How many GODS do you have?

[Baruch]

"For me, all of the 'inside' is a product of the 'outside'.  I don't really see a real difference.  The universe is not a being or a consciousness or alive in any way."

"The universe came with all the material and substances we now have.  What happened, happened.  Happenstance and math--that drives the universe."

Exactly, a materialist.  A philosophy ... and no philosophy is true, not yours, not mine.  Because humans have no truth in them.  Shit and piss, that we have in abundance ;-)

It is OK to be you.  Ok to be a materialist.  And I certainly wouldn't oppress anyone over their philosophy (but others might).

The universe is a materialistic self licking ice-cream cone.  With a few Pythagorean rules.  Like positive integers good, irrational numbers bad.  Basically a pool game, without any pool game players.  Nobody to create or set up the pool game.  Nobody to play the game.  Just balls moving all on their own, semi-randomly.

We are the life of the universe and the consciousness of the universe.  All life and all consciousness are.  Your atoms are not alive, yet you are alive.  Your atoms are not conscious, yet you are conscious.  This is too irrational a belief for me to accept.  Please give me evidence for pool games that play by themselves, without any people involved.  For me materialist philosophy, even rationalism, are dead things.  The philosophy is implicitly anti-human.

[Baruch]

This idiot babbles on and on about nothingness...which is  the immaterial he thinks is something...though it is nothing and has done nothing to any positive effect for human or animal while material has done everything. His babbling is old and tiresome and worn out. When you guys are tired of it just let me know.

Nothing is something.  Vacuum and plenum aren't opposites.  They are complements.  There are no opposites, just over simplified arguments.

Every hear of QFT, that the vacuum between atoms, is infinitely full of spontaneous virtual particles?

[aitm]

There are no opposites, just over simplified arguments.

there are opposites...the composition of the atom perhaps.  Occams razor vs self-aggrandizing arguments that suggest humans have any causality to the universe whatsoever. There is nothing....nothing that suggests the interaction of humanity can in anyway budge, nudge, prick, poke or make wince the universe....other than our arrogance.

[Baruch]

there are opposites...the composition of the atom perhaps.  Occams razor vs self-aggrandizing arguments that suggest humans have any causality to the universe whatsoever. There is nothing....nothing that suggests the interaction of humanity can in anyway budge, nudge, prick, poke or make wince the universe....other than our arrogance.

And you are a Binary.  There is only 1 and 0, no other numbers.  BTW - 0 and 1 are not opposites either.

I can pick up my bottled water ... I am a demi-god.  I have will and power.  You have no will, no power.  You are a rock rolling downhill gathering moss.

[aitm]

  There is only 1 and 0, no other numbers. 

right....sometimes you simply are and sometimes you are not.

[Baruch]

right....sometimes you simply are and sometimes you are not.

And sometimes none of the above or all of the above.  Don't limit yourself to European prejudice.

[aitm]

oo took out another tree.....

[Arik]

That's not the point. The statement "there is no dragon in my garage", requires no evidence. It's only if you make the statement that "there is a dragon in your garage", that you would need to provide evidence.

But I can find out if that particular station exists. And that evidence is physical and can be accessible to anyone, just not restrict to you alone.

There is no tuning in what you are proposing- "consciouness is everywhere". The funny part is you use a radio analogy that requires physical evidence, but you are peddling something that is unphysical. Wrong analogy.

Fail again Joe.

Within you got everything.
If you can not find something that is your problem.
All knowledge come from within from our own effort.

Even the theory of relativity pop up in Einstein mind from within.
You think and think and sooner or later you will get what you are looking for.
The main thing is to build a parallelism between external and internal consciousness mind.
That is the tune up that I was talking about.

Einstein did not find his theory on a shelf of a shop.
He got it from within.
Within his consciousness and the same thing happen to everybody who wish to discover something.

There is a mine of gold within but not everybody is able to get it out especially those like you that expect to get evidence of it without putting any effort in finding it.

Prove to me that you can debate reasonably instead of ignoring what was said and repeating endlessly the same thing over and over.

I beg your pardon!

You have been talking nonsense since you started posting in this thread and now you have the audacity to tell me that I can not debate reasonably?

1) You said that  NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains
Why don't you explain how a dead brain is able to put together an NDE?

2) You said Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts.

Where is the evidence Joe about your facts?
How would you know that you never lived before?


But after you say.............. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?

So before you say that none come back but after you say that ........Cannot proved or disproved.....

This show how your facts are non facts.


3) You say............. i know ten times more than you do in evolution.................but you show that you didn't even know that Darwin never talk about evolution and the word evolution stand for progress rather than a biological change.

4) You agree that physical science together with philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning are the real McCoy as most atheists agree but you fail to understand that all these sciences are related to the finite universe while human expectations are not finite.
That means that by concentrating on the finite arena or dimension you only strive for survival not for some permanent solution  so at the end you get nowhere.

I'm old enough to be your grandfather. As to live in a cocoon of fantasy, that describes perfectly yourself as you clinch desperately to something no one on earth can prove.

How would you know how old I am?

One more foolish thinking is to put the knowledge on someone age.

Some kids are clever than old people.
See Beethoven and other that in very young age were already very very clever.

[Hydra009]

How would you know how old I am?

It's the more charitable assumption. Because if you're peddling this hokum at any age over 13, you're either a con man or exceptionally deluded.  Being young and foolish is a much less embarrassing flaw.

[josephpalazzo]

Fail again Joe.

Within you got everything.
If you can not find something that is your problem.
All knowledge come from within from our own effort.

Even the theory of relativity pop up in Einstein mind from within.
You think and think and sooner or later you will get what you are looking for.
The main thing is to build a parallelism between external and internal consciousness mind.
That is the tune up that I was talking about.

Einstein did not find his theory on a shelf of a shop.
He got it from within.
Within his consciousness and the same thing happen to everybody who wish to discover something.

There is a mine of gold within but not everybody is able to get it out especially those like you that expect to get evidence of it without putting any effort in finding it.




I beg your pardon!

You have been talking nonsense since you started posting in this thread and now you have the audacity to tell me that I can not debate reasonably?

1) You said that  NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains
Why don't you explain how a dead brain is able to put together an NDE?

2) You said Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts.

Where is the evidence Joe about your facts?
How would you know that you never lived before?


But after you say.............. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?

So before you say that none come back but after you say that ........Cannot proved or disproved.....

This show how your facts are non facts.


3) You say............. i know ten times more than you do in evolution.................but you show that you didn't even know that Darwin never talk about evolution and the word evolution stand for progress rather than a biological change.

4) You agree that physical science together with philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning are the real McCoy as most atheists agree but you fail to understand that all these sciences are related to the finite universe while human expectations are not finite.
That means that by concentrating on the finite arena or dimension you only strive for survival not for some permanent solution  so at the end you get nowhere.




How would you know how old I am?

One more foolish thinking is to put the knowledge on someone age.

Some kids are clever than old people.
See Beethoven and other that in very young age were already very very clever.

You're repeating the same garbage over and over.

AFAIC, discussion over.

If you're banned, you will have only deserved it.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Within you got everything.
If you can not find something that is your problem.
All knowledge come from within from our own effort.

Even the theory of relativity pop up in Einstein mind from within.

Without confirmation from evidence coming from outside, even Einstein's ideas would be just that: ideas. Furthermore, you have no clue on the history of how Einstein came up with relativity â€" the idea has its roots in Galileo Galilee and Ernst Mach. His mathematics came from Henri Poincaré, Bernhard Riemann, and Hendrik Lorentz â€" that's why the principle transformation in special relativity is called the Lorentz transformation. Note that most of the mathematical framework of general relativity does not bear Einstein's name. I think only the Einstein field tensor and the Einstein summation convention bear his name, and the Einstein field tensor almost got called the Hilbert field tensor because David Hilbert was within days of scooping him. Hell, the complete static spherical solution to his equations, leading to the most famous consequence of GR (black holes), is called the Schwarzschild solution. And of course, general relativity finds confirmation and therefore justification from external experiments.

Despite your scientific myth, most of what is in relativity came definitively from OUTSIDE Einstein.

Getting anything from within is fine as long as the confirmation comes from without. That's the way science is done. If you're not doing that, you're not doing science. Simple as.

You think and think and sooner or later you will get what you are looking for.
The main thing is to build a parallelism between external and internal consciousness mind.
That is the tune up that I was talking about.

I like it how you think that this is something profound. It's not. It's mundane. It's just letting your thinking remain grounded in reality even as you have your head in the clouds.

Einstein did not find his theory on a shelf of a shop.
He got it from within.
Within his consciousness and the same thing happen to everybody who wish to discover something.

Einstein got most of the components of his theory from "a shop" â€" that is, learning from the real world and from other people. Special relativity was mostly not his. That's why the mathematical devices he uses don't bear his name.

There is a mine of gold within but not everybody is able to get it out especially those like you that expect to get evidence of it without putting any effort in finding it.

The example you are using to "prove" your point... doesn't prove your point at all. We know where most of the ideas that Einstein used came from. There were a shitton of people involved in the formation of Einstein's relativity, whether you like it or not. And, again, Einstein would not be a household name had his ideas failed in the experimental arena. We know for a damn fact that physics and mathematical luminaries were working on the problem of resolving Michelson and Morley, and had gotten close. It was just that Einstein had the final insight of turning the usual approach on its head. Instead of trying to make Maxwell's laws agree with Newton, he assumed the correctness of Maxwell and followed this to its bitter end. And even with this bizarre thing called relativity, it agreed with Newton to the regime where Newton was known to be correct.

See, when you derive stuff yourself, and are guided through the insights and ideas, you realize that you could have come up with this stuff, had you come at the right time and with the right approach. When you consider the real history of relativity, you realize that Einstein's feat wasn't that remarkable. Yeah, Einstein was smart, but he was absolutely cognizant of the fact that he was only a tiny bit ahead of his scientific peers. Had history gone another way, it would have been David Hilbert we credit general relativity to.

I beg your pardon!

You have been talking nonsense since you started posting in this thread and now you have the audacity to tell me that I can not debate reasonably?

It only sounds like nonsense to you. And it's only audacity if it isn't as plain as the nose on your face that you cannot, in fact, debate reasonably. You never debated me reasonably. Hell, you couldn't even be bothered to spend five minutes on Google to check the ultimate strengths of bone and concrete... you know, to make sure you weren't talking out of your ass when you asserted that concrete was stronger than bone. If you can't even do these simple checks, then you're nowhere in a debate.

1) You said that  NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains
Why don't you explain how a dead brain is able to put together an NDE?

Because it ain't dead yet. Ya been told this before, and you've never refuted this. You've never answered my rebuttal of the obvious fact that the only brains that we get NDEs from are ones that come out of the ER alive, and that we only know about the NDEs a few hours later, after the patent has woken up from their coma.

Next question.

2) You said Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts.

Where is the evidence Joe about your facts?

There is no verified incident of a person who has been able to come back from the dead. Exactly what you'd expect to happen, if nobody comes back from the dead.

Next question.

How would you know that you never lived before?

If you don't know, by some means, then it's a useless question to begin with. A slate that's blank because it's new, and one that's blank because it's erased... is still a blank slate.

Next question.

But after you say.............. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?

So before you say that none come back but after you say that ........Cannot proved or disproved.....

This show how your facts are non facts.

No, being philosophically undecidable is not the same as being scientifically undecidable. There are certain things we can reasonably expect out of a world with a persistent consciousness. We do not see these effects. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that such persistent conciousnesses do not exist. It is not unreasonable to conclude as fact that something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the genetic and anatomical features of a duck is actually a genuine duck, instead of a duck-like alien.

Next question.

3) You say............. i know ten times more than you do in evolution.................but you show that you didn't even know that Darwin never talk about evolution and the word evolution stand for progress rather than a biological change.

Irrelevant. A pioneer in a field doesn't have any control over what the field is later called. Population dynamics in response to selection pressure is called "evolution," or if you're being specific, "biological evolution," and it doesn't matter what it was called before or what "evolution" meant before, that's what it means now.

Believe it or not, you are intruding on the scientific magisterium when you assert that consciousness is a real but immaterial thing and that NDE's are actual out of body experiences. When you then start using recognizable scientific words in non-scientific ways, people are going to complain. You are going to get clashes between what you mean by the word and what everyone else understands the word to mean. Avoiding those clashes is just good communication. It is incumbent upon you to define your terms so we know what the hell you're talking about.

Next... question? Point? Whatever. Next!

4) You agree that physical science together with philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning are the real McCoy as most atheists agree but you fail to understand that all these sciences are related to the finite universe while human expectations are not finite.

Untrue. Try listing out your expectations. I guarantee you will eventually run out.

Next.

That means that by concentrating on the finite arena or dimension you only strive for survival not for some permanent solution  so at the end you get nowhere.

Prove that there is some permanent solution to find, and there is somewhere to go at all, or you're just wasting time.

Next.

How would you know how old I am?

One more foolish thinking is to put the knowledge on someone age.

Let me point out that you have every incentive to not confirm this age if he's right. The fact that you do not confirm this age is completely unremarkable and contains no information.

Some kids are clever than old people.

There is nothing in your responses that are in any way clever.

See Beethoven and other that in very young age were already very very clever.

Beethoven was "very very clever" because he was able to convey his vision such that even the rabble could recognize that his was great music, and his rivals had to recognize his skill and vision. So far, you have not proven yourself equal to the task of convincing us that you even have anything to offer.

See, even coached in eloquent language, a stupid idea is still stupid. Conversely, a smart idea is still smart, even conveyed in simple language. Yours is the former.

[Unbeliever]

I think Arik is just teasing the Miko...and he got bitten! :-P

[Arik]

Without confirmation from evidence coming from outside, even Einstein's ideas would be just that: ideas. Furthermore, you have no clue on the history of how Einstein came up with relativity â€" the idea has its roots in Galileo Galilee and Ernst Mach. His mathematics came from Henri Poincaré, Bernhard Riemann, and Hendrik Lorentz â€" that's why the principle transformation in special relativity is called the Lorentz transformation. Note that most of the mathematical framework of general relativity does not bear Einstein's name. I think only the Einstein field tensor and the Einstein summation convention bear his name, and the Einstein field tensor almost got called the Hilbert field tensor because David Hilbert was within days of scooping him. Hell, the complete static spherical solution to his equations, leading to the most famous consequence of GR (black holes), is called the Schwarzschild solution. And of course, general relativity finds confirmation and therefore justification from external experiments.

Despite your scientific myth, most of what is in relativity came definitively from OUTSIDE Einstein.

Getting anything from within is fine as long as the confirmation comes from without. That's the way science is done. If you're not doing that, you're not doing science. Simple as.
I like it how you think that this is something profound. It's not. It's mundane. It's just letting your thinking remain grounded in reality even as you have your head in the clouds.
Einstein got most of the components of his theory from "a shop" â€" that is, learning from the real world and from other people. Special relativity was mostly not his. That's why the mathematical devices he uses don't bear his name.
The example you are using to "prove" your point... doesn't prove your point at all. We know where most of the ideas that Einstein used came from. There were a shitton of people involved in the formation of Einstein's relativity, whether you like it or not. And, again, Einstein would not be a household name had his ideas failed in the experimental arena. We know for a damn fact that physics and mathematical luminaries were working on the problem of resolving Michelson and Morley, and had gotten close. It was just that Einstein had the final insight of turning the usual approach on its head. Instead of trying to make Maxwell's laws agree with Newton, he assumed the correctness of Maxwell and followed this to its bitter end. And even with this bizarre thing called relativity, it agreed with Newton to the regime where Newton was known to be correct.

See, when you derive stuff yourself, and are guided through the insights and ideas, you realize that you could have come up with this stuff, had you come at the right time and with the right approach. When you consider the real history of relativity, you realize that Einstein's feat wasn't that remarkable. Yeah, Einstein was smart, but he was absolutely cognizant of the fact that he was only a tiny bit ahead of his scientific peers. Had history gone another way, it would have been David Hilbert we credit general relativity to.

What has got to do whether physics and mathematical luminaries were working on the problem of resolving Michelson and Morley or any other issue with what Einstein came up with?

Obviously a lot of people may think to similar things at the same time and obviously one will be the first to solve that problem.

So what?

Here I am talking about where the knowledge come from not whether a group of people were interested in the same thing or not.
As usual you twist my point in a way to show that you are smarter than anybody else and that is something that should concern your honesty.

It only sounds like nonsense to you. And it's only audacity if it isn't as plain as the nose on your face that you cannot, in fact, debate reasonably. You never debated me reasonably. Hell, you couldn't even be bothered to spend five minutes on Google to check the ultimate strengths of bone and concrete... you know, to make sure you weren't talking out of your ass when you asserted that concrete was stronger than bone. If you can't even do these simple checks, then you're nowhere in a debate.
Because it ain't dead yet. Ya been told this before, and you've never refuted this. You've never answered my rebuttal of the obvious fact that the only brains that we get NDEs from are ones that come out of the ER alive, and that we only know about the NDEs a few hours later, after the patent has woken up from their coma.

The reason why I never refuted your point is because these guys in the video smashed not one slab of concrete but some of them even 10 together so ten concrete slabs together must be harder than a bone beside there is no injury in the skin that protect the skull.
Are you going to tell me that also the skin is harder than the concrete?
So how do you explain that the skin is intact after that?

Next question.
There is no verified incident of a person who has been able to come back from the dead. Exactly what you'd expect to happen, if nobody comes back from the dead.


Next question.
If you don't know, by some means, then it's a useless question to begin with. A slate that's blank because it's new, and one that's blank because it's erased... is still a blank slate.

Next question.
No, being philosophically undecidable is not the same as being scientifically undecidable. There are certain things we can reasonably expect out of a world with a persistent consciousness. We do not see these effects. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that such persistent conciousnesses do not exist. It is not unreasonable to conclude as fact that something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the genetic and anatomical features of a duck is actually a genuine duck, instead of a duck-like alien.

Next question.
Irrelevant. A pioneer in a field doesn't have any control over what the field is later called. Population dynamics in response to selection pressure is called "evolution," or if you're being specific, "biological evolution," and it doesn't matter what it was called before or what "evolution" meant before, that's what it means now.

Believe it or not, you are intruding on the scientific magisterium when you assert that consciousness is a real but immaterial thing and that NDE's are actual out of body experiences. When you then start using recognizable scientific words in non-scientific ways, people are going to complain. You are going to get clashes between what you mean by the word and what everyone else understands the word to mean. Avoiding those clashes is just good communication. It is incumbent upon you to define your terms so we know what the hell you're talking about.

Next... question? Point? Whatever. Next!
Untrue. Try listing out your expectations. I guarantee you will eventually run out.

NDEs are documented facts.

Real people, real incidents, real hospitals, doctors and nurses and real death.
On the other hands your skepticism has no foundations.

Next.
Prove that there is some permanent solution to find, and there is somewhere to go at all, or you're just wasting time.

Materialists have the notion that evolution stop with humanity.
That notion is totally bankrupt because humans can not be satisfied with the finite.
Humans struggle to go up and up until peace of mind and unlimited bliss become a reality.
That simply means that evolution of the consciousness need to merge in the infinity.
Beside the consciousness that we got did not pop up as per magic but build up through the evolution process which means that the desire to advance is unstoppable.

Next.
Let me point out that you have every incentive to not confirm this age if he's right. The fact that you do not confirm this age is completely unremarkable and contains no information.
There is nothing in your responses that are in any way clever.
Beethoven was "very very clever" because he was able to convey his vision such that even the rabble could recognize that his was great music, and his rivals had to recognize his skill and vision. So far, you have not proven yourself equal to the task of convincing us that you even have anything to offer.

See, even coached in eloquent language, a stupid idea is still stupid. Conversely, a smart idea is still smart, even conveyed in simple language. Yours is the former.

I respect your personal opinion.

To me Beethoven was clever because he lived before and developed his art step by step through many lives.


Have a good day.

[Arik]

You're repeating the same garbage over and over.

AFAIC, discussion over.

If you're banned, you will have only deserved it.

Oh, I see.

So you can not explain to me how a dead brain is able to put together an NDE, right?

Never mind Joe.

By the way do you know why roses and other flowers that are grown inside greenhouse do not smell like those grown outside and also the vegetable grown inside green houses do not taste as good as those grown out in the open?

Apparently those grown inside are protected from the elements and from pests so these plants do not need to be strong anymore to fight for survival.

The challenges have gone so these plants are getting used to live inside a cocoon that protect them.
Something similar happen to people like you that are not prepared to fight the challenge by trying to get rid of people that show your failings.
I may be gone from this forum Joe but for you it will be even worse because by trying to get rid of the challengers you become a parasite inside a cocoon of fantasy.



All the best anyway.

[Simon Moon]

NDEs are documented facts.

The only 'fact' is that people REPORT that they have had some sort of experience that their consciousness leaves their bodies. No one is disputing that some people, when they are close to death, have some mental experience. What is being refuted, is that this experience actually is their consciousness leaving their body and experiencing an afterlife.

It is up to those claiming that they are actually leaving their bodies, to prove that is what is actually happening. Instead of, say, that they are misinterpreting an unusual, but purely natural brainstate caused by the trauma of a dying brain.

Real people, real incidents, real hospitals, doctors and nurses and real death.
On the other hands your skepticism has no foundations

Yes, real people misinterpret natural brain states all the time. Does not prove they are actually leaving their physical body.

Yes, real doctors and nurses treat patients that get close to dying all the time. Does not prove their patients are actually leaving their physical body.

No, it is not real death. You do understand the the "N" in the abbreviation stands for "NEAR" (as in NEAR DEATH), right?

On the other hands your skepticism has no foundations.

Sure it does have foundations. You and your ilk, have not met your burden of proof. So, our disbelief in your claims are completely and rationally justified. As soon as you meet your burden of proof, I will be forced by my intellectual honesty, to believe your claims.