentially conjures his/her own conception of God, makes it supernatural, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. from the influence of their, shall I say, eisegesis of what they understand about religion, then proceeds to reject the very thing which they themselves conjured. Seems quite silly, but this is, in fact, the case.

The science is saying something quite different and has implications towards the very origins of the major religions, the nascency of each of the world's great faiths residing in individuals engaging what they're referring to as a "mystical experience," and have found it is, indeed, a biologically normal phenomenon. I get the impression no one is clicking these links. These aren't simply "YouTube links," as I've been at great pains to emphasize, these are lectures given by actual professionals who perform actual science relative to these topics. These studies have been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=51m18s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AifzF2BJxEE#t=22m25s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY0oGjYqhhw#t=6m26s

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Kafei

[beecee]

14 minutes ago, Kafei said:

What I've emphasized is this comment is a complete failure at actually understanding what this research conveys. No one is arguing mystical experiences are just mere hallucinations, not even the professionals involved in this research. Rather what they refer to as the "complete" mystical experience is something concretely defined, and they've recognized it reported within the scripture of all the world's major religions.

Edit: There's a reason why these experiences are calling "mystical experiences" as opposed to "hallucinations." 

Mystical experiences???? Oh, yeah I've also had similar...staring at the central disk of the Milky Way galaxy, observing the whispy outline of Andromeda and realising it is 2 million L/years away, and generaly the total awe and wonder of the universe that surrounds us...yes a mystical experience certainly. BUT JUST AS CERTAINLY NOT ANY EVIDENCE FOR ANY SUPERNATURAL CREATOR OR ANY SIMILAR NONSENSE.  ZILCH, NADA, NIL....

[Kafei]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Mystical experiences???? Oh, yeah I've also had similar...staring at the central disk of the Milky Way galaxy, observing the whispy outline of Andromeda and realising it is 2 million L/years away, and generaly the total awe and wonder of the universe that surrounds us...yes a mystical experience certainly. BUT JUST AS CERTAINLY NOT ANY EVIDENCE FOR ANY SUPERNATURAL CREATOR OR ANY SIMILAR NONSENSE.  ZILCH, NADA, NIL....

I maintain that you hold misconceptions on what you call the "supernatural." You think this has to be necessarily an attribute of the divine, and it is in certain senses of the word, but definitely not in the sense in which you've defined it. What you call supernatural completely denies the original descriptions of the divine found at the very heart of the major religions which are henoistic, monistic and panentheistic. Definitions to even Einstein adhered to as even he has admitted having a mystical experience in his lifetime.

https://www.sociology.org/did-you-know-mysticism-and-religious-experience/

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, Kafei said:

 

You're asking a loaded question, what do you mean by supernatural? I've already explained that this is a misconception of atheists. If I have to reiterate the point again, I guess it must be so, but I'll say it again... 

 

Ignoring the rest of your rhetorical preaching, the onus is on you to show me this evidence that supports some deity. If you are unable, then just admit that I was correct, and that all you have is philosophical musings.

3 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I maintain that you hold misconceptions on what you call the "supernatural." You think this has to be necessarily an attribute of the divine, and it is in certain senses of the word, but definitely not in the sense in which you've defined it. What you call supernatural completely denies the original descriptions of the divine found at the very heart of the major religions which are henoistic, monistic and panentheistic. Definitions to even Einstein adhered to as even he has admitted having a mystical experience in his lifetime.

https://www.sociology.org/did-you-know-mysticism-and-religious-experience/

Again, mystical experiences are not evidence supporting some higher power or deity. Are you going to answer the question, or continue to evade?

12 minutes ago, Kafei said:

That point I'm trying to emphasize is that the major religions at their very root were about something concrete which our modern science is now recognizing and making people aware of today.

Yep, unscientific, unevidenced, excuses/myths to explain the universe around them. Science/cosmology of course has pulled the rug from underneath such nonsense and constructed models/theories, backed by evidence that supports a far more realistic scientific concept, and contrary to your final false claim, science continues to push back such mythical nonsense into oblivion and certainly not recognising. 

Edited September 8, 2018 by beecee

[Kafei]

@beecee Ignoring the rest of your rhetorical preaching, the onus is on you to show me this evidence that supports some deity. If you are unable, then just admit that I was correct, and that all you have is philosophical musings.

I maintain you're not paying attention. I emphasized that the notion of the divine as the "deity" is the childish analogy of religion as Einstein rightly pointed out. I don't admit you're correct, I maintain you've not heard what I said as the divine is not defined so childishly within the context of the Perennial philosophy.

  10 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I maintain that you hold misconceptions on what you call the "supernatural." You think this has to be necessarily an attribute of the divine, and it is in certain senses of the word, but definitely not in the sense in which you've defined it. What you call supernatural completely denies the original descriptions of the divine found at the very heart of the major religions which are henoistic, monistic and panentheistic. Definitions to even Einstein adhered to as even he has admitted having a mystical experience in his lifetime.

https://www.sociology.org/did-you-know-mysticism-and-religious-experience/

Again, mystical experiences are not evidence supporting some higher power or deity. Are you going to answer the question, or continue to evade?

I've not evaded any questions. Again, I'd say the science that's been done of which I've referenced would disagree with you.

Edited 7 minutes ago by beecee

Yep, unscientific, unevidenced, excuses/myths to explain the universe around them. Science/cosmology of course has pulled the rug from underneath such nonsense and constructed models/theories, backed by evidence that supports a far more realistic scientific concept, and contrary to your final false claim, science continues to push back such mythical nonsense into oblivion and certainly not recognising. 

I disagree, again, I'd maintain this is your mere diatribe, this is a narrative you tell yourself based on your emotional investment in atheism so you never actually have to address science that actually undermines your very stance. Even Jordan Peterson has recognized this very phenomenon, and he describes you perfectly.

 

[beecee]

Just now, Kafei said:

I maintain you're not paying attention. I emphasized that the notion of the divine as the "deity" is the childish analogy of religion as Einstein rightly pointed out. I don't admit you're correct, I maintain you've not heard what I said as the divine is not defined so childishly within the context of the Perennial philosophy. 

You can maintain whatever you like. I maintain that you have an agenda, and are preaching, and blindly putting a wrong slant on some unsupported philosophical research that seems to support your agenda.

Quote

I've not evaded any questions. Again, I'd say the science that's been done of which I've referenced would disagree with you.

Good, then answer my question and stop evading.

[Kafei]

You can maintain whatever you like. I maintain that you have an agenda, and are preaching, and blindly putting a wrong slant on some unsupported philosophical research that seems to support your agenda.

All I'm doing is merely reiterating the science that's been established relative to these topics, nothing more, nothing less. This isn't "philosophical research," either, I maintain you possess misconceptions on this research that prevents you from understanding this research.

  Quote

I've not evaded any questions. Again, I'd say the science that's been done of which I've referenced would disagree with you.

Good, then answer my question and stop evading.

I have answered it. You simply ignore it and deny it. Scroll up, it's definitely there.

[beecee]

Again, my question, please state the empirical, observational and/or experimental evidence, supporting your contentious statement/headline and thread, that "This is the first time science has recognized the existence of God"

No preaching, no excuses about any loaded questions, no u tube video links, no agenda laden claims by interested parties, just the empirical evidence: the onus is on you to present that evidence.

4 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I have answered it. You simply ignore it and deny it. Scroll up, it's definitely there.

Good, then why not answer it again, for this poor old lay person?

15 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Ive not evaded any questions. Again, I'd say the science that's been done of which I've referenced would disagree with you.

And yet this is the first time, I and it appears all on this forum have heard about this potential  world shattering claim that you conveniently have interpreted from philosophical research.

Now other then this hairy fairy mystical experiences, do you have any evidence supporting your god of choice? 

 

 

I suspect no as per every other unrealsitic claim made by believers in the supernatural/paranormal 

[Kafei]

Again, my question, please state the empirical, observational and/or experimental evidence, supporting your contentious statement/headline and thread, that "This is the first time science has recognized the existence of God"

I've done that. The links demonstrate the claim.

No preaching, no excuses about any loaded questions, no u tube video links, no agenda laden claims by interested parties, just the empirical evidence: the onus is on you to present that evidence.

Again, the science I've referenced does precisely this.

  26 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I have answered it. You simply ignore it and deny it. Scroll up, it's definitely there.

Good, then why not answer it again, for this poor old lay person?

I've done that, I maintain it is you who simply denies that this is so.

  34 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Ive not evaded any questions. Again, I'd say the science that's been done of which I've referenced would disagree with you.

And yet this is the first time, I and it appears all on this forum have heard about this potential  world shattering claim that you conveniently have interpreted from philosophical research.

Now other then this hairy fairy mystical experiences, do you have any evidence supporting your god of choice? 

Again, I've emphasized that these professionals have recognized that their findings are in precise congruence with the Perennial philosophy. I've given a brief explanation of what this view on the major religions entails, and that it is not necessarily a philosophy as you keep insisting.

I suspect no as per every other unrealsitic claim made by believers in the supernatural/paranormal 

I've also explained that the "supernatural" in the way you're defining it is a pure misconception.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Kafei

[beecee]

47 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Again, my question, please state the empirical, observational and/or experimental evidence, supporting your contentious statement/headline and thread, that "This is the first time science has recognized the existence of God"

I've done that. The links demonstrate the claim.

 

Your links demonstrate nothing more then philosophical musings. If you are unable to answer then admit it.

Quote

 

No preaching, no excuses about any loaded questions, no u tube video links, no agenda laden claims by interested parties, just the empirical evidence: the onus is on you to present that evidence.

Again, the science I've referenced does precisely this.

 

  No it does not for the reasons I have stated.

 

Quote

 

  26 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I have answered it. You simply ignore it and deny it. Scroll up, it's definitely there.

Good, then why not answer it again, for this poor old lay person?

I've done that, I maintain it is you who simply denies that this is so.

 

Then show me how I am in denial, because all I see is opinion, agendas, philosophical musings, and your continued attempts to evade the question.

Quote

 

And yet this is the first time, I and it appears all on this forum have heard about this potential  world shattering claim that you conveniently have interpreted from philosophical research.

Now other then this hairy fairy mystical experiences, do you have any evidence supporting your god of choice? 

Again, I've emphasized that these professionals have recognized that their findings are in precise congruence with the Perennial philosophy. I've given a brief explanation of what this view on the major religions entails, and that it is not necessarily a philosophy as you keep insisting.

 

These professionals with agendas have offered no more then philosophical musings, unsupported claims, and wrong interpretations re mystical experiences of which we all have had.

 

Quote

 

I suspect no as per every other unrealsitic claim made by believers in the supernatural/paranormal 

I've also explained that the "supernatural" in the way you're defining it is a pure misconception.

 

Good, then again explain the evidence supporting your statement re whatever version of god you are claiming, instead of referring me back to what I see as no more then  simple rhetorical philosophical claims supporting your mythical beliefs...remembering that you have falsely claimed the following....."This is the first time science has recognized the existence of God"

Edited September 8, 2018 by beecee

[Kafei]

Your links demonstrate nothing more then philosophical musings. If you are unable to answer then admit it.

You deny the science I've presented. You can't discern that I've already answered your questions.

  Quote

 

No preaching, no excuses about any loaded questions, no u tube video links, no agenda laden claims by interested parties, just the empirical evidence: the onus is on you to present that evidence.

Again, the science I've referenced does precisely this.

 

Your links demonstrate nothing more then philosophical musings. If you are unable to answer then admit it.

I have demonstrated otherwise, it's you who denies.

  Quote

 

No preaching, no excuses about any loaded questions, no u tube video links, no agenda laden claims by interested parties, just the empirical evidence: the onus is on you to present that evidence.

Again, the science I've referenced does precisely this.

 

  No it does not for the reasons I have stated.

What reasons?

  2 hours ago, Kafei said:

 

  Quote

 

  2 hours ago, Kafei said:

  26 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I have answered it. You simply ignore it and deny it. Scroll up, it's definitely there.

Good, then why not answer it again, for this poor old lay person?

I've done that, I maintain it is you who simply denies that this is so.

 

Then show me how I am in denial, because all I see is opinion, agendas, philosophical musings, and your continued attempts to evade the question.

What you project is opinion, agenda, "philosophical musings," and the denial of the fact that I've answered your question.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Kafei

[beecee]

 

5 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Your links demonstrate nothing more then philosophical musings. If you are unable to answer then admit it.

You deny the science I've presented. You can't discern that I've already answered your questions.

But you are afraid to answer them again? Or is this your version of a cop out? 

  Quote

 

No preaching, no excuses about any loaded questions, no u tube video links, no agenda laden claims by interested parties, just the empirical evidence: the onus is on you to present that evidence.

Again, the science I've referenced does precisely this.

 

If it did it would be worth shattering news, but it isn't because your claims are false.

 

Quote

 

Your links demonstrate nothing more then philosophical musings. If you are unable to answer then admit it.

I have demonstrated otherwise, it's you who denies.

 

No not at all, for the reasons just stated..

Quote

What reasons?

Again? OK, If it did it would be worth shattering news in every publication around the world in large black printed headlines.

Quote

 

Then show me how I am in denial, because all I see is opinion, agendas, philosophical musings, and your continued attempts to evade the question.

What you project is opinion, agenda, "philosophical musings," and the denial of the fact that I've answered your question.

 

Simply imitating someone when faced with a difficult question is not very smart. so again, if you are able. please present without links or preaching, this evidence that shows your god of choice exists...other then in your mind that is.

[Kafei]

But you are afraid to answer them again? Or is this your version of a cop out? 

No, I maintain I've not copped out. 

  Quote

  Quote

 

No preaching, no excuses about any loaded questions, no u tube video links, no agenda laden claims by interested parties, just the empirical evidence: the onus is on you to present that evidence.

Again, the science I've referenced does precisely this.

 

If it did it would be worth shattering news, but it isn't because your claims are false.

As Alex Grey pointed out, it should be earth-shattering news, but just because it isn't, doesn't mean it's false. People are definitely slowly waking up to this stuff. It is slowly being inculcated, no one can deny that.

 

  Quote

 

Your links demonstrate nothing more then philosophical musings. If you are unable to answer then admit it.

I have demonstrated otherwise, it's you who denies.

 

No not at all, for the reasons just stated..

Again, what specific reasons are you referring to?

  Quote

What reasons?

Again? OK, If it did it would be worth shattering news in every publication around the world in large black printed headlines.

I referenced a quote in my OP that addressed this question quite thoroughly. It's not my fault it was censored by the MODs. My effort here, in fact, is to get it published as it should rightly be published.

  Quote

 

Then show me how I am in denial, because all I see is opinion, agendas, philosophical musings, and your continued attempts to evade the question.

What you project is opinion, agenda, "philosophical musings," and the denial of the fact that I've answered your question.

 

Simply imitating someone when faced with a difficult question is not very smart. so again, if you are able. please present without links or preaching, this evidence that shows your god of choice exists...other then in your mind that is.

Well, I'll reference my own explanation for Matt Dillahunty for whom, unfortunately, it went over his bald head, but I did express quite succinctly what this research is about. Notice the time-stamp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2wLWFsiGvo&t=5m50s

 

 

 

[beecee]

It it understandable why some scientists of note [Hawking and Krauss come to mind] are now dissing philosophy in many instances, when examples of so called conclusions and interpretations are "fabricated" by some in their evangelistic efforts to garner support for the ever declining idea that any creator or supernatural being is or was ever needed. The totally ridiculous claim that any mystical experience supports such myth is paramount in that fabrication. This thread and the one previously closed with the false provocative title of "science has evidence for the existence of god" or words to that effect, reflect these rather emotional and stupid claims.

[Kafei]

It it understandable why some scientists of note [Hawking and Krauss come to mind] are now dissing philosophy in many instances, when examples of so called conclusions and interpretations are "fabricated" by some in their evangelistic efforts to garner support for the ever declining idea that any creator or supernatural being is or was ever needed. The totally ridiculous claim that any mystical experience supports such myth is paramount in that fabrication. This thread and the one previously closed with the false provocative title of "science has evidence for the existence of god" or words to that effect, reflect these rather emotional and stupid claims.

Again, the science that's been done would simply disagree with you for the reasons I've explained.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE

 

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Kafei said:

 

No, I maintain I've not copped out. 

As Alex Grey pointed out, it should be earth-shattering news, but just because it isn't, doesn't mean it's false. People are definitely slowly waking up to this stuff. It is slowly being inculcated, no one can deny that.?

what specific reasons are you referring to?

 

referrence my own explanation for Matt Dillahunty for whom, unfortunately, it went over his bald head, but I did express quite succinctly what this research is about. Notice the time-stamp.

I referenced a quote in my OP that addressed this question quite thoroughly. It's not my fault it was censored by the MODs. My effort here, in fact, is to get it published as it should rightly be published.

 

 Yes, it's everyone else's fault and everyone else's misunderstandings except of course your own obtuseness and refusal to answer directly. 

 

Let me be straight to the point....The evidence as you claim simply does not exist.It is nothing but philosophical musings and an apparent crusade by yourself in getting this nonsense, supposedly to the world.  It won't because it isn't supported by empirical evidence. Your efforts in getting this published on a science forum, will in time just be lost in cyber space along with the myriad of other non scientific claims, made by other religious evangelists and cranks of one form or another. 

9 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Again, the science that's been done would simply disagree with you for the reasons I've explained.

Science has not been done though. Speculative philosophical musings have simply been interpreted by some according to personal agendas. That's it in a nut shell.

[Kafei]

 Yes, it's everyone else's fault and everyone else's misunderstandings except of course your own obtuseness and refusal to answer directly. 

I've never claimed this. People have been able to understand this science quite fine, Jordan Peterson is one example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT_WjwbSwPU#t=13m48s

 

Let me be straight to the point....The evidence as you claim simply does not exist.It is nothing but philosophical musings and an apparent crusade by yourself in getting this nonsense, supposedly to the world.  It won't because it isn't supported by empirical evidence. Your efforts in getting this published on a science forum, will in time just be lost in cyber space along with the myriad of other non scientific claims, made by other religious evangelists and cranks of one form or another. 

Your criticism here is entirely irrelevant and empty. You've pointed to nothing in specific, you merely make accusations where are demonstrably false.

  26 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Again, the science that's been done would simply disagree with you for the reasons I've explained.

Science has not been done though. Speculative philosophical musings have simply been interpreted by some according to personal agendas. That's it in a nut shell.

Only I'm not speaking of speculative "philosophical musings" but actual, repeatable and demonstrable evidence.