End Time Prophesy

Jump to Last Post 201-250 of 283 discussions (6469 posts)
  1. JudeAkhabue profile image60
    JudeAkhabueposted 5 years ago

    we do not know the hour or time, and that should not be own major concern, rather we should work to be found worthy when He comes

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, no one knows when that event will be.  Being ready is smart, I agree.

  2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago

    I was actually referring to Cain as the farmer, banished from where Adam/Eve and the rest of the family are. This is the one I associate with Enki, though this is not a concrete association that the rest hinges on. But to be clear, this doesn't impact original sin. In this view, all of us born of 'civilized' cultures are of both bloodlines, naturally evolved humans, and Adam/Eve.



    Yes, basically. Except that I think of Enoch, written around 300BC, more as insight into the minds of the people in that age in regards to Genesis. Genesis, especially to post-exile Jewish people, was just as much ancient and mysterious to them as it is to us. Enoch seems to have been an attempt to fill out the story inspired by some of the more intriguing bits of Genesis. But you're right, traditionally angels do not have free will, yet there are many who still consider these angels. Angels capable of impregnating flesh and blood humans, for whatever reason.



    It's entirely possible they were. The Nephilim, or descendants of the Nephilim, the Anakites, are described throughout the rest of the books of Moses as quite large. And, interestingly, in carved depictions of the gods of Sumerian mythology, they're depicted as roughly 1/3 larger than humans.



    Nowhere in the story does it say God is afraid they would walk into heaven. It says, based on His observation of what the 'children of men' were doing, he decided to scatter them and confuse their language. It clearly wasn't the tower in particular. It was the ingenuity. The firing of mud-bricks, the construction, the deciding together to make a name for themselves and build a city/tower as a solution. And nowhere does it say this was in any way a punishment.

    But clearly they had a power. Because right after being scattered this same  thing happened, only in multiple places, each with their own unique language. It would have been quite a different place if this all started with one unified language and one unified city to kick it all off. When there's multiple languages and multiple civilizations it greatly changes the dynamic. I think that was the reason.



    You're right, looking at God scattering them to stop them doesn't make any sense at all. It makes the whole thing sound uneven and inconsistent. Kind of like angels who don't have free will, except in that one part.



    Actually, this one does reflect reality quite strongly. It closely resembles what actually happened due to a dramatic climate change when the Sahara transformed back into a desert for the last time. This really did cause the people of this region to scatter, where they headed to lands along river banks. In the centuries following this event (3900BC), we see the emergence of Sumer(3500), Egypt(3400), the Indus Valley(3300), Akkad(before 3000), all of which had their own unique language.

    "Thus, it also triggered worldwide migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organised, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BC." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event



    It's not just those events. It's a series of events that all line up exactly with the timeline of Genesis.
    Preflood Genesis - 1656 years from Adam to flood, or roughly 1500 years from Cain's banishment to flood. This is the same length of time as the Ubaid culture (5500-4000BC) where the first in dramatic changes, both in human behavior as well as social living norms, appeared. It's when the first city was built, actually classed as a city because of it's class structure. This culture ended abruptly, and this was at least partially due to a flood as evidence in Ur where a silt deposit literally caps Ubaid artifacts. Then, about a century later, that climate change mentioned above.



    The Sumerian King's list. It says the first city-state where the 'kingship' descended from heaven was Eridu. Eridu IS in the middle east. Uruk is one of the first post-flood city-states according to that list, it's the first known post-Ubaid city-state in the region. According to the King's List, according to Genesis, and according to evidence in Ur, a flood happened between these two periods. And a 1500 year old culture, that was thriving up to that point, ended abruptly.



    Yet none of this is unique to this particular time and place. Multiple cultures with high populations existed in what some call 'Old Europe' long before any of this. Yet there's no signs of violence or defensive walls around their settlements.



    Other explanations don't quite fit. Not as well as this one written by those actually from that time and place. And this one isn't really that complex. It's just different. Because it deals with so many already familiar, and sometimes seemingly unrelated aspects, it seems complicated at first.



    Right, they're all originally Sumerian because that's where this would have happened and they would have been the humans that experienced these events. If you recall, all the cultures around during Abraham's time believed in multiple gods too. It could be that the Sumerians just invented them, invented a soap opera to try to explain their history. Stories they believed to be real history. Or it could be they're not just made up, but inspired by real beings.



    Not exactly. There's no reason to think Noah was part-human. It just says he was a direct descendant, and given the age he lived to, probably an undiluted one.

    I think the flood did accomplish something. God chose Noah for a reason, because of the favorable traits he showed. This would work much the same way if you were say trying to breed specific traits in a plant or type of animal. You'd choose those who show the desired traits and breed from them. It actually makes a lot of sense in the way we now understand the natural world. It's controlled evolution, in a sense.



    Noah had a wife. So did his sons. And because it was a regional flood, the rest of the world was still fully populated. But yes, in a sense it can start over, only this time from this particularly chosen line.



    This portion, what I'm talking about (Gen2-11), comes before the bit about the Jewish people being the chosen ones. That comes later, post Abraham. And again, these "city life" conditions were not at all unique. Not in the sense you're speaking of where a change towards city/society life brings about change. The city/society life was around long before the changes. And considering the fact tha agricultural practices were adopted all throughout the world, you'd expect this to happen elsehwhere if it's as you say. Yet, it started and spread from here.

    Besides, you don't find it even a little difficult to think the Hebrews could write a version of the story that conforms down to the number of centuries with the real history of the region over a 2000+ year span that ended 2000 years before they started writing them down (based on the kingdom of David timeline)? Could they have maintained that kind of accuracy through purely oral traditions? Do you think they could have had that well of a grasp on that kind of passage of time? Especially if the Sumerian versions don't maintain a timeline like that?




    When this behavioral change first started, early in the Ubaid, Eridu was nowhere near the size of some of these other cultures. Like in Catal Huyuk (7,500 to 5,700 BC) in Turkey and the Lepenski Vir settlement (dating back to 7,000 BC) located in the central portion of the Balkan peninsula. The Lepenski Vir culture gave way to the Vinča-Turdaș culture (5,000-4,500 BC), which at one point had populations estimated at 2,500 or more in some of the larger sites. Yet never changed the way Eridu did practically right from the start. The way you're talking, large farming population living can and did maintain the same culture and same mentality, yet couldn't in these other cases?



    But in the industrial revolution you have an already established culture that was then changed by technological developments. It's perfectly understandable how the invention of machinery could catch on and spread as it did in that kind of environment. But the environment that brought on these changes back in the ancient world was nowhere near the same. It would seem the behavioral changes came first, in the first and only city-state, then came the technological advances, as well as laws, schools, mathematics, astronomy, writing, etc. Or, to put it another way ...

    "The thousand years or so immediately preceding 3000 BC were perhaps more fertile in inventions and discoveries than any period in human history prior to the sixteenth century AD" - V. Gordon Childe, Archaeologist and Philologist

    "a tremendous explosion of knowledge took place as writing, mathematics, and astronomy were discovered. It was as if the human mind had suddenly revealed a new dimension of itself." - Anne Baring and Jules Cashford, The Myth of the Goddess


    It simply doesn't line up that changes in how people lived in that day brought all of this about when you drill down to the finer details. What it would seem to suggest at the very least is an evolutionary leap forward in the brain. That might explain it, and would be a much more plausible explanation given how it started and how it spread from there. It spread in much the same way an evolutionary change that made one group dominant over another would spread.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I didn’t know this. I did some research on Eridu.

      “A proto-Genesis tale of the Garden has been found at Eridu in which Tagtug the Weaver (or gardener) is cursed by the great god Enki for eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree in the garden after being told not to.”

      Seems even this story is Sumerian, and not Hebrew. And we may have even fund Abraham’s original god: Enki. Fitting since he is the water god and the Hebrew god created heaven and earth from the waters of the universe.

      Eridu does have evidence in the geology of a flood happening around 2800 BCE. In fact it has evidence of several. But unlike what I understood you to say, the city was rebuilt and abandoned several times, and the last time was around 600 BCE, so not permanently abandoned after the great flood.

      And the prehistoric Ubaid didn’t disappear either. They spread, with evidence of them found all the way to Turkey.

      So I have a question, where is the evidence that they changed drastically after the flood or just before the flood?

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Exactly. Just because the Sumerians wrote a story like that first doesn't mean the Genesis version is a fake. They could very well just be writing a story about something that really happened in their ancient past, 2000 or so years, or 100 some odd generations, before writing. If the stories of Genesis are actually what happened, then it would make sense that the predominant oral traditions throughout the region would definitely share many common themes.

        When you say evidence found all the way to turkey shows the people of the Ubaid spread, what specifically are you referring to? Because in what I've read it ended. Now, in either case it would seem the culture has come to an end because the people are gone. But evidence of them up north through to Turkey could also be evidence of trade, which did occur....
        Ubaid 3/4, sometimes called Ubaid I and Ubaid II[7] — In the period from 4500–4000 BC saw a period of intense and rapid urbanisation with the Ubaid culture spread into northern Mesopotamia replacing (after a hiatus) the Halaf culture. Ubaid artifacts spread also all along the Arabian littoral, showing the growth of a trading system that stretched from the Mediterranean coast through to Oman.

        But the Ubaid culture is generally agreed to have come to an abrupt end, and that portion of far-south Mesopotamia shows no evidence of occupation for roughly 1000 years. Uruk formed to the north of it, and is generally designated as a distinct culture, though the two share a lot of commonalities....
        "The archaeological record shows that Arabian Bifacial/Ubaid period came to an abrupt end in eastern Arabia and the Oman peninsula at 3800 BC, just after the phase of lake lowering and onset of dune reactivation.[8] At this time, increased aridity led to an end in semi-desert nomadism, and there is no evidence of human presence in the area for approximately 1000 years, the so-called "Dark Millennium".[9] This might be due to the 5.9 kiloyear event at the end of the Older Peron.

        The flood evidence I'm talking about in particular was found in Ur....
        "Archaeologists have discovered evidence of an early occupation at Ur during the Ubaid period. These early levels were sealed off with a sterile deposit of soil that was interpreted by excavators of the 1920s as evidence for the Great Flood of the book of Genesis and Epic of Gilgamesh.

        The tricky thing about that part of the world is that it hasn't really been widely available to archaeological investigation for many years, being in modern day Iraq. That's changed recently. But most flood information about the region often dates back to digs done in the '20's.

        "So I have a question, where is the evidence that they changed drastically after the flood or just before the flood?"

        Are you referring to the behavioral change or the distinction between Ubaid and Uruk?

  3. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago

    "You see the mind is observable, detectable, measurable, predictable and testable."

    You're confusing the mind with brain function. Brain function is observable/detectable/measurable. The mind in some regards can be predictable/testable. The whole approach and methodology of neuroscience is to establish the correlation between neural events and mental phenomena. Some of these mental functions can be more directly traced and understood, like for instance in how the brain processes images. The image is an external stimulus, the eye processes physical light waves, and the neural correlates can be observed. But for stimuli that's not external, it gets much murkier. Like in regards to consciousness ...

    "The neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) constitute the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms sufficient for a specific conscious percept.[2] Neuroscientists use empirical approaches to discover neural correlates of subjective phenomena."

    "A science of consciousness must explain the exact relationship between subjective mental states and brain states, the nature of the relationship between the conscious mind and the electro-chemical interactions in the body."
    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_cor … sciousness

    All of the examples you provided have to do with establishing and associating neural behavioral patterns to targeted mental phenomena. They're by no means conclusive in any case because half of the association is subjective. There's a lot to gain in better understanding what part of the brain is involved in various tasks, for certain. But this by no means makes the mind observable. The fact that it's not observable is actually what most complicates the process.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Does the mind you are proposing actually exist?  Can you show that it exists?

      Or is what you are calling "mind" merely one of the many functions of the brain?

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        "Does the mind you are proposing actually exist?"

        Yes

        "Can you show that it exists?"

        No

        "Theory of mind is a theory insofar as the mind is not directly observable.[1] The presumption that others have a mind is termed a theory of mind because each human can only intuit the existence of his/her own mind through introspection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another. It is typically assumed that others have minds by analogy with one's own, and based on the reciprocal nature of social interaction, as observed in joint attention,[4] the functional use of language,[5] and understanding of others' emotions and actions." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

        "Or is what you are calling 'mind' merely one of the many functions of the brain?"

        I mean "the set of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

    2. Dr Lamb profile image56
      Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Actually what you are doing is attempting to separate the mind and the brain. What the link showed was that they were reconstructing images of imaginary people that people held in their consciousness from fMRI's and now you seem to suggest that consciousness is not part of the mind.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        No, I'm not. I'm not separating the mind and the brain. That's how it's spoken of in general, including by those in neuroscience. That is the two sides they're working with, associating physical brain activities with mental phenomena and states. Of course consciousness is part of the mind because that's where we all experience consciousness.

        What they were doing in that link was they were showing them pictures of four people, attributing particular stories to them, scanning their brain as each subject took in this information, tracking the neural activity that occurs with each subject as they do, then later when they recall these people they can tell by what pathways are retreaded which person they were thinking about. This is not mind-reading. This is watching the brain first create new information, then retread that same information to recall it.

  4. oceansnsunsets profile image84
    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years ago

    Can the mind be materially observed? 

    This whole discussion isn't really a debate at all.  I am truly amazed by those that seem to have the patience of saints, to take the time to show how the mind isn't materially observable.  It obviously isn't.   We all have first hand access to our mind, right this minute, and science can't observe it. 

    My mind is kind of overwhelmed at what has transpired here over the last few days with this discussion.  If it is mind boggling, consider this mind boggled.  You will have to trust me on that, as science can't observe my boggled mind, lol.

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Haha... I can only assume that the boggled-ness you express and the flabbergasted-ness I feel are very similar sensations created by the same region of the brain and would look nearly identical in an fMRI image.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I'm going to be honest, the chummy "We are flabbergasted" stuff comes off as quite condescending and superior. Essentially, you are saying that it is surprising and confusing that everyone doesn't automatically agree with you. Could you try and tone that down a bit? If you are trying to have a conversation, it interferes with communication. If you are trying to impress others or shaming them by insinuating that your intelligence is clearly superior because two of you agree, then you have failed. Such tactics are only used by those seeking validation by public opinion. Personally, that tends to make me think less of that supposed intelligence for seeking confirmation from an outside source.

        Now with that said, what I see is an effort to make something mystical that isn't. The "mind" is simply thought. Thought can be observed by actions and interactions. No MRI needed. Consciousness is awareness. That's all.

        I'm just not seeing what else you are trying to infer that it is. Nor do I understand what your ultimate point is. It seems pretty simple to me. There are abstract concepts and concrete concepts.

        If you are trying to prove God, or soul, or whatever as an abstract concept. I don't think anyone disagrees. However, if you are trying to prove either as a concrete concept, then it needs to be observable.

        Now, you are saying that the mind as an abstract concept -which you clearly are creating an abstract concept of such- is unobservable. Yes, your concept of what a mind is truly is unobservable... I'll grant you that. There is also no proof whatsoever of that abstract concept being true or accurate. There is no proof of what you define as "mind" existing and never will be. It likely doesn't.

        Now, if you are defining "mind" as consciousness, thinking, rationality, understanding, reasoning etc. then that is completely observable and concrete by interaction. We can see the effects of those things. We can see the interactions in progress. We can recreate and explain those things.

        Please don't assume that because the second definition of "mind" (the concrete one) exists, that the first (the abstract) does as well. Also, don't assume that lack of observability for an abstract concept of mind indicates that the concrete definition is also unobservable.

        It's bait and switch.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          "Essentially, you are saying that it is surprising and confusing that everyone doesn't automatically agree with you."

          If we were talking about belief in God or something along those lines, then yeah, I can see what you're saying. But we're talking about a simple fundamental truth that is almost universally accepted elsewhere. So yes, this discussion is surprising because it is beyond ridiculous, so my comment is my genuine reaction to this whole back and forth. It's like arguing with a group of people that the sky is blue. As far as interference with communication, that broke down a long time ago when people started redefining words and declaring references 'false' rather than conceding to the simplest of points.

          I'm not trying to fool you here, or bait and switch you. What good would it do to make a point through deception? There's nobody keeping score here. I'm not interested in winning anything. I don't get what it is you think I'm motivated by to try to trick everyone into thinking something if it isn't true. The mental experience that we all have in common, is not observable. You can't see another person's thoughts. You can't see their consciousness. You can't see what they're thinking. You can, however, hear what they're thinking when they tell you. You can see the physical activity in the brain that creates this experience for them, but you can't see what they're experiencing in their mind. Everything else you're talking about isn't "observing the mind". It's observing the physical results of what's happening in the mind. I get the impression you see our physical actions and activities as a direct reflection of the mind, and in a sense it is, but that doesn't mean seeing a person's physical actions and activities is 'seeing' the mind.

    2. Dr Lamb profile image56
      Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Doctors test for consciousness all the time. They can observe wether one is conscious or not. Ever take an IQ test?

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        "Detecting behavioral signs of consciousness is currently the main way to distinguish conscious from unconscious patients. The diagnosis of consciousness level is nevertheless really difficult to make in patients with limited behavioral repertoires and often complicated by inconsistent or easily exhausted motor responses. Misdiagnosis has consequently been reported as being really frequent (Childs et al., 1993; Andrews et al., 1996; Schnakers et al., 2009)." - http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/133/

        You'd think, if the mind were observable, diagnosis wouldn't be so hit and miss. But not being directly observable, that makes a lot more sense.

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
        oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        As I was explaining to some last night, testing for consciousness and observing it, as when a doctor does this on a patient, is not being disputed in the forum.  This argument isn't about observing a person's STATE OF consciousness.  This is why I posted the definition of consciousness. 

        One definition was being used, to MAKE a case that the other definition of consciousness can be observed. Purposeful or not, I can't know for sure.

  5. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    Consciousness can't be observed. Consciousness is what does the observing.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Of course consciousness can be observed. Medical personnel do it every day.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
        oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        You are both right I think.  (But I could be wrong, of course.)  Both of you seem to be using different definitions for Consciousness.  One is using it in the context of what we have been talking about. The other seems to be using it to explain what hospital staff can observe in a patient (Like as in 1b, or 4, below.).  One can be observed, the other cannot be 

        Now I am posting for the first time, a definition of consciousness, one that came up in a search, and copy pasted here.   From:  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness

        con·scious·ness
        noun \-nəs\
        : the condition of being conscious : the normal state of being awake and able to understand what is happening around you

        : a person's mind and thoughts

        : knowledge that is shared by a group of people

        Full Definition of CONSCIOUSNESS
        1a :  the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
        b :  the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
        c :  awareness; especially :  concern for some social or political cause
        2:  the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought :  mind
        3:  the totality of conscious states of an individual
        4:  the normal state of conscious life <regained consciousness>
        5:  the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

      2. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Of course, that is only your opinion.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Or the opinion of every medical practitioner in the world. There is even a scale for it. It is posted on the wall in most Trauma Centers. But yes, it must be only my opinion.

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly.

            Still only an opinion.

            Consensus opinions are prone to change as more information becomes available.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              So it is just an opinion that if one does not open one's eyes, respond to painful stimuli or move, they they are unconscious? Yet if they open their eyes, have a conversation with you and listen to what you tell them to do they are conscious?

              That is an opinion?

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Yes. It's an assumption based on lack of information.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Ah, yes. Of course.

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Please point out what you think of as my error in thinking.

                    I am saying we don't have enough information to know what consciousness is. Do you think we do?

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I believe you may be speaking of a STATE of consciousness, correct? Like weather a new patient brought into a trauma unit is conscious or not?

  6. Cgenaea profile image61
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    Bite your tongue!!! wink

  7. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF54xqYhIGA - Boundaries of the Knowable: Consciousness and the limits of Science

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image56
      EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      He agrees with us who are saying, "the physical activities of the brain" - consciousness. Thanks for sharing.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Wow, dude. The topic of the conversation is 'is the mind/consciousness observable'. He just went through a whole explanation about our inability to establish what things are conscious and to what extent. If consciousness were observable, this would not be an issue.

  8. oceansnsunsets profile image84
    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years ago

    Sometimes I think the fact that there are kind people willing to be very patient with some that aren't getting it, makes it appear like there is something to actually debate about the mind, and thoughts being material or not.   

    The fact that some people's chosen worldview doesn't allow for something that is immaterial to be immaterial, is not anyone else's problem but their own.  That some try and spend vast amounts of time and effort into trying to get them to see what is plain as day, appears to be wasted.  Perhaps it is me being naive, but I hope it hasn't been a waste.

    There is no debate here.  It appears to be a debate, but it actually isn't.  Now that I think about it, the person that says a thought is material, how could you EVER convince them it isn't, if they truly believe it, and are AS committed to it as we see here in this last week. sad

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
      Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It isn't a debate because all you do is complain about the debaters. Show us how in the world the immaterial is even possible?

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
        oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        When two sides are discussing something that they disagree on, and one side keeps on using fallacies, its good to point that out.  I am not complaining so much, as showing you how certain points don't logically follow, or where the faulty logic is, or how something is being used in place of an argument, etc. 

        In pointing these things out, it shows how one view is faulty and how one view is not.  I have always asked the same to be done with me.  I could be wrong, but it sure seems some people would rather hold on to views that are somewhat failing them, than consider a more logical and reasonable approach.  I honestly don't know how to do it any kinder than this, but it is TRULY remarkable to me, the level of denial going on.  One can only speculate as to why.

        A thought, we all have it, is immaterial.  Some are arguing against that, I am amazed.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image56
          EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Being dead wrong, but saying that over and over is no longer amazing, it's just silly.

        2. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          But you are wrong.

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image56
      EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No, it is the problem of the person who refuses to understand the immaterial and the non-existent are one and the same. And, since it has been explained to you over and over and you continue to make the same false statements over and over doesn't deserve patience.

      One more time, you can't conceive of anything that is non-material because it IS non-material, which means it isn't there, it is invisible and cannot be detected in any way, therefore it can only come from your imagination.

      Does this make sense at all to you?

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
        oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        You have an immaterial thought at least every day, right?  It exists.  To argue against it, is to argue that you have no thoughts, no mind, no consciousness in the way we are discussing it.

        You don't seem to understand, that if you keep arguing for what you are, much of your own experience isn't really happening at all.  That is amazing to me.  Your own thoughts and mind, are not your imagination, yet you argue for it.  The effortless and casual dismissal of all arguments made against the idea is not just amazing, but borderline alarming.  To so clearly argue against something that is, that we experience every day, as nothing.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image56
          EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          No, my thoughts are material as are all thoughts.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Wow

    3. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      And EXACTLY the same thing can be said for people who are arguing that something exists that doesn't and that things that are clearly observable, aren't.

      They are being very patient with those who obviously aren't able to understand... and their efforts are wasted.

      If someone wants to believe that they can't understand or observe something that they made up, how could they ever convince them that they should at least make up things they can understand?

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
        oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        What have we been discussing as existing, that doesn't?  No one is "making up" your thoughts or mind, are they?  That would have to be true if what you just said is true. 

        There is no argument here, we all have thoughts, and we are right now.  They are not material.  This is actually debatable to some.  It is true, that this is a very small fragment of the population, I have never seen nor heard of this anywhere else, ever.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Maybe getting out more? Taking a class? Meeting new friends with different view points?

          It might stop that constant feeling of confused and amazed that you keep talking about. Until then, you might want to realize that just because something is obvious to you, doesn't mean it's correct. Mull that over, take as much time as you need. Maybe then you will stop accusing people of doing what you yourself are doing.

          Essentially, again, you are saying how shocked you are that everyone doesn't believe you are correct. You would think that would have worn off by now... all things considered.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Do you agree, that thoughts are material then? 

            By the way, its not shocking at all, that you guys disagree with me.  That is not what I am talking about.  You haven't been here like the others, with all the excellent reasons, facts and arguments, in fairness.  So unless you are read up on the hundreds of posts you missed, you can't know the point of view of what has gone on here that I have.  My amazement is absolutely warranted after all that has been discussed.  I wasn't the first to make the observation either, of what is being observed here in these threads.   Even if they came to this discussion with the idea that thoughts are material and can be observed, it is amazing that the view is still held to at this point, after all that has gone on for a week or more.  We have hammered out just about all points that could possibly be considered, and tons of "evidences."

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Eventually, you will lose that feeling of amazement, and just come to expect continual blindness  as par for the course;)

              1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                We have accepted that from people who don't know a thing about science. It;s amazing that you can keep hanging on to the notion that there is something immaterial going on your brain. Now that is astounding.

                1. janesix profile image59
                  janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  That's because I understand that EVERYTHING is "immaterial". Our world is made of matter that is formed by the interaction of unmeasurable forces. You can only start measuring things once they come into being. The laws of physics are the laws of the universe after it comes into being. The laws that underly that are not even close to being understood, and most people don't even realize that there even are underlying forces. These laws are NOT cause and effect type laws, or physical laws, because those things only come into being after the universe has been created. These are relational laws between the aspects of different forces. These are laws of relation between numbers (not mathematical laws). There ARE hints of these laws around the world, can be studied, and have been used in the past. The more your consciousness is expanded, through either personal effort or nature (or both), the more you will be able to understand and follow the laws, instead of fighting against them, which only creates disharmony and suffering for everyone involved.

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, perhaps. It doesn't make it any easier to accept though, but it seems I must accept it.  It is hard, because it seems an "insisted upon" version of it, that I don't get.  What is lost in the process, doesn't leave me much if any benefit to observe, so high cost, low pay out, so to speak.   If the ideas are won over in the mind at least, is it satisfying?

            2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I believe that thoughts are as concrete and electrical as the spark from spark plugs in an engine and they work in essentially the same way. Yes, they ARE concrete. Unless you try to make them more than that, then no, they don't exist. Nothing mystical or inexplicable. Chemical reactions, anatomy and a touch of electrical energy.

              It's amazing that anyone would think otherwise and I'm glad that medical science doesn't... or there would be no psychiatric drugs on the market... but lots of candles, incense, crazy people and philosophy books. Those would be there in spades.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                If a thought is essentially just like a spark in a spark plug, what makes our thoughts any different from the spark that accompanies a spark plug?  The spark alone or electrical impulse isn't what defines what a thought is.  When we look into our own minds in a way we know what we are aware of, you don't  think of neurons and brain tissue or electrical impulses usually.  That isn't what comes to mind.  You are instantly aware of your own thoughts at that moment.  The fact that there are electric impulses that happen when we think, isn't what defines the thought.   It just accompanies them.

                One way to look at it is how are we aware of our own thoughts?  How you know your own thoughts matters in this discussion of mind, thoughts and consciousness.  Our brains chemistry is governed by certain things that our thoughts are not.  Thoughts are different.  They have propositional qualities.  When you say, "Chemical reactions, anatomy and a touch of electrical energy,", that is describing the brain, and/or its relation to the body.  This is part of what we have all been over and over the last several days.  No one that I am aware of arguing that the brain is materially observable.  If thoughts are observable as you are saying they are concrete, then it has to be shown. 

                What has been offered up has not been sufficient to prove the mind and consciousness are materially observable.  One has to really tweak the word material to make a thought material, and I mean actually material.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, thoughts are mystical and immaterial, unobservable and unable to interact with the world...Oooh spectral...

                  That's why lithium changes them. That's why SRIs and SSRI change them. That's why the list of thousands of mind-altering substances change them.

                  Things that are unobservable are always able to be altered by physical substances. Doctors just randomly prescribe chemicals hoping that something works... you know since they are shooting at an invisible target.

              2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                You don't think that engine is experiencing thought, do you? If not, then you agree a firing neuron and a spark from a spark plug do not "work in essentially the same way", right?. That's what I keep trying to get at. I understand the physical happenings in the brain are material/observable. I'm not arguing that. And I agree those neurological happenings are what cause the mental experience. However, there is a difference between observable neurological activity and non-observable psychological activity. Thoughts cannot be seen in their psychological form. Though there are many physical sparks in various regions of the brain, the mind is a seamless construct made up of multiple mental processes contributed from different parts of the brain into one cohesive non-material/abstract experience that cannot be observed.

                There's no way one can look at the electrical/neurological happenings of an active brain and see the thoughts that are happening in the psyche. One can only make an educated guess using statistical information gathered through neuroscience, but cannot actually 'observe' to confirm concretely. The only reason anyone knows any of that psychological activity is even happening is because we each experience it. It's never been objectively observed and cannot even be proven to exist. It's totally undetectable, yet undoubtedly happening.

                1. profile image0
                  Emile Rposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I've read through the thread, intermittently. Didn't comment on the topic because this discussion appeared pointless. Primarily because this one post you've made encapsulates what I would think to be the obvious. I can't say that I completely understand the reasoning behind the opposing view, although I doubt if there is fundamental disagreement on this point. It appears that there is some discomfort with how the opposing side views what the ramifications of this could be.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I can see how this discussion could appear to be totally pointless.  I agree with you, the point itself, as in that post, does sum things up pretty well, and that I can't say I understand the reasoning given for the opposing view either.  It certainly, at this point, isn't for lack of trying, and I do "get" the other point of view, in the sense I understand what is being argued.  I the ramifications could very well be the key here, nothing else makes sense of it to me.

                2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Except, again, that you CAN see. I actually had the pleasure of watching specific thoughts on my son's MRI. Same thing repeated, same area lit up. Therefore, I could have-without him speaking or communicating in any way- been able to recognize the same thought when the same area lit up. That's why I asked the above about neuroplasticity and the formation of new neural pathways.

                  Maybe you can explain how something unobservable and abstract could actually restructure the human brain? The abstract cannot physically change something.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, that's a good example. The only way you could reach the conclusion that this thought was the same or similar to the one previous is because you had data from when he thought the same thing previously. You couldn't deduce from the MRI scan alone what that thought was. Therefore, you couldn't SEE it.

                    "The mind–body problem in philosophy examines the relationship between mind and matter, and in particular the relationship between consciousness and the brain. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem

                    "In neuroscience, much has been learned about correlations between brain activity and subjective, conscious experiences. Many suggest that neuroscience will ultimately explain consciousness: "...consciousness is a biological process that will eventually be explained in terms of molecular signaling pathways used by interacting populations of nerve cells..."[15] However, this view has been criticized because consciousness has yet to be shown to be a process,[16] and the "hard problem" of relating consciousness directly to brain activity remains elusive.[17]"

                    No, I can't explain it. You're now speaking of one of the biggest philosophical conundrums there is. How does a non-material mind have an impact on a material body/brain? And vise versa? See, everywhere in the world apart from this forum, it is universally recognized that the mind is not a material thing, but a non-material abstract construct. The mental experience isn't dictated by pure causation, but rather is steered by the content of immaterial thoughts. And those immaterial thoughts have an impact on our material actions, just as material actions have an impact on our immaterial thoughts.

            3. EncephaloiDead profile image56
              EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Why not use the proper terms? Immaterial is not used in this regard, instead, we use the terms mass, matter or energy. Thoughts are comprised of these things.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                It wasn't even me that used the words initially, that thoughts are immaterial.  Maybe you can see part of the problem, since you say that right there.  That wasn't initially being suggested though, that terminology, or I may not have had my "wow" factor responses.  It wasn't my terminology.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  What would you say if not immaterial then? Choose a better word or phrase.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    You mean that for ED, he was the one having issue with the word material all of a sudden.  Some are defending the idea that thoughts are material, and he didn't like it when I responded to the responses, saying to use different terminology.

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                What makes mass, matter and energy out in the world, in nature or space, different than what it can do in your head?  Do you see there is a difference?  Mass, matter and energy don't come up with excellent or really poor ideas, inventions, etc.  Humans do that.  This is what this discussion is hinging on in part.  It is why it can't just be mass, matter and energy.  Or there would a minds everywhere, having nothing to do with humanity.....

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image56
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Absolutely nothing other than the order and composition of matter and energy.



                  Humans are made of matter and energy just like everything else in the universe.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    You have your definition and you are sticking to it!

          2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            And you thought what I said was condescending?

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Yeah, but I believe you have hope for holding conversations, so I just mentioned it instead of responding in kind. For those who obviously have no desire to have a conversation but just wish to argue and insult, I occasionally provide a barb or two to keep them happy.

              1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                You are so considerate. wink

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I do try.

                  1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I can tell.

                    Are you and Motown the only two logical Christian females on this board?

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I wasn't sure before, but now I am pretty confident you have not been following this conversation for the last week.  I suspected it, but how you describe the behavior there, has not been what has occurred.  You mention those that have no desire to have a conversation, and just wish to argue and insult.  You won't find me doing that.  Today, me saying "wow" isn't doing that either.  I was just truly amazed after the amount of time spent.  If you do wish to find some posts that would truly reflect the description you give there, you can go back and find some, but they won't be from me.  I can think of a few off the top of my head, and will let the evidence be for those that want to know.   I am speaking of us hammering out this conversation for what seems days on end.  Not just today.  The amazed and wow comments, are genuine, and makes sense in light of it all.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Yeah actually I have been following it. I'm giving my assessment... I know you think that if someone disagrees with you that they must not understand the situation... I assure you that is not the case.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    It is not like me to say that if you disagree with me, that you just don't understand the situation.  The person in question then has to be actually doing the behavior you accused them of, if it is true.  Were you not talking about me when you said that?  If you have been truly following this conversation, then you know what you said, isn't true about me.  Perhaps it was about someone else?

                2. JMcFarland profile image83
                  JMcFarlandposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  again, just complaining about some of the people participating, and making assumptions about them.

                  That's fallacious.

                  Okay, it's not really fallacious - but it is just as fallacious as the things that you've said are fallacious, and if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander, right?  Otherwise, it's just plain hypocritical, and I know you wouldn't want to be that.  Right?

                  I have not seen you point out a single logical fallacy.  I've seen you use a couple.  Appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, straw man - need I go on?

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I did allude to the assumption, then waited for the confirmation, which I was thought was fair, as the behavior she was describing was not indicative of ME in this conversation.  If you have been truly following it, you too would know this. It was a different way of me saying, "oh, you weren't here to see my discussions all week, and only saw me say wow today, etc."  THAT would have explained these responses, but would would NOT have explained the responses would be that she had actually been following the discussion all week.  It also didn't seem likely that people would follow a thread that contained so many hundreds of new posts in just a week, and not respond, or next to never in it in that time frame.  (I may have missed that however.)  There has been several that have been the common ones to be debating this thread with this lastest topic.  A lot fell out, or some have been silenced for a month, etc. 

                    Can you back up your points above, like when I did an appeal to authority, straw man, hypocritical, etc?  I am first to say what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I am not seeing it here.  If you have been following the posts quietly all week, then you would know this.  It also strikes me that everyone lets me make the fallacies I do, and just is quiet about it?  Then now the piling on, with no examples?  That is a little suspect.  Proof matters way more.  When I point out problems with logic, I am actually one to go way overboard in how it is illogical.  I don't ask anything of anyone I am not prepared to do or already doing myself.

        2. EncephaloiDead profile image56
          EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          The scientific illiterate have not heard of a great deal of things. That is why our societies are in such a mess.

        3. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          You don't get out much then. lol

        4. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          "There is no argument here, we all have thoughts, and we are right now.  They are not material."

          No. That's the argument. You can't show that something non material exists and yet you persist in saying your mind/thoughts is/are not material.  How can you keep saying that? Just because you believe in the supernatural and a soul you can't prove exists either?

          You're argument is not on very steady ground there, Ocean.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Call me strange, but it really is pretty simple.  To those that think the mind, consciousness or thoughts are material, they should be able to show how.  I mean actually, how.  Not in a way that is showing the material of something other than those three things, which has been done some here a fair amount this week. (No one has argued electric impulses or brains can be observed for instance) Not by changing what material means, or by changing up anything else.

            It is as if suddenly, when this claim is made, that the world material has to almost morph to accommodate the claim, or the things in question have to morph from their usual states, or become something else entirely.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Really? Show me something that is not material. Anything.  You can't even prove something non-material exists, that's how simple it is.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                "Show me something that is not material."

                That's like saying, "Show me something blue that's red."

                If the mind is material, then you should be able to show us evidence of it. Not evidence of brain activity, but of the actual mental experience. Because it is not material, there is no physical evidence it's there. No evidence to prove we each experience a mind. No evidence to support that a mental experience is what all of that brain activity is creating.

                I can't show you the mind, but maybe the lack of an ability to prove it exists will make obvious that it is not material.

                1. Dr Lamb profile image56
                  Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I suspect what you are not understanding is that while we may not know specifically how the brain's chemicals and electricity create the mind we know it does so we know it's a product of the material brain or brain matter. I most certainly can show you that the mind is a product of brain matter, I don't don't think you will disagree with that, and yet you claim the mind is not material. It's rather like saying electricity is not material or gravity for that matter.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I'm simply pointing out that it is not in any way observable. It doesn't exist in a 'material' sense. Yes, the biological mechanism (the brain) that creates the mental experience can be observed, but not the mental experience it creates.

                    Electricity always goes somewhere. Even if the machine that uses electricity is switched off or unplugged, the electricity that powered it still exists, somewhere. The mind doesn't exist if the brain isn't functioning. It doesn't goes somewhere else. It disappears. It ceases to exist. Why? Because it's not material. It's no longer being generated by that lump of matter, because that lump of matter is no longer functioning, so the mind is just 'gone'. That wouldn't be the case if it were material.

                    "I suspect what you are not understanding..."

                    In all of this suspecting about my level of understanding, that seems to be the default when we disagree, is your own level of understanding ever even considered? Or is it always going to be me? I question myself all the time. A primary reason why I lay my thoughts and beliefs out on the table as I do is to check myself. To make sure I can explain and defend what I think. I reassess what I think constantly. Critically analyze it. Do you do that as well? Do you re-think anything we've discussed here? Or is it always only the assumption that this Headly guy STILL doesn't get it?

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image56
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL. And yet, you and most other believers have absolute faith that something blue is red. Another beautiful contradiction. Well done.

                3. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  No that doesn't make it non-material. It makes it non-existent as a thing. It isn't a thing, it is the constant end result of many processes, mostly subconscious. The mind is the brain and nothing more as I outlined in my previous post.

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Still, just your opinion. Billions of people think otherwise. It can't be proven either way.

                    It is not a fact.

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                How do I "show" you something immaterial?  Which of your senses would you observe it with? 

                So in this case, One way is to simply ask you to acknowledge what you experience everyday, your mind.  It's immaterial, so you can ignore and deny it, OR experience it firsthand like noone else can, and acknowledge it.  Regardless, it's a gift we had nothing to do with, and the best of the best scientists and doctors can only see "effects" and the little glimmers of its life that shows up as energy and "sparks",etc.  Only hinting at the greater part that is unseen, yet experienced like almost nothing else.

                On a total "side" note...(Hmmm, makes me think of a lightning storm, somehow...)

        5. JMcFarland profile image83
          JMcFarlandposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          i'm sorry, but I HAVE been watching the whole conversation, even though I haven't participated in it much, and to assume that because someone has not been constantly posting that they aren't reading is a tad bit arrogant of an assumption.

          I'm sorry, but I don't see you adding much of value.  All you do is repeat what other people have said, quote things and talk about your continual sense of amazement that people who disagree with something are discussing the matter and bringing different ideas to the table.  This conversation would be perfect without all of the "I'm so amazed" and "I'm just going to repeat what other people have said, say that I'm amazed by it and it's unbelievable how wrong the people who disagree with me are" going on here.  Those kinds of comments are condescending, in my opinion, to the people who are actually interested in having the conversation and exchanging ideas.

          Not everyone is going to agree.  That's part of what makes the conversation fun, and it's the hallmark of forum discussions.  I don't see you pointing out any fallacies, by the way.  You just say that certain posts are fallacious, but you don't really even explain how.  You just say that they're fallacious, and repeat yourself, regardless of how many times someone tries to correct the statement that you said was fallacious.

          I don't see anything wrong with disagreeing - even when the conversation gets heated.  That's why I'm content to watch the conversation, and I'm learning a lot about both sides.  I'm never going to agree with all of what some people say.  I may not even agree with most.  But the conversation is still worth having, and little speedbumps in the road just repeating "that's fallacious" and criticizing the methods and statements of people that disagree is a hindrance to that discussion.

          Only my opinion, and i'm sure that you'll disagree.  Thankfully, that doesn't bother me at all.  But if one is willing to dish out criticism, one should also be able to take it, examine it, learn from it, and try to do better - don't you think?

          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
            Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Hear hear.

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
        oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Can you explain your first sentence and last question there?  What are you referring to exactly, so I can answer or respond.  Thanks.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          As I know our communication styles differ and obviously you have trouble grasping the subtleties, I have prepared this visual aid to illustrate what I think the gist of your argument is....

          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8765044_f248.jpg

          and my response, in words that you might more easily understand:

          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8765054_f248.jpg

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            When I asked you to simply back up your statements, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could support your statements.  So I ask again, this will be the third time, who is arguing that something exists that doesn't, and that things that are clearly observable aren't?  You said that, and
            "If someone wants to believe that they can't understand or observe something that they made up, how could they ever convince them that they should at least make up things they can understand?" 

            Here is the whole post I am inquiring about:
            "And EXACTLY the same thing can be said for people who are arguing that something exists that doesn't and that things that are clearly observable, aren't.

            They are being very patient with those who obviously aren't able to understand... and their efforts are wasted.

            If someone wants to believe that they can't understand or observe something that they made up, how could they ever convince them that they should at least make up things they can understand?"

            I am sincerely wanting to understand your points, though I understand you would rather respond with further condescension.  I have not done that with you, and would prefer to keep to the discussion.  If you don't want to, that is fine, but I am asking all the same.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              She says you are projecting your own failings on everyone else. Pretty much what most of us have said at one time or other.

              Projecting is a term used in psychology.

              "Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud (6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939) in the 1900s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world.[1] For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude"

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Where did I fail, and why didn't someone point it out, or show how my claims or arguments broke down? Just saying I have, doesn't mean I have.  When my arguments fail, I am first to ask you guys to show it to me.  I am not in need of ego stroking.....  I can take it.  I assume since we are continually sharing our own arguments, we all want that.  Just saying it though, doesn't mean it is true.  It has to be shown.  This would explain the Pee Wee Herman response and pot calling the kettle black pictures.

            2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              My point AGAIN was that you were accusing people of doing the same thing you are (with the exception that no one else seems to have the extra added benefit of believing that their ideas are the only correct ideas in the world) That was the first part of the sentence. You still following? If not, I refer you to the previous visual aid. 

              Then, the last part of the first sentence... where it says "arguing that something exists that doesn't and that things that are clearly observable, aren't." refers to your definition as thoughts as anything other than the normal biological functions of a brain. Perfectly observable functions of the human brain... as has been shown by the pages of examples of why they are observable.

              The middle sentence is flawless mirror of your own attitude and demeanor using words similar to your own. It's what's called a literary device but was mainly just sarcasm.

              My last sentence reflects my opinion on why someone would want to take a simple, solid, scientifically proven premise and inject the ineffible into it. I see those people as just sitting around making s*** up so that they can say "God is the answer to all this unanswerable questions (that we created, over-complicated, misrepresented and otherwise bent, spindled and mutilated)

              I would assume that's because the religious community is running out uneducated people with every simple answer that science provides and assumes (somewhat insultingly) that only people who don't understand the world would believe in a God. So they make up new s*** not to understand.

              I, personally, thought the visual aids pretty much explained that... apparently you needed more information.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                What was I accusing people of doing, that I was doing, then? 

                I don't believe that things exist, that do not. So that is a false assumption.  I think thoughts, the mind, and consciousness do exist, and that we experience them sometimes more directly than we can the things we do with our five senses sometimes.

                The struggle to prove them materially when they don't seem to be material in their nature, is a problem for some, but not for me.  My worldview doesn't dictate to me that only material things are even allowed to exist. 

                No one on the Christian side of things was even talking about God much this week, or arguing for his existence.  The atheists brought that up more than anyone.  I think there is plenty of things to continue to study and learn about and discuss the nature of.  No need to make up new stuff "not to understand."  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I imagine these debates are not really new anyway.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  This is what you were doing...You have some skill at it, but not as much as others here, so we really do recognize it. Your text is in between the quotes.. the parenthesis are what you really said. I don't care really, since I know you are wrong about pretty much every opinion you've given here... just wanted you to know that the Shirley Temple mode of communicating superiority (false superiority in this case) is relatively transparent.

                  "Sometimes I think the fact that there are kind people willing to be very patient with some that aren't getting it, makes it appear like there is something to actually debate about the mind, and thoughts being material or not. "

                  (Oh those stupid people, the people who believe as I do are saints. There is obviously nothing to disagree with here, they just wont admit it or see it.)

                  "The fact that some people's chosen worldview doesn't allow for something that is immaterial to be immaterial, is not anyone else's problem but their own.  That some try and spend vast amounts of time and effort into trying to get them to see what is plain as day, appears to be wasted.  Perhaps it is me being naive, but I hope it hasn't been a waste. "

                  (People who don't think like me obviously have a problem. They are all wasting their efforts trying to prove that my opinions are wrong... how silly. I hope something got into their poor simple heads, then all my efforts to educate them won't have been wasted. *LeSigh*)

                  "There is no debate here.  It appears to be a debate, but it actually isn't.  Now that I think about it, the person that says a thought is material, how could you EVER convince them it isn't, if they truly believe it, and are AS committed to it as we see here in this last week. sad"

                  (There is obviously no question here that I am right. But, if they are so stubborn not to see it, there's nothing I can do. Their failure to see my obviously superior reasoning makes me so sad I made an emoticon to express my feelings)

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Ahhh, I *once* alluded to what I thought you were really saying, and I really was told how it was......  I know you don't like it when people do this to you. Today, after a long week, I did say all of that (not what you said I said, but the parts I actually said.)  I did say wow, and amazed, and I really don't think there is a debate here.  I said this today, because it dawned on me, that we are treating it like one, and I truly think that the things in question are so very obviously not material, that I am still not sure there really is a debate on this topic.  If you go back all week, you won't find posts supporting what you said, or even the one you did find, today.  You can't judge hundreds of posts by one post...well you could but it wouldn't be technically accurate to do so.  To make the points you just did, you had to do to me, what you hate being done to you. 

                    As for me, there has been a new thought that has been slow to be confirmed in my mind, and that is still true too.  I might have worded it poorly, but it is amazing what the commitment to a materialist worldview does look like when it is played out in these discussions. It can't be reasoned with, when the level of commitment is SO strong.  Do you all have to agree with me, and do I have to agree with all of you?   Anyway, today was the day it really started sinking in, the level of commitment to a view that dictates how things are allowed to even exist.   I would rather things be allowed to exist however they do, as they appear to, and to be what it looks like.  As for the sad face, it IS sad to me.  This all seems to have really upset some people ,which was not an intention.  Making notes to self for the future.

  9. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    Okay, moving away from the oceansnsunsets show and onto something vaguely related to something besides her..

    Could a member of the non-material, not observable, not really there crowd explain neuroplasticity to me? Specifically, how something that doesn't exist "materially" or "observably" could cause it?

    *edit: for those who are going fervently searching through wiki... I am interested in definition that encompasses the formation of new neural pathways in response to new thought processes.

  10. profile image49
    Kathy Richmanposted 5 years ago

    we already are in the last days

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image56
      EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years ago

      Take a dead brain and one that is alive in someones head, which one has a mind? Which one has activity that can be observed?

      According to HeadlyvonNoggin logic, neither.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Activity that can be observed? I can give you half a dozen examples where I said directly that brain function, or neurological functions, can be observed. So, this is a demonstrably false statement, as well as a testament to your inability, or unwillingness, to comprehend what I write.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image56
          EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Ah, then you agree with us now.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Who's 'us'? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? You're one of the few that can't differentiate between the mind/thoughts/consciousness/psyche and brain/neurological function. And that, I do not agree with.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image56
              EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              What? The kettle whistling is deafening. YOU are the one who doesn't understand what's going on and WE are trying to explain it to you. Have at least a shred of honesty. Unbelievable.

    2. Dr Lamb profile image56
      Dr Lambposted 5 years ago

      Headly, I'm curious, would you not agree what we can observe through multiple ways when a though is occurring even thought we may not be able to count every neurone firing and account for the thought? Are you claiming that the mind is an abstract thought and not real?

      It's my understand that for us to get a complete understanding of the mind-brain we need to both study the the physical brain with it's firing neurones, chemical retains and blood flow as well as direct observation. Studying the mind from different levels gives a better understanding of what is happening to the brain that gives rise to thought and behaviour.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I agree that the mind is an emergent property of the brain. Much like a run-time environment on a computer, I think of the mind as an abstract construct that's created by physical components, but that is not in itself physical. The neural activity we observe I agree plays a role in creating this environment and providing the various components that make it what it is, and this activity in itself can be observed/manipulated. But the abstract 'run-time' environment it creates, the mind, cannot be directly observed.

        Because particular regions of the brain handle specific functions, it is possible to map these functions, which at least to some extent allows us to determine what is happening in the mind of an individual, even without being able to directly observe it. But the information needed to make these kinds of associations, because the mind is not directly observable, often depends on interactions with the subject. I do think it will one day be possible to actually reconstruct an observable 'image' of the mind using neurological data, to in effect 'read' the mind, but even this is not a direct observation.

        1. Dr Lamb profile image56
          Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Of course we need to both study the brain and the thoughts to see and understand the mind. If you can just point to how it not material when you admit that it's dependant on a healthy functioning material brain. Just because we don't understand it now doesn't mean we won't eventually. That being said, if we acknowledge that the mind as we know it is dependant on the brain, why use it to attempt to show that a mind can exist without a brain?

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not attempting to show that a mind can exist without a brain. I'm simply pointing to the mind, the abstract non-material construct that is a product of a material brain, is in itself not material. It is something that most definitely exists, yet does not conform to the materialism definition. It is something that we cannot observe or detect. Our knowing it exists is wholly dependent on our first-hand experience of it. If we did not each experience it personally, we'd have no way of knowing it's there. It can't be objectively proven or confirmed to exist. So, it's something that does indeed exists, yet is invisible to material scientific inquiry. All that can be observed are the brain functions that make it possible, but not the mind itself.

        2. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
          Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I guess I'm going to need your definition of the mind then.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The set of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory. Cognition being the mental processing that includes the attention of working memory, comprehending and producing language, calculating, reasoning, problem solving, and decision making.

            The mind is the mental experience you and I experience life through. While we can establish objective truths about the physical world around us, including our own bodies, that both of our minds can objectively agree on, we cannot do the same for the internal experience. We can, through correlating these mental functions with physical neuron activity, get a vague idea as to what is happening in the mind of another, but we cannot 'observe' it.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
              Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              What happens in a computer? A program is run and processed buy the CPU, and rendered on the screen. Memory is involved. It could be a game or anything else.
              What is going on behind the scenes on the screen? Sure you can have the cpu log everything it does, but nothing it does on its own tells you what is on the screen. It’s all of what is going on in combination that produces the final product.
              Every program is written in a specific language which makes it easy to write programs. But at their root they are using 1s and 0s. On or off. The simple creating the complex using simple rules. 
              The brain works in the same way. Not exactly the same way, but it’s the same pattern.  It isn’t one thing going on that produces the thought, it’s the combination of inputs and outputs that results in the thought. The combination of what is on and what is off at that particular time that results in one actuality.
              Consciousness seems to be something “other” because it is the result of many processes, not one.
              The story of Moses illustrates humanities issue with it’s own consciousness. Moses tells god he is unable to talk to Pharaoh because he isn’t good with words. God tells him he will put the words in his mouth.
              Humans have in the past thought that good ideas came from out there somewhere. Not from them. And this is something every writer and every musician can relate to. When you are a good musician the music flows as if from somewhere else. That somewhere else is the subconscious.
              Let’s do a test. Answer the first thing that comes to mind.
              A ball and bat are a dollar ten. The bat is exactly one dollar more than the ball. How much is the ball?
              Did you answer? Cool. This test was given to several physics classes in the university level and the vast majority of the students initial first thought was wrong.  The funny part is that the ones who gave the wrong answer all gave the same answer.
              Why? Because consciousness is lazy, and the subconscious throws up answers automatically. Most of  the time they are close, which is all that is required in many situations, but often they are wrong.
              However, the subconscious can be trained to be right. A person’s subconscious trained in problem solving of this kind will throw the right answer out without the need to think about it.
              The subconscious is much more interesting than the conscious because that’s where we live most of the time.  That’s where emotions come from and where from the hip answers come from sometimes before we know there’s a question.
              MRIs have shown that the brain often knows what action we are going to take next full seconds before the conscious part of the brain decides to act.

              All the behind the scenes processing going on is going on in the subconscious.

              The consciousness has one main purpose: to facilitate the education of the subconscious. It does this though logical and rational thinking, as well as not so rational or logical thinking.

              In other words, it is a different level of processing, a kind of feedback to the subconscious. It is the seat of the ego and the “I”. It is self perception. It is the seat of language, which means it can gather a lot of information for processing.

              Now of course there is no real separation between the subconscious and the conscious.  The mind is just a word that encompasses all these processes. In that sense it is not a thing in and of itself. It is a concept which is a packet of information.

              That packet can be transmitted to others. It is a packet of symbols that tell a story. They are physical patterns.  We write them down as definitions of words, or write entire books on the meaning of one word like “religion” or “Science”.   

              The brain creates connections to these and other patterns within it.

              The patterns, of course, are coded and if you look at them you are not going to see then for what they represent, in the same way you can’t look at magnetic tape and see the movie or hear the music those patterns produce when played back and decoded.

              So I am not sure where the objection comes from that we can’t observe the mind. We can observe it by the patterns we see in MRIs and by other means. We can see the physical effects but we can’t yet see the movie.  And why should we be able to in order to show that they are physical processes and not non-physical?   

              Again, the non-physical being something no one can show exists.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                "Again, the non-physical being something no one can show exists."

                That's the whole point. ^Right there^. We can't actually SHOW the mind exists. Clearly it does. It's something we experience. Something that has particular behaviors and characteristics and methods that are completely 'unseeable' by anyone other than the individual.

                The mind, much like a computer's 'run-time' environment, doesn't exist in any material sense. Those thoughts that we see and hear in our minds, are a part of our reality. They're behaviors and characteristics that nobody outside of us can see or hear, yet by all appearances, seem to be generated by material matter. Behaviors and characteristics of matter that we still can't see. A piece of reality that we are completely blind to, yet a piece that has proven to be capable of intelligence, reason, awareness, imagination, creativity.

                If we're only allowed to talk about material science and what can be "shown" to exist, then we're not talking about the entirety of reality.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Until you can prove the non-material exists that's all we can talk about. A computer run time environment is very physical, by the way.

                  Things we simply imagine do not exist except as patterns in our brain, sets of information. Pink squirrels. They are physical patterns and exist as such, but they do not exist as things outside the brain.

                  For mind to be a thing in and of itself it has to exist as a thing in and of itself. If it does not then it is not a thing and does not exist. Ir is not that it is simply a thing that is not material. No thing exists that is not material.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    You can prove the mind exists to yourself by simply looking. It's right there. To say "things we simply imagine do not exist except as patterns in our brain" is to conclude without any evidence to support it that the mechanism or process through which biological events and psychological events intersect is understood. This is the kind of overreaching I'm often trying to point out. Many are speaking in certainties about something as if it's already known that psychological events can be reduced down to biological cause. Yes, that's a general assumption made by many, but it's far from certain. And please don't take this to mean that my pointing this out means I'm now claiming something other than this IS the answer. I'm simply pointing out where the facts end and the speculation begins.

                    It's often addressed here how 'religion' often speaks as if things are certain when they are not known to be, and how such thinking limits progress. How is this any different?

                    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image83
                      Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                      "You can prove the mind exists to yourself by simply looking. It's right there. To say "things we simply imagine do not exist except as patterns in our brain" is to conclude without any evidence to support it that the mechanism or process through which biological events and psychological events intersect is understood. This is the kind of overreaching I'm often trying to point out. "

                      Over reach? But you want us to buy the idea that something immaterial can exist. That's not over reach, no. That's outright fantasy.

                      Of course we know the brain makes neural connections to places where information is stored. It is called memory. Again, the magnetic tape that stores information about a movie or song has the content encoded in it. We can encode information on a rock if we want to. It is encoded as patterns. There is no doubt that the brain does the same thing.

                      So while it is not completely understood it is not over reach to conclude that the brain stores memory and that memory is information. I haven't said anything any scientist wouldn't say. Are they all over reaching?

                      We can assume that cognitive reasoning is the result of processes in our brain. No flighty non-material undefinable, unprovable nothing is required.

                      You can't make something out of nothing which is what you are trying to do by trying to make something without the material required to make it.

                      Only real things exist. Real things are objects, hence objective reality. Objects are made of material. No material, no object.

                      A thought is not the thing thought about. IT is a collection of symbols, often with emotions attached.

                      The thought is information. Information encoded in the brain. You can replay that thought. Things may remind you of that thought. It is always there but if there are few or no connections to it it fades or gets buried.

                      No physical process = no process at all. The experience of self is physical. That is how we identify ourselves, feelings and pain and pleasure. Physical feelings brought on by chemical stimulation. Electro-chemical processes creating electro-chemical stimulation which produces images of information that are stored and processed.

                      There is no tree in your head, there is an image of a tree. It is not the thing itself, it is an image of a thing real or imagined. It’s existence is as a pattern in physical memory, in a physical brain. 

                      Again, thoughts and feelings are the realm of the subconscious, not the conscious or what you call mind. Yet  you attribute mind with feeling. Feeling comes first involuntarily.  Conscious deliberation tries to decode the feeling in to thoughts and concepts so it can be resolved. Emotions force us to do. They are needs that require resolution. They help produce consciousness, they are not a result of it. 

                      Memory is not a product of mind, it is physical and it helps produce self awareness by giving the system a history. Without it there is no “I”.

    3. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years ago

      Jesus (and Paul, and others) seemed to esteem faith quite a bit, and love. 

      See the gospels, and see I Corinthians 13. 

      They seem to make all the difference in the world.  (Not just those two things, but they can't be measured in a cup, or served on a platter, found in a test tube, etc.)

      What is happening, is people are forcing definitions on, and its working out just about as well as making square circles.   This is real, that isn't real, and its because someone says so.  It works if it works.  That is just it....

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I'm fairly fond of love and faith too. I just know they don't exist anywhere but in my brain.

        1. Dr Lamb profile image56
          Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I can assure you they also exist in my brain.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            That is exactly what I thought too. 

            To be so certain they only exist in brains, who knows for sure! Where did they originate?  We choose them, or not, faith and love.

            1. Dr Lamb profile image56
              Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              As far as I know the emotion (love) exists in all mammals and perhaps all birds for evolutionary purposes. There is no need to ask who put it there as there is no need to assume it was put there by anything other than evolution.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                They have also pinpointed what chemical hormone (in humans) that causes it. Love begins the posterior pituitary gland.

          2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            My husband will be glad to know that. I'm sure he loves you too! I guess I'll be seeing you at church too smile

            1. Dr Lamb profile image56
              Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Well I don't mind your husband knowing that I can feel love for those that I care about, if he knew me he would know that, but that being said if you see a tall dark devastatingly handsome young man at church than it may just be me.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I'll keep an eye out... and a check on my posterior pituitary gland.

                The point of course being that my love and faith exists only in my brain as a interpretation of the feelings caused by the release and re-uptake of oxytocin smile Well, love anyway. Faith is likely cause by dopamine smile

    4. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years ago

      People's actions, as they carry out ideas to make a great difference in the world (for good or bad, as we see), all start in the mind first.

      The actions in these cases, are first dependent upon the ideas to be able to become a reality.  Not the other way around.  The idea didn't need a person to do the action to be allowed to be the idea first.  The idea existed as an idea in the mind.  So it was one thing on its own.  The great change we see from inventions to Gandhi would not exist without the ideas and where and how they were formed.  You could never experience any of it, apart from the mind. 

      Speaking here of things like men making space travel a reality.  That was totally dependent upon the ideas from inside human minds.  It worked outward from there.

    5. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years ago

      How nice, I "chemical hormone" you.  smile

      Sorry, this struck me as very funny, so I had to.  Hey, whatever works, right?

      Faith, to me, is much tougher a topic, and exercise depending on what is meant.  Faith as I understand it to bring change.  I have seen its effects though, and certainly don't think its anything to shake a stick at.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Knowing what causes something it in no way diminishes the beauty of it. Things don't have to be mysterious to be amazing.

        As far as faith goes... I think it is actually weakened by trying to find ways that science could "allow" God.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
          oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Fair enough.


          As for faith, and the evidences in the world and science, it seems God made them to coexist together.  Even though I firmly think that following science to where it would naturally and ultimately lead, is God as the most reasonable option known or heard of, still doesn't stop the need for faith. 

          When I was speaking of it in the prior post, I was meaning more prayer, when praying for something difficult.  Its not a cozy "feeling", not to me.  (At times like that.) Hard to explain.  Of the worldview options, I think Christianity is a tougher one than not.

    6. EncephaloiDead profile image56
      EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years ago

      "Essay:Why the "fine-tuned universe" argument is bogus"

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Why_ … t_is_bogus

      The Fine-Tuned Universe -- the insignificance of very small numbers

      http://www.talkreason.org/articles/fined.cfm

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        "This is not a big deal and is not in any way evidence of a creator."

        I know this may seem like an argument of semantics, but there really is a difference between 'evidence of' and 'evidence that supports'. It doesn't prove anything. I don't claim it proves anything. As I've said many times, this is what I believe and why I believe it. If you have a good reason why something I believe can't be true, I'd love to hear it. I don't want to just be wrong about something. I'm just laying what I think out on the table for all to see. Warts and all.

        When I look at what's known about the universe I find it makes more sense that intelligence isn't unique to us than it does to think it's just this way because it's this way and there's nothing significant about that. Clearly you lean the other way. I have no problem with that. But for you to just say "No, it doesn't", when I say this same evidence supports my view just tells me you don't understand my view. But, maybe if you can actually show me in some way, I'd be eternally grateful for you showing me the error of my ways.

        "In other words, life conforms to the properties and laws of the universe, not the other way round."
        Yes, I agree. I find that significant that the same set of laws that formed stars and planets also formed oceans and land and complex life and intelligence and on and on, just being as they are. I realize you find this in no way significant. That's where you and I differ.

        "That is a possible theory, but there is no evidence to support intention in the same way that if the values of the laws were different and there was a different universe, there would be no evidence to support that an intention there, as well.

        The evidence does support. Or, it is 'consistent'. It doesn't prove, but it doesn't conflict.


        "It may be mind boggling to some, but it isn't mind boggling to those who really understand it."

        I don't get this. Your go-to is this level of understanding thing. When you disagree it's because I don't understand. Not 'really'. So I point to cell biologists like Ken Miller, who does 'really' understand, yet believes much the same as I, and then of course you find that insignificant as well. He's probably just indoctrinated or something. And no, my mind isn't boggled. I get the high number of chemicals, the enormous span of time, the billions and trillions of chances. I get it. But even with all of that, I find these key elements existing together as they did, having the behaviors they did, that just 'naturally' becomes/results in life, and not just once, or even billions of times without perpetuating, but living and replicating, even given the numbers, I find that much more indicative of intelligently intended results than something that was just bound to happen.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image56
          EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, we understand you have faith, but it is very disingenuous to pretend science or reality has anything to do with your faith. A couple of other self-professed Christians here at the very least have the honesty to understand and accept that, you don't, however.



          Yours in an argument from faith and ignorance, that is why science doesn't support it. If you had a shred of dignity, you too would admit it is all about your faith and nothing more. But, you never do.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I may be stupid, I may be wrong, I may be totally delusional, but what I am not is disingenuous or dishonest. Whatever you think of me, just know that I am not knowingly lying or trying to trick or mislead you or anyone else.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
              oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I don't know on what basis anyone could think that.  It is unfortunate that you would have to say it though.  I think some would rather that be true, than that you might have a coherent, reasonable and logical argument about some of the  matters being discussed.  The only ones that might even suggest it, also haven't been able to refute any of the points, not successfully or actually.  That should matter, I hope it does.

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
            oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Except I have not observed any arguments from faith and ignorance, and I have seen ideas supported by science, logic, and reason.  No one can admit honestly, something that would be a lie.  You create a lose lose scenario for him, where he doesn't have a shred of dignity by not doing what you say he is, or else admitting something false, which would then make him a liar?

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image56
              EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              And yet, you still repeat the same false statements over and over despite having observed those arguments.



              If the shoe fits...

    7. wirocajun profile image60
      wirocajunposted 5 years ago

      I suppose it's about optimism. If you were to think the world is going to end, that's guessing. If you see a giant meteor about to strike the earth, then optimism gets thrown out on it's butt.
      So, it's more 'Do I want to see Armageddon?' To which the answer is your own.
      I would like to see a partial one, and watch as stupid people attempt to survive.